Jita Park Speakers Corner

Really sorry about your loss, Ripard. Thankfully I've never had to experience losing a loved one yet, so I can't really say how that feels.

When you're feeling up to it, we'll be here to debate imaginary internet spaceships.

..What a wonderful tribute of the Life and Times of Riley.

You have my vote.

LOL This! This! and THIS! I have been so underwhelmed by the attempts of the NO sycophants to undermine Ripard by very selectively picking a few things he has said, some out of context which any child can do, and hammering on them like a gong in the hopes of what? Deafening the opposition?

I almost want to see what would happen if J315 won a seat... Any reasonable person with a even a modicum of business acumen knows there is zero possibility of any of his idea's making the grade to be even tabled as a topic of serious discussion at CCP.

EvE is a wholly owned "product" and the means by which CCP, a privately owned, for profit BUSINESS creates revenue to pay it's overhead and payroll and create and provide, if managed correctly, increased income for PROFITS which are in turn reinvested in the company to increase staff in order to create and sell more "products" such as WoD... and continue growth and prosperity for the company and it's owners and employees.

No matter what the advertising says, EVE is not "real"... Profit and Loss, however is. And J315's idea's add up to lower subscriptions and reduced profitability. Anyone who can't see that, based on J315s bald statements (multiple I have been reading his drivel for some time now) that the risk adverse can just leave (unsub) and 'EVE' would be a better game for it... well, not a lot can be done for you.

Look up irony in the dictionary.



From your rant against James 315, you of all people should appreciate vigorous examination of a candidate. It seems you have a double standard here. Let's be objective and appreciate all candidates being questioned aggresively. The New Order and others have been exceedingly fair in the face of Ripards arguments from positions of ignorance on certain issues.

I'm not going to respond to the rest of your post criticizing James 315, in this thread anyway. This is Ripards thread, lets keep it about him. If you want to discuss other candidates, go to their threads and you will get to debate them.

Most of the time, CSM members try not to act as "Junior Game Designers", though of course we are human and there is a big grey area between simply evaluating CCP presentations and pushing for specific solutions.

Two things that CSMs do a lot of are:

* Priortization advocacy -- arguing that particular aspects of the game need more attention. This is more like 'Fix sov!" as opposed to "Fix sov by doing X"

* Solution feedback -- when CCP comes up with a proposed solution, we evaluate it in light of the extra information we are privy to. I'm constantly pushing for more background info so we can evaluate things in the proper context. In the case of things like ship balancing, we usually see the first pass and give some feedback, then they are put out for broader community feedback. I would like to see this done whenever possible.

So tl/dr, there's a difference between being involved in game development and game design.

Are "CCP devs" developing the game and not designing it? Sorry this distinction may have some meaning in the field, but csm seems to do both.

The minutes show you do quite a bit more than "fix sov" and "Fix fw" etc. The discussions are at a bit higher level than that addressing what is broken and what goals should be strived for and what mechanics can reach those goals.

I guess my problem with everyone csm saying I am not a "game designer" is that it is just the biggest cop out line there is.

Consider these options for csm candidates:

1) GOOD communication and persuasion skills and has GOOD ideas for game design/development
2) GOOD communication and persuasion skills and has BAD ideas for game design/development
3)BAD communication and persuasion skills and has GOOD ideas for game design/development
4) BAD communication and persuasion skills and has BAD ideas for game design/development

The worst case scenario for EVE is a csm that matches #2. Very persuasive with their game wrecking ideas.

3 and 4 are basically nullities since they aren't good at communicating and persuading their ideas.

The best option is 1.

So CSMs should stop copping out and just be upfront and tell us how they want the game to be developed/designed. The players can decide whether they are being persusasive about the ideas they set forth when they read the minutes.

If you do not think the game or parts of the game should change at all thats fine too.

Hi all,

Again, my apologies for the delay in my posting here. Thank you to all of you that sent me your kind words and condolences about Riley. It means a lot.

For those of you interested in the high-sec ganking topic, I've written what's likely to be my final blog post on the subject until the election: How safe is too safe? Go give it a read. I consider it my definitive answer to the question of high-sec ganking. If you disagree with me on this topic, I understand completely and I encourage you to vote for Psychotic Monk. I like his take on the subject.

I don't know that I wrote about this recently, but yes, mining needs to be more interesting at a fundamental level. I'd love to see mining work a bit more like probing. Almost every asteroid has almost every type of ore. If you slide up to a rock without scanning it first, you get veldspar or scordite. But if you scan the rock first, you find the more interesting ores. The closer you are to null, the more likely interesting ores will be present and the easier they are to find. Put some skill into it! Then as compensation for that time spent scanning, cut down the mining laser cycle time. Less dead time when mining.

1: Yes. 2: No. 3: To try it out, but I found for myself that I prefer targets that shoot back. 4: Because my alliance-mates are bad-ass individuals whose company I enjoy very much and whose piloting skills I respect completely.

For the record, I punted on the DUST 514 question because I'm not a DUST 514 player and I'm not a current FW player. I'm running for CSM to represent EVE players, not DUST players, and I'm sure there will be several potential good FW reps. My own experience with FW play is six months not long after the feature was released, plus a couple of months of button-orbiting. Except in the most basic, basic terms, it would be rather hypocritical of me to represent myself as any sort of FW expert or EVE/DUST link expert, because I'm not. It's one of the topics in this game I need to learn more about.

As for the rest, I've written several hundred thousand words around how I feel the game should be developed, what I think is working and what I don't think is working. If you don't like my positions, there are going to be lots of good people to vote for instead. If I end up sitting in a chair in Iceland, whenever possible I'm going to present CCP with the opinions of the broadest base of players possible. When that's not possible, I'm going to let my own instincts guide me. If you want to know what those are, see my collected written works. That's what I was saying in my post.

Only rarely, though, am I going to try to push a specific solution to a problem. Many past CSM members have said it's more profitable to simply state the problem and let CCP come up with potential solutions, then provide insight into how players might regard those potential solutions. That's a valuable service to CCP and that's why you should vote for a CSM member that you feel will represent your play style. That said, even there I'm going to cheat. I've already said I think CSM8 should devote itself to building a new list of "little things" from their own ideas, what they find in the F&I thread and other forums, and player suggestions.

and you sir are a master at the written language :)

You mean 'Gangbears'?

People who want to gang, but are to lazy or risk adverse to do it under the present system.