Jita Park Speakers Corner

Your reply reads like a lot of the brainwashed dogma that New Order is so agressively peddling in its activities.

Considering that James315 spends a majority of his Eve gametime parading as the "Saviour" of highsec and organising an alliance to further his in game aspirations which is fundementally "highsec is broken" is probably a very good yard stick with which to mesure his intentions considering the website, posts and other media which which him and his fellow pilots communicate with ooze with thoughts on what needs to be done with highsec. It also reflects the playerbase that will vote for him.

Afterall the Mittani eventually showed his own thoughts and feelings were not to diseperate from his online charecter, particularly after a few beers.

Also to suggest that I also have some difficulty with seperating reality from fantasy from one post also indicates a level of fanaticism on your part that quite frankly is disturbing. Afterall, how do you know I'm not posting as my charecter?

You're confusing subjective opinion for established fact. For you it's correct. For me it's overstatement and hyperbole.



Since that last paragraph was a direct response to him, you did actually. Dial back your fan-boi a couple of notches and you'll be fine.

I guess I need to expand on the example some more to clarify my rational, The Mittani is the leader of an organisation which are known as Pranksters, Gankers, and Greifers. What amased me was the fact that after he designed, wrote and then presented a Fanfest peice on griefing another player came as a huge surprise. The master of griefers was infact, a griefer himself.

Ultimately, the way you play Eve is what you, as the person behind the computer screen, enjoys doing. Ergo, any chance you have of shaping and moulding the game will be based on the things you, as a player, enjoys doing.

If anyone says this is false is niave at best.





Quite clearly by using You Are twice in that paragraph you were adressing me directly, and your blase way of attempting to use mental illness as a derogatory insult with which to attempt to quell my dissent is quite frankly insulting.

As a representative of james315 and a promoter of his policies it reflects very badly.

That should seriously go on the miner bingo board.

• Evidence #1: An overwhelming majority of characters live in high-sec.
• Evidence #2: Miner ganking is at historic lows according to the CSM minutes.
• Evidence #3: It's more profitable for a miner to fit for yield and get ganked occasionally, than to fit tank and sacrifice yield.

Conclusion: High sec is either too safe, or too rewarding.

Unlike you, Admiral Root has this information, as do most people who have taken the time to form an informed opinion on the subject.



Now I know you are trolling. Weren't you in the Trebor thread earlier supporting his candidacy? Trebor being a candidate who had to be pushed for 5 pages in his thread before he gave some specifics about what he stands for, and it's still hard to say if anything he says is his opinion or another bout of his devils advocacy.

On the other hand, James positions are far from vague. They are in fact so clear that people like you can form strong opinions against them, while others like myself and root strongly support them. Unlike Trebor, James actually stands for something, instead of promising everything to everyone.

Characters =/= players
Scouts, traders, haulers and logistics (some or all of them alts of Low-sec/Null-sec/WH players) count against the total.
Because ganking is the only pvp in hi-sec
evidence #3 is the same for hi and null sec miners (and possibly low-sec miners as well).

Conclusion: your conclusion (or logic) is flawed.

Wescro2, you are still making a leap from the 3 evidences to the conclusion. It's difficult to define the word "too" off the top of one's head, but what you're saying here is that current conditions are far off from some standard.

Problem is...Where does that standard come from??

In order to declare "hi-sec is broken" as fact, you're going to have to have an objective standard to be making this comparison of off. But as far as I can tell, y'all don't have one. Tell me if I'm wrong. What you have is your opinion as to what hi-sec should look like; that is the standard you are using to declare it broken.

So even though your evidences are fact, your conclusion is still opinion. By no means do I mean to deprive you of the right to your own opinion and standards, but you shouldn't try to pass them off as fact.

Considering that EVE has four flavors of space, and one has 80% of the population, I'd say the standard I'm measuring the current state against is an average distribution. I don't think it's good for the game to have "bastard children," ie, neglected areas that only a few people care about. Especially if that particular area cuts against the theme of the game. Restaurant analogies are popular in some of the other threads so let's put it like this. The current high sec is like a salad bar at a steak house that is threatening to shut down the grill and make the place vegetarian only.

