Jita Park Speakers Corner

My feelings are mixed. First, my eyes glaze over whenever PI is mentioned. My loathing for PI as a missed opportunity is well known; I don't think PI has much 'game' to it, and I mark Tyrannis as one of the worst expansions EVE has ever suffered. PI exudes banality.

I'm also kind of meh about another structure to shoot with another reinforcement timer. On the other hand, it /is/ something new to shoot for smaller groups that makes a market segment more profitable in low/null compared to hisec.

vOv was basically my reaction to it. I'd like more Farms and Fields, but I want them to be actually fun, too.



You might have noticed that CSM6 had to go to the mat with CCP's management in both the emergency summit and again in September before the 'all hands on FiS' reallocation announcement. It's exhausting and infuriating and doesn't leave much time for glad-handing or mingling.

Hopefully, if CCP's management returns to earth and stays there, we will have more time to focus on nitty-gritty spaceship issues and do fireside chats more regularly. The whole 'CSM Spotlight/Fireside Chat' mechanic was devised to push in-game feature stuff like TiDi, which it did masterfully, not to handle riots, kool-aid drinking, overheating video cards or monocles.

Props
Voted for you under the assumption that, if nothing else, you would wake everybody up from their gentle slumbers while pointing out the fires. Thus far I have been more than happy with your conduct as an elected official.

Clarification
I remember (but may be in error) the Mittani stating destructible Outposts would be something he would strive for. I ask for an update on that stance and would like to hear how much of a priority this has to the Mittani as a chairman of the CSM.

Permanent “things”
I think that EVE would have better player retention if players in any size entity could build something their own and permanent for as long as they / their corp are active. This would of course have to be something you can disturb and camp but not necessarily destroy (unless left unattended for six months, then it may burn :), pillage and plunder with functionality that reflects that. Would you consider such a player / corp owned and operated deadspace hangout? Do you think it would help 0.0, wormholes and lowsec if people could leave a mark there all their own?

Player retention through social engineering
As an addition to this, some players are lost to EVE if they are not stimulated to become and remain part of a sizeable entity so as to be privy to the social interaction this brings. As part of that the following questions:
Does ccp keep track of the size of active membership in corporations?
Does ccp keep track of the active membership size of corporations the moment an active account goes inactive?
If ccp has these numbers, would it be possible for you to get to see them?
Would you consider granting perks in functionality to corps that have a certain number of active members so as to stimulate players to always strive for a corp that has the best player retaining active member-base numbers? So, social engineering to keep players happy by applying honey in places that have shown to keep players happy?

The meat locker for corpses, making your own Incarna environment.
How do you view establishments and customizable captains quarters in places a player frequents, possibly tied in