Jita Park Speakers Corner

What's funny is, a lot of people who balk at nerfing high sec happily sign on for buffing low/null. The end result is the same, high sec becomes unattractive relative to low/null, so why all the pussyfooting about nerfing high sec? It really shows the entitlement mentality of the high sec player. "What ever you do, don't take away our easy ISK! We need that or we will unsub!" Meanwhile, the easy access to oodles of ISK playing in super safe solo play-style is stifling player interaction and miner ganking is at record lows.

You want to earn bazillions. God bless. But your gonna have to take risks, and in high sec those risks just aren't there. Earn your moolah where I can shoot you damnit. I didn't sub to a cuthroat spaceship war game to spin my damn ship in the hangar.

I would be happiest if there was no endless cycle of nerfs and buffs, and everyone could just learn to adapt to find the most violent solution to our problems instead of petitioning GMs or getting onto the CSM to manipulate CCP...

We mine "safely" in nullsec because thousands of rough men stand ready in the night to visit spaceship violence on those who would do us harm.

Seems entirely fair.

Two problems with this argument:

1. What safety there is in nullsec is provided by players, not CCP. That means that there is hundreds and hundreds of man hours going into that safety you have there.

2. It isn't. It isn't safe, you certainly can't AFK, and the ores aren't worth enough to bother going to null over highsec.

I know Wescro trains AFK all the time, so that pretty much speaks for itself.

As for James, he mentioned in one of his blog posts that he hadn't trained a skill for several years, with the exception of Currin Trading's ganking skills.

On another note; seriously Poetic, some good posting from you just now. All that copy/paste.

It is a valid question for all the candidates. :)

I have to assume not, since he's making a program to aid you in that task. http://poeticstanziel.blogspot.com/2013/03/csm-campaign-season-mass-evemailing.html

from http://poeticstanziel.blogspot.ca/2013/03/is-james-315-crazy-person.html

No.

That's the long and short of it. You can stop reading now, if you want.

I get the impression that a lot of people feel that all James will do, if he makes it onto the council, will be to rant and froth to CCP concerning highsec.

It's ridiculous to think that he's going to be screaming at CCP for twelve months. More ridiculous to think these things if you've read or listened to a thing he's said in the past month and a half.

A lot of people read all the background fluff on minerbumping.com, and assume that's the entirety of James 315's platform. Xander was certainly fooled by it in his interview with James. Just because a guy chooses to be a pain in the ass to miners does not mean he's incapable of critical thinking beyond the scope of his chosen role playing. Hell, The Mittani made some good coin scamming super-capitals from people. He instigated perpetual Hulkageddon and Burn Jita. He supported Ministry of Love's ice miner and freighter ganking operations. Was he a terrible CSM? Was he incapable of thinking beyond the things that amused him in-game?

The thing people can't get past where it concerns James is the rhetoric. Things like "burn all of highsec." Those are simply words to stir up the debate. They're attention grabbers. They give James a spotlight and soapbox, both essential to any successful campaign. If you can get beyond the rhetoric you'll find an intelligent individual, running a coherent and thoughtful campaign.

Get past the rhetoric and James' campaign boils down to these simple principles:

1. It should be economically desirable for nullsec people to earn their money in nullsec -- more reward for the risk.
2. It should be economically desirable for lowsec people to earn their money in lowsec -- more reward for the risk.
3. The risk/reward ratios for wormhole space seem to be working fine.
4. Reduce the rewards in highsec, or increase the risk. Either way, keeping the status quo simply increases the highsec population, which fundamentally imbalances the game.

That's a pretty simple and straightforward treatise. The reward should match the risk. It's hard to argue that the risk/reward ratios in EVE are not broken, when most null players elect to earn their money in highsec on their alts. This is not how it always was in EVE. Nullsec people used to play and earn in nullsec; James would like to see the ability to earn where one chooses to play, he'd like to see that return to the game.

This sort of old-style game play already exists with the wormhole people. Wormhole people mostly stay and earn in wormholes. They don't migrate their alts to the low-risk, high-reward environs of highsec. As with wormhole play it should be with nullsec and lowsec play.

James is not only about re-balancing highsec, that's an entire misreading of his campaign. He's about restructuring null and lowsec at its core, to create more playable and risky, yet more rewarding, environments. If you live and fight in null/lowsec, than you should be earning there as well. Highsec shouldn't be a siren song away from those other areas that you call your playground.

Consider this recent quote by James:

This speaks strongly to the sort of representative James will be. Certainly not one gnashing his teeth and snarling at CCP devs from across a table or a Skype connection. This demonstrates an individual well aware of the balancing act that EVE must perform. He's well-aware that many different play styles must be accommodated. He's understands give and take. You can't go entirely in one direction without harming the game overall.

Sure, James has put forth some radical ideas (who hasn't?), but I'm quite sure James knows which of his ideas he can build traction with and which aren't going to fly with the producers in the room. But start from an extreme position and work your way to the middle, rather than trying to guess where the middle is and then working your way even further from your core ideals.

The most important element that James brings to the CSM is as a watchdog. That's something we've been sorely missing with the last CSM, who seemed more interested in defending and protecting the devs (and CCP) from criticism. We need a CSM representative who will examine every piece of development and ask the tough questions: "How will this affect the core principles that EVE Online was built upon?"

Consider adding James to your ballot. Rank him high. If you value a representative more interested in the game than making pleasantries, then James is your man. If you're more interested in someone willing to criticize bad development decisions, rather than someone who will defend those decisions, then James is your man.

(Hell, the future CSM8 chair supports James. Mynnna has given 4.44B ISK to the cause. If you're Goonswarm, rank your ballot Mynnna followed by James 315; let all those over-votes flow to someone even your leaders support and trust.)

Well, it isn't a political anything, because the only politics that Mynnna actually needs to engage in is on goonfleet.com, and I believe that he's already gained the position of official Goonswarm candidate.

More wise words:

http://www.minerbumping.com/2013/03/a-few-controversial-opinions.html

Are any other CSM candidates this open about what they stand for? Can any of them show even a fraction of this level of honesty?