Jita Park Speakers Corner

I can see J315 accomplishing one thing by getting elected... he will make CCP consider the CSM a joke.

Gankers are all brave kamikaze pilots willing to sacrifice themselves and their ships, over and over again.

All to keep the carebear population down. We don't need so many of them... They might just vote for people like Ripard if they stay in the game.

There's only one problem with your theory: while it's fun, it's not true. CSM5 was making it very clear to everyone who ran for CSM6 that this was the only approach that succeeded. Mittens wasn't the only CSM6 candidate advocating this strategy (post #62, second para if you don't go there directly).

That said, I'm not exactly dodging the issue of what I think about in-game topics. Want to know what I think about a specific game issue? Search my blog for it. There's a search bar right on the front page and the answer's probably there. Want to know what sorts of things I'd advocate adding to the game? Read posts on my blog tagged "Proposals". There's 30-odd of them. I've written hundreds of thousands of :words: on this, something that few other candidates can say.

But anyone who goes to Reyk with an agenda and does nothing but try to push it is going to get laughed out of the room, or just flat-out ignored. It's a simple fact that's been repeated by more past CSM members than I can count. Anyone who's been following the CSM knows it. Mittens had better luck than most but did it by using external media interviews to exert pressure on CCP even when times were good. He said as much again just the other day on TMC.

The simple fact is that sometimes CCP is going to take a hard right turn on a topic without telling the CSM anything about it. That's the painful truth. Ask Two step about POSes sometime. Ask the entirety of CSM7 about that player-to-player contract system they were going to help CCP develop sometime. It's no dodge to sometimes say "CCP cut the CSM out of the loop on this" as long as it's true.

For the rest of your post, see above. The simple fact is that the only strategy that's consistently shown to work in Reyk is to come at things with a data-driven approach either with real players backing up your data, or being able to show real financial benefits to CCP on your approach. If I say "I think you should do X", chances are better than even it'll be ignored unless it's what CCP wanted to do anyway. If I say, "I held a player round-table on this, and they say you should do X" or "The last time you did X, PCU count and subscriptions both jumped by 18%, so I think you should follow up the trend", CCP will listen.

Using T2 BPO's as an example of being a bad idea was a bad idea lol

The reason nobody could up with a better idea is because it has been discussed to death and proved many times over that they are not the isk making machines many people believe they are by people who know a hell of a more on the subject then the kittens ever will.

People talk a lot about adjusting the risk/reward of the game. You, yourself, talked about this to some extent. And sure enough, I think it is a worthy high-level design of the game.

The problem is, I haven't seen anyone, be it a dev, CSM rep, candidate or regular player define it to the level of detail I think it's necessary.

So here's the question for you: assume that you (or CCP, for that matter) have access to perfect information about Eve and set forth to balance the risk/reward of each in-game profession. How would you go about measuring as precisely as possible, first the risk, then the reward of these professions in each area of space?

In my understanding, we need hard data to know exactly where we stand on this if we want to determine how much of a correction is needed. Otherwise we are conducting these whole discussions on this subject based purely on the collective perceptions of the players.

Keep in mind that different people perceive the world in different ways, even more so if the world in question is comprised of space pixels and the people themselves are represented by internet spaceships.

What?!? This is exactly what I was asking from him. To define what hard data is needed to measure risk and reward. To put together some steps about how to reach the results, for instance:

"The risk of activity X is measured by

1. counting how many times a player does X,
2. counting how many of these he gets blown up by whatever means,
3. evaluating the average cost of his losses,
4. anything else that's relevant

"

Or something. I'm opening it up to him on how he would approach it. Even if no player has the numbers, it could serve as a guide to CCP on how to query the server and get the answers.

Talking is cheap, yet none of the candidates that make a big fuss about adjusting the risk/reward equation bother to clarify how they would guarantee that the end result is balanced not just in one's perception.

There is so much drama in your feedback.

Think of null sec, the game play sucks. Now apply that to T2 BPO lottery. Game play sucks.

People want better null sec, same way a cooler way to get T2 BPOs would be a cool thing.

No one came up with a cool game play idea for T2 BPOs, much like in mining and hi sec activities. Sometimes I think the null sec ideas aren't that great either.

Just like a lot of candidates right now promise if anyone has a good idea for hi sec missions, or mining or for null sec, they would love to take it to CCP. But no one really has good ideas.

Why do you claim that Sov is broken and terrible?

hallucinogenic drugs?

Even the people benefiting from the status quo (Goons/PL) have spent the last 2 years trying to get it changed. Everyone involved sees the over value of technetium disrupting the PVP food chain and the fun-crushing structure grinding mechanics which have shrunk the number of competitive turf wars over the past year or two to the single digits. Even those getting the good end of the territorial stick recognize that it's both not sustainable and inherently un-fun.