EVE General Discussion

Waiting around for things to get better is pretty much what myself and every other sovholder in nullsec have been doing for the past two years. A bunch of people in our "special interest group" has left us because they're sick of the current game and the lack of updates for our play style while highsec receives buff after buff.

And they have every right to leave. It really isn't in question that null sec has issues for anyone paying attention. Its a matter of how to handle it where the questions arise.

Look at those moving goalposts.

Well, hundreds of billions of ships lost is "some ships", I suppose.

It was a huge miscalculation for the CFC that from what I have seen, has changed the way our leadership perceives things.

For example, SC escalations are being forbidden, full stop, in lowsec.


There certainly are greater stakes that could be on the line in battles but with how things have changed today that needs better sov mechanics that encourage people to invest in their space more to make it happen!

No, look at fabricating off topic arguments, and even then an unique snowflake across 15 years of a whole industry.

I am not sure what side if the fence you are coming down on.
Are you suggesting that it is OK and fair for the minority group within the game (null sec) to dominate the balance?

In either case, you are completely correct about high sec being impossible to organize.
Yes, there are large groups within high sec (UNI, RvB, Incursion groups), but it is safe to say, especially with the latter two, that they are riddled with alts whose main play is focused in other areas (saw an actual PL guy in one group), and there is no way to expect they would vote for a high sec candidate, especially one who would be ostracized and marginalized by the zealots in the CSM and within CCP.

Oh, and to the trolls that suggest I run, a couple things:
1. I am fully aware that agitators like me don't get elected. The "moderates" in a normal election are the ones that get elected. Of course, with this new voting system, we are indeed going to see a plethora of pro null sec/ anti-high sec zealots and extremists get in.
2. Given the hatred that the zealots have demonstrated before in personal attacks on high sec CSM members, there is no way I am giving up personal information for these sociopaths to use.

Er, well, we don't like to put in EFFORT either. Especially when it comes to voting. Sure we PRESS BUTAN FOR GREAT JUSTICE. But how do "we" decide which butan to press?

The political commissars tell us who will best forward our interests and we then push the butan they tell us to.

Strangely enough, I love most of these, though I'd add:

- low sec changed into a pirate industry and mission haven, as per this suggestion
- mechanics added into null to promote conflict and give the small guy a foothold.

Of course. That's because the problem never was one of mega-coalitions and ze ebil nulseccers beating down on the little highsec guys.

The “problem” is that only those who care enough to vote get represented. As expected. As it should be. The amount of lost votes are pretty irrelevant because that number is ridiculously tiny anyway, so dithering over a system that makes use of those votes compared to one that doesn't is largely besides the point.

The “small guys” are not getting represented, not because they're small, but because they represent a minority view among those who care enough to make their views known to begin with. If they want better representation, they have to ensure that more of their peers actually start caring. Since the CSM elections are already way past the standard 90-9-1 split, the chances of that happening are pretty minute.

However, as long as the “small guys” keep thinking that it's a problem of voting systems and of unfair coalitions, all their whines and pleas and suggestions will only have exactly this result: it will serve the ones who actually participate… i.e. not the “small guys.”

Yeah because you're reaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaally a highsec dweller.