Jita Park Speakers Corner

The current sov system, coupled with the 24-hour nature of EVE, pretty much requires timers.

That said -- and keep in mind that sov warfare is not something I've done in a long time -- my personal preference would be for a more nuanced sov system that rewarded activity and dominance over longer periods of time, so that the need for timers (and structure bashing, which I dislike) was rendered largely moot. This was the essence of my point at the summit about sov as a continuously fluctuating scale as opposed to a binary ("you either have it or you don't") state.

I would like to see sov reexamined from first principles (but in light of what has been learned over the years) to see if something could be devised that would provide ecological niches for groups of all sizes, because I think that will provide more incentives for people to try the nullsec lifestyle. But at the same time, I would also argue very strenuously that, just as with ship balancing, there should be public discussion of the various design options at the earliest possible stages. There are a lot of stakeholders who need to have their chance to speak.

Every time someone says "Players don't do game design," my reply is that "No game design survives the players."

Gonna need some ointment for that one.

I believe I have made my position clear several times in this thread, but if it will help move the trolling on to another aspect of why I'm horrible (and thus increase the entertainment value for the audience), perhaps this summary of my previous statements will help:

* I do not wish to turn all of high-sec into an elysian fields for carebears. I would however like to see some ecological niches introduced that would be designed to attract players who have traditionally shunned EVE. The same principle applies to helping newbies.

* I am philosophically in favor of a having a smoother risk/reward gradient, with not so much of a gap between .5 and .4. So .5 would get a bit riskier (with better rewards), and 1.0 might possibly get a bit safer (but with worse rewards). If you want to encourage people to transition to low-sec and null-sec lifestyles (which, given where Dirt Nap Squad hunts, I do), you don't toss them in hot water, you "boil the frog".

As a side-note, this is also why I favor "farms-and-fields" style improvements for nullsec -- they will not just make life easier for the current residents, but ease the transition for new residents.

* I favor changes in the game to broaden its appeal and increase subscriptions, as long as they don't crush existing playstyles, because I believe this will directly (more people to shoot at/sell to/scam/etc.) and indirectly (more resources available to improve the game) benefit the current players.

* I try to make my judgments on any particular issue based on the information available to me at the time, rather than personal prejudices.

Then logically, you would agree that zero devs = fastest?

Seriously though, everyone is aware that "more devs" isn't sufficient for more development, but it's certainly necessary. Especially if you want to develop multiple projects.

The best way to increase revenues is to focus on making a good game through solid releases that enhance EVE"s core gameplay elements or add new ones in keeping with the flavor of the game. Money will, and has, followed.

Chasing profits by prioritizing features that are not in line with the above is, and has been (PI, Incarna), a siren's call.

Then again, this one of those things Robert and I frequently disagree on.

This.

As I said in another thread, no one goes to a Steak House for the salad bar.

Your steak house will make more money by buying better steaks, training up more chefs, improving the bar and the wine list and maybe by adding a Mongolian BBQ option. Spending a million bucks on your own rooftop tempeh vat and a greenhouse to grow tomatoes and lettuce for the side salads might please the owners vegetarian girlfriend, but it won't bring in a new customer base.

Part of the CSMs job is to advise CCP which proposals are rib eyes and which are mouldy soybeans.

And to continue this analogy even further down the toilet, you (i.e. the one making said recommendations) are a customer of the restaurant and thus have no idea how much the actual cost of adding a vegetarian menu would be (financial and otherwise), nor do you actually have any idea if it would bring in enough new customers to even cover said expenses, let alone make more money. Pretending that you do doesn't make you helpful, it makes you a ******* nuisance.

(Also to make the example more apt to Trebor, the vegetarian menu would have to come at the expense of losing something else, which adds the risk of losing existing customers as well)

And this is drastically altering your own actions which started this entire thing. It's not a matter of simple addition, it's a matter of removing or changing one aspect of the product to potentially facilitate another.

Even this dumb as hell salad bar thing isn't just simple addition - if you were to add one to your restaurant, you'd have to have it in a customer-accesible area, meaning you're either expanding your seating area or removing tables, which again is $$$, and as I said above, you as a customer have literally no idea whatsoever whether or not that would be worth it.

Absolutely, which is why what Trebor actually supports, if you cared to listen, is CCP looking into those things to make an informed decision.

I never thought to be happy for a Goon in the thread. . .

. . . but. . . I know where DNSBLACK keeps his Jager and hats. . .

I don't think, I know, that Treb is not scrambling for anything. There was and is no awful suggestion. Any other allegation or trolling on these wonderful forums is exactly that, allegations and trolling.

No one is overstepping any bounds as a customer because CSM's are not customer's. They are unpaid volunteers who receive minimal compensation from CCP. Now before say, CSM 6 & 5, they did kitten all to deserve that compensation but as the CSM has grown in it's role since then, so has the work load. As for the CSM lacking information, I believe this was shown to be an error on CCP's part back in CSM 6 when a certain Goon CEO had to fly to Rek to put out the fire consuming the subscription base. . .

How is advocating for game ideas before implementation of said theoretical game play bad news if you use financial interest to argue the point? What other argument can you make to a company. Do we want a whole 'nother dev cycle wasted on jesus features that don't meaningfully impact gameplay? CCP is a company and companies are in business to make money. If CCP decided that what players really wanted tomorrow were space sparkle ponies and it would triple their subscription base, they'd do it tomorrow. The whole purpose of the CSM at this point in EVE, is to advocate what the players and any future players want/might want, and provide a SAN check to CCP which has notoriously had bouts of groupthink. I know of no other person who is as demonstrably qualified to fulfill that role as Trebor.


I think you ment to post here.