Candidates like James 315 are advocating reducing the salad bar to an appetizer and putting the focus back on the steak.

You're splitting hairs. The number went down slightly to 71%, it's still disproportionately large. My point stands.



Seriously? Characters have no provable relation to players? So if 100% of the characters were in high sec, you wouldn't be able to definitively say that 100% of players were in high sec? Of course there is a relation.



I'm not disputing that that may be the case, but how do you go from your previous statement cautioning against assertions about player distribution, and then making your own assertions about player distribution. That's just a logical disconnect.

The fact that people are sending alts up to make money in high sec is indicative of the problem. There should be viable forms of income where ever a player lives.



I was referring to the under populated areas as being neglected. This is not hard to follow, are you being purposefully obtuse?



Nope. What you said would be true if James 315 wanted to turn all high sec systems in to low or null. It isn't being eliminated. The salad bar will still be there and the menu won't be single choice. Just the 71% of the patrons (or their alts) won't be eating leafy greens at a renowned steak joint.

The excessive safety enjoyed by the high sec resident must come at the cost of lower income. Other wise our brethren in low and null get a raw deal for all their initiative and risk taking. If your idea of a good game is free ISK for everyone for risk-free, inactive play, then yes, James 315 is going to utterly and mercilessly destroy high sec.

I've never seen a reference stating that 80% of the players *lived* in Hi-sec, reference please? Or is that just more hyperbole?

If 100% of all characters were in hi-sec, then yes, there would be relation. They don't.

Let me lay it out for you (in simple terms). I have 3 accounts and frequently dual or triple box. On all three accounts I have 7 characters, all trained > 2M skillpoints. At any one time I might have two or three logged in. I have not *lived* in hi-sec since November, 2008. None of my characters could possibly be considered "hi-sec'ers" - and yet, if they were online when the snapshot was taken (because no-one knows *when* that happens) it's very possible that all of my logged in toons would be seen in hi-sec, but I am not a hi-sec player.

Toons for scamming, trading, hauling and scouting are all based out of hi-sec (or, depending on circumstance) Low-sec, but there is *no way* to determine that, of the characters I have logged in, they belong to a WH resident. I know I'm *not* the only one who does things this way.

Hell, have you ever logged in an alt to do something in hi-sec and left the game open (forget to log them out)? *YOU* might be one of those counted as a "hi-sec" resident, which might be completely untrue!

If you know *anyone* with hi-sec alts, you can deduce that not all the characters in hi-sec are *players* who live there. Since CCP doesn't draw a distinction between the *player* and *alts* it's actually impossible to say how many *players* actually live in hi-sec because it's a snapshot of character distribution and not *player* distribution.


It's not a logical disconnect when you *know* that many of the "residents of hi-sec" are alts of residents of the other areas, i.e. Alts =/= players. No disconnect whatsoever.


Absolutely unassailable statement about game design, in this we both agree. However, one thing to keep in mind is that there will *always* be some who prefer to make their cash where they *can't* be bothered (or the degree of interruption is mitigated by game mechanics).

When Nullsec had the anom nerf, it was because it was a gushing faucet, and got nerfed. Incursions, same thing for hi-sec. The reason hi-sec Incursions got nerfed so hard was because it was a *broken* faucet, *in hi-sec*. The reason they didn't catch on universally in Null-sec and low-sec (Incursions *were* run there, but not universally like hi-sec) was the ability to interrupt/disrupt activities in that space. So it stands to reason that being interrupted is unacceptable to some players, and they *will* move their money making to space where it is less likely to be interrupted.

What degree of change is going to be necessary to encourage those low-sec or null-sec residents to move their money making back to null/low, when they've demonstratively proven they prefer not to be interrupted by moving to hi-sec?

Answer: Pre-Nerf Null Anomaly levels, apparently.

Not necessarily, see my above.

What *is* obvious is that there are many, many Null-sec (and low-sec) residents who make their isk the same way Hi-sec'ers do, and for many of the same reasons.

Ease of access and risk (or the mitigation thereof).