Wormholes

Alundil hit the nail on the head. If the only WH representitive doesn't answer the questions asked but would rather do the old "post with your main" despite the poster asking a perfectly valid question then it's maybe time we start to think about who represents us and if they should be changed.
You were asked valid questions and it does not matter who asked them. if you want I will ask on behalf of said poster so that you do!

There is a difference between 100 faceless people, and one guy making valid points. There is another trick called post history, if its faceless alts they will have none, the guy in question clearly uses that alt as his main positng character. You are describing two completely different situations.

The point is that we're all alt posting. No one here is using their real names, but rather some RP (or troll) based name attached to a digital avatar. Silly distinction? Indeed, but no more silly than someone demanding "post with your main" or soup nazi "no response for you" drivel.

A valid question is just that, valid. Regardless of whether it was penned by the Mittani himself, or a troll alt created for nefarious purpose.

As I said, addressing the question(s) themselves and ignoring the person asking is a surefire method of avoiding any perception of political gamesmanship or douchebaggery on anyone's part.


lol the asterisks refer to a Seinfeld character of the Goodwin's Law persuasion - geez lolfilters

Because when someone disagrees with your point of view then its stupid.

Everyone in this so called "de-railement" have made a valid point, that a CSM representative should not dismiss an articulate post simply because it was made from an alt. Now, you could argue against that and you should, but calling it stupid is marginalizing the argument and your very own point of view at the same time. In the end the discussion is not being derailed, I think we are just trying to get a consensus on this minor point in order to legitimize the question, mainly "why does the lower class w-space does not deserve equal protection as higher class w-space considering the fact that the utilization of capital ships is substituted by ease of access?".

Yes, yes. Run along I guess. Are you taking your main too?

But in all seriousness. People were asking for small and/or low class Wh players' responses. They have replied and, I am sure, will continue to do so over the coming weeks.

Your, and Two Step's, insistence on main posting is what is derailing this thread. As I said, if you ignore the name behind the question and simply evaluate the question on its own merit all of the distraction is gone. Good questions garner discussion and bad/troll questions get ignored. Everyone's happy.

The articulate posts have been skipped or missed. The one you quoted wasn't it.




Of course no one is implying that you are obligated to do any such thing. Certainly responding to any and all posts is impossible. However, your choice to ignore alt posts is pretty sad tbh. Again, alt posts can be more enlightening than many of the "main" posts I've read over over there years. Tossing them out for no reason other than "alt" is silly.

As to you last point about elected officials and blah blah fake names....how is an elected official going to know that "John Smith" who wrote him a well thought-out question is really who he says he is. Elected officials don't bother verifying the identities of the constituents prior to reading their mail. They don't have the time to do so. They simply read the mail. If it's a good message, great. If not it gets round filed. How is that so hard to understand? Futhermore - your name here is "Two Step". If I am an elected official how am I to know that Two Step is not a "fake" (alt) name or not? I have no idea. Nor do you. For all we know your "real" handle could be Three Step and you've been posting and running as CSM as an alt the whole time.

Ridiculousness all the way round.

So the thread-jack on alt vs main is complete. Yay! Now that's out of the way - can the pertinent questions be looked at regardless of the "messenger?"

Swigden's post was a reply to you, you at that point have already excluded someone's opinion / statement based on their "non primary toon" posting habit. The original post I have already pointed out but will do so again, here it is:




However since you have asked me to point out the articulate parts of Swigden's post, I shall oblige:

-Main or alt makes no difference if it's a legit eve character on an account being paid for;

This is pretty articulate, wouldn't you say. With this statement Swigden argues that a person is still a person regardless of the character they are using. This is certainly in line with the policy that CCP representatives and developers take, you never see them asking for someone to present their argument with a main. Though, admittedly they don't reply to everyone's message.

Now I will agree that the rest of his post is inflammatory. As far as you having to answer every question, I agree that you don't have to. In fact you don't HAVE to answer any questions, its your choice, but the issue is that you did quote another poster and you have chosen to go with this main / alt nonesense instead of taking a moment to formulate a proper response: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1881176#post1881176

Is it really so hard to stay on topic and not be diverted by these petty debates over alts/mains?

CCP is in the process of the concept stage of reworking POS's. Their proposed changes, listed in the CSM minutes, will have a direct affect on our daily lives inside of WH space. While everyone is busy bickering back and forth about who has credit over a valid point based on whether or not they are posting as a main toon or alt, CCP is pushing forward with ideas the majority of us do not want. Can we please get off the main/alt subject, and return back to the pressing issues of the POS reworking that CCP is currently considering?

My opinions on some of the changes CCP is considering are:

Force Field Removal.......Not in favor of, as they said in the CCP minutes that it's only "partly" a technological issue. I would like to know what that issue is, and what is the other part of their reason for considering to remove Force Fields.

POS Security.......I'm still not quite sure what they want to do to fix this, I'll have to reread the POS rework section of the CSM minutes to see if they mentioned any good fixes. I think a log of some kind of who takes and deposits what in SMA's and Corp Hangars would go a long way towards POS security. Putting in a sort of key system for our ships, and even having person storage space in Corp Hangars would solve a lot of theft issues. If only I can fly my ships I have docked, then no one else can steal them, unless a CEO ejects them from the SMA. Maybe even a temporary key system where I can loan a ship to a corp mate for a day or two. After that key expires, the ship is locked, and he cannot fly it again. Possibly even a Lo-Jack system for our ships. Hey if cars in RL can have them, why can't internet spaceships? Someone steals my ship, I'd like to know where it is, who has it, who took it, and where I can go to get that ship back. Access key to boarding the ship would/should allow me to go get the ship back and fly it back.......just an idea.

POS Sizes vs WH Class......I personally don't believe they should mess with this. Possibly do something about POS ECM, but aside from that, I do hope they leave it as it is. No restrictions. Lower class wormholes should not be penalized just because people think it's too hard to remove a large POS in a c1/c2. Set up your POS in the system, control the exits, dominate the sites, and break their will to live there. Pod them back to K-Space. Their POS will run out of fuel, and will be much easier to kill. Learn to adapt. Don't beg CCP to do it for you.

Mooring of ships to POS......I kind of like it, and I kind of don't. I'd like to know more about it, and the mechanics of it when they have a better understanding of exactly they want it to work. They mentioned a possible Force Field protecting the ships moored. That I like. I want to know if the ships will be completely invulnerable, will they be able to take any damage, or possibly even be unmoored from a few stealth bomber bomb blasts.......That could be interesting.

Modular POS design.........This I like a lot. I think it'd be cool to have our own stations in J-space as opposed to the current POS setups. I'd especially like it if we get a type of fuel based cloaking device for our POS. I liked the idea CCP had about a jump drive on our POS's that would take like 48 hours to spool up for a jump. Would be cool if they allow us to anchor a POS anywhere in the system, and be able to use the jump drive to relocate the pos to another safespot in the system. Why not?

Overall, I like the direction they are going, with the exception of proposing to restrict POS sizes to WH classes, and the removal of Force Fields(until we are told me as to why....more details please.)

Agreed Gunslinger but let it go.

Someone (I think two step but there's so much drama here i can't tell for sure) raised the thought that it is to hard for small corps to siege and claim a low class wormhole. So, he suggested for the new POS system to limit defences in some way to make it easier for those small corps.

What I understand is that the community (at least the ones posting here) interpreted that as taking away large towers. But you see, they want the new system to be modular and scalable so there will not be a small, medium or large tower.

The discussion is called `taking away large towers` but is actually about restricting or not restricting POS's in any way in lower class wormholes. Wich I also think is a pretty bad idea. (for context, my home is a C5 with static C5)