Jita Park Speakers Corner

since this is first canditate i truly believe has some clue i'd like to ask

what's your view about solo/small gang and general game mechanicss like, just to mention few i didn't see yet covered here:
- jump bridges, titan bridges and cynosural suprises at mindlessly random targets
- gang links and logistics etc. remote boosting, i personally believe they don't scale well for small gang warfare at all and harm it to great extent.

also since we're at it how do you think like 0.0 and low sec could change so more casual players and smaller groups could actually do something meaningful to remember?

then there's these WH's which seem out of reach for anyone not hardcore alt user to have probe alt this and that and alt this and that sitting in WH while combat pilot does other stuff elsewhere. Could they be more friendly to casual players?

What do you think of this eve online alt this and that can't do that without 10 alts and more alts??? I personally find it irritating that if you want to do something effectively or at all you need like scout alts (notice not only 1) and at least one cyno alt to even move your capital ship etc. It probably suits ccp but is it really good thing when looking at distant future?

Alek takes on Kelduum's Revised War Ideas tl;dr i win.

Kelduum:

In general, I would say that your proposals seem fairly rounded, but on closer inspection are missing a few key points. One, which perhaps is a unique perception to me, is that you are seeking to make wars easily relegated to a short-term affair, something that comes in a day and could just as easily flutter away at any time, perhaps while you sleep or pop out to lunch, requiring no particular investment and with no particular weighty threat of days behind them. This only belittles and detracts from their usefulness and meaning in the game. When you declare war on someone, you should really mean it, and they should know that you do, too.

This should mean no one-day war bills, no one-hour cooldowns. Going through with these changes would completely change the perception of a war as something of genuine importance to a minor annoyance that can possibly be dealt with before lunch, or perhaps by the start of the weekend. Whether the average length of wars changes or not is no part of this equation; the perception is all-important. Nor do I think convenience should be a concern here; wars have never been convenient. To put it bluntly, the very lack of convenience is the thing that gives a war weight in the first place, on Earth as it is in EVE.




I honestly have no idea what you're talking about here, but I can sort of guess. When a war is left to expire, that's the end of it. That has nothing to do with refusing to accept the loss and everything to do with letting the war go as long as possible with the money and war slots you budgeted towards that particular war. Forcing someone to be present at the very end of the war cycle to get all the value they paid for is simply bad game design.

If a war is retracted, that could mean they lost or they need a slot right away. If a war is left to be "declared invalid" by CONCORD due to unpaid bills, that just means it went as long as possible -- the full run of the week. The fact that you perceive the process of getting your full value out of the war as poor sportsmanship, an assumption that is both egotistical and fallacious, speaks volumes.



The idea for scaling costs based on the number of people in the group declared upon is also, I think, a bad idea for the reasons Aleks already pointed out. Namely, you should not be given breaks for fighting below your weight class, nor should you be penalized for attacking a large group that is well able to defend itself. That is its own penalty.

Nor should war costs scale based on the size of the attacker. I can only see this encouraging the aggressors to split into smaller, individually less expensive groups to make comprehensive retaliation prohibitively expensive. Likewise is cost scaling based on relative population between the attacker and defender. The population of an entity has little bearing on their effectiveness; indeed, above a fairly small number, it often has no significance at all. Making groups feel obligated to pad or expunge their membership in order to cheapen or avoid wars is a bad precedent to set.

War fees should be flat rates. Anything else is inviting disaster and unpleasant shenanigans unless it somehow takes these issues into consideration.



And finally, yes, I would not be against giving war fees a fluctuating material reference, a wide index provided by minerals and moon goo perhaps. The value of ISK has drifted pretty crazily in the past few years, and it would be important to address this and make sure that the costs are just as meaty or affordable as intended, on a realistic and relevant scale.

I have placed your comments regarding Bounty Huniting into the linked thread which you can find in my first request.

As purely an objective analysis of your blog comments you may wish to review certain claims since if you look at this thread you will notice two previous requests I made on the game topic.

Some skilled folks made some pretty good campaign posters now featured on the EVE Online Facebook page. Check them out here and here

Also check out my interview on Fly Reckless and an upcoming not-to-be-missed episode on Voices from the Void.

Want to reiterate aside from FW, i dont think there will be a comprehensive look at lowsec during the CSM7 term. But I do think it's important that one happens and hopefully we can lay the groundwork for 2013 and CSM8 to make it happen there.

I had a blast as well, thanks Aleks

m

I support this candiidate!

Go Alek!

Impossible, and I read all your modifications. This point wasn't adressed.
You can't wardec a corp that just left an alliance until the next DT.

Thanks for participating in my debate threads!

That deserves a bump on your candidate thread.

I do hope you make it into the next CSM, you have some good ideas related to important parts of Eve and I think you would make great contributions if elected!

Issler