EVE General Discussion

This.

This is the problem. It's clear that the NDA is the single biggest issue with the credibility of the CSM as a body. You can say what you like about its individual membership. Their hands are tied and their mouths are gagged before they even get on the plane. They can't properly represent us without some degree of informed interaction.

The current CSM minutes' level of detail appeared excessive. Now it's coming into question whether they ever saw the AI changes, in all likelihood because the details were all NDA'd out.

Give us less spew and more content in the CSM minutes. I don't want to know who in the room guffawed at whom. I want to know that we can count on the CSM to give us details about this kind of change so that our reaction can be adequately gauged. Too often it seems like our warnings as intelligent players go unheeded and something breaks because of it.

I don't think the AI change is unfounded at all. But that's not to say the CSM shouldn't have been able to discuss this with the players. That they allegedly cannot is really the travesty and farce of the whole arrangement. Representation without information doesn't seem like a great strategy for transparency and good relations with the players to me...

I believe the CSM kiddies are too busy Gerrymandering to concern themselves with such trifles as game balance.

U mean like how UI was put out

Whether by intention or not, the game mechanics made it possible & it became intended gameplay over time as a result of not being deemed an exploit. It's also awesome.

Nerfageddon... Are you high?

This CSM has been pretty useless so far. The minutes seem to contain dozens of pages of them talking about themselves and talking about how they will talk about themselves more in future and using words like "stakeholder" and "communication" a lot. Perhaps I don't understand exactly what they're doing, but that in itself means their communication with the player-base has failed. I have not seen many posts by them, and their blogs are not incredibly active.

That said, the missile nerfs are 100% necessary. Highsec too needs to be nerfed, at least in its ability to compete with nullsec. Right now there is no reason for most players to leave highsec because the ISK is too good. CCP knows this, and they also know that players who leave highsec tend to stay with the game longer because they join nullsec communities. This should be encouraged for obvious reasons. A flat 25% cut to highsec income, a nerf to highsec station services and a significant bonus to nullsec industry would be sufficient to fix the problem. Perhaps to ease the transition to lower security space, lowsec could be made a little bit safer, or 0.5 could be made less safe (remove concord).

The rebalancing in general is a very good thing, and it will bring more flexibility to everybody. The only negative thing I have to say about it is the decision to fix beginner ships first, rather than starting with the most broken ships (blackops, HACs like the eagle, supercapitals and titans). I know why they did it, but it's still disappointing.

You seem to be proposing we turn highsec into nullsec. I don't think that's a very sensible suggestion. Highsec should be a region for beginners, but not a region to older players to hide in forever. Right now there is too much money and safety in highsec, so nerfing income, station services and maybe restricting certain modules and ships would help move people out of it. It should be impossible to PLEX an account using highsec income. I think we can all agree that would benefit the game a lot.

hahahahaha

Oh. You're serious? PLEX prices too high for you perhaps?

Have no fear, under your scenario, PLEX prices will drop dude.

Nobody will be buying 'em.

I'd be more interested in changing sec status. Make anything .8 and above "Highsec" and make the rest lowsec with varying response times on various naval forces in lieu of concord.