Jita Park Speakers Corner

My vote as well.

Today's blog post is up.

Radical change in non-radical steps

Enjoy.

Took me a while to put aside the jaded-colored glasses and see that this approach truly is a refreshing change from this past joke of a CSM.

Best of luck Artctura, you got my like.

Before I can signify my intention to vote for this candidate I need to know how he plans to address the lack of market regulatory functions available to null security alliances for items such as skillbooks.

For a more current example. Let's say that CCP changes the game to progressively change the risk factor in high sec. There have been a lot of rumblings about how people are either too safe or not safe enough in high sec, and I think that revisiting the way security status works across the board, but particularly in high sec, is a good idea. So, lets look at the hypothetically.

Today: There is essentially no difference between 0.5 and 1.0 systems.

Goal: Make security progressive. Allow war declarations to be progressive costing more for the higher security of the system. Reduce the strength and response time of concord in 0.5 systems while increasing protections in 1.0 systems. Increase the rewards of 0.5 space while decreasing it in 1.0. Effectively, the end goal is to make security in high sec mean something.

Over the course of a year, steps to implement this would include, in my proposed order.

1. A reorganization of high sec security status, reducing the security level drop across systems to no more than 0.1 every 3 to 4 systems (as much as possible).

2. Realignment of the system rewards. Higher level missions will require trips to 0.5 or 0.6 space. Better mining will take place in 0.5 or 0.6 and reduce mining profit in 0.9 and 1.0. Ratting, industry, mining and POS's can all gain advantage by being in 0.5 or 0.6 space.

3. War declaration costs become tied to the maximum security you can engage in.

4. Concord responses are readjusted making the possibility of killing stronger ships in groups a real threat in 0.5 and 0.6 space, while making it harder for all but the most coordinated attacks to succeed in 0.9 or 1.0. (Note: I'm not saying to remove the fact that you will get concorded, just adjusting how quickly it happens and how strongly it happens).

I'm not going to sit here and tell you this is what will happen because I'm not a developer. I want to be the person representing the customer in the development cycle. I think it would help improve the game, ease the transition into low/null for players wanting to go that way and make security status of a system more meaningful. There are numerous other things that need to get tweaked along the way (such as route settings) that I haven't expounded on in this post.

Now, help the developers plan these changes for each of the next four quarters, and explain the benefits of this to them when given the opportunity. This means that on June 1st the first change happens. Then July and August can be spent adjusting to the things that got missed that would have to happen. On September 1st, make the next change, and so on. No step in the chain is a radical departure from the state preceding it, but at the end of the day we end up with a radical change. We allow time for each of the steps to have its consequences evaluated and adjusted to ensure everything is as it should be. I think this type of approach is far less chaotic to the player base the

EVE has been around now for 10 years. There is no reason to believe it won't be around in another 5. It's time to look at where the game will be in 1, 3 and 5 years and have CCP developers and the CSM publish that vision and work towards making it happen. Steps toward that vision can be filled in by the developers and designers as they see fit, with the CSM helping them to understand where the player base feels the limits of a "non-radical" change are.

+1

CSM needs adults in the process. I'll be watching this thread :)

From my blog




There will be a post a little later in the campaign about how "entitled" customers are a software company's worst friend and the implications of an entitled CSM that believes CCP answers to them can kill the entire process. Knowing where your expertise lies so you can take lead on a situation and when to let others take the spotlight are two things that only come with experience.

+1

Agreed.... Succinct responses...

+1 from me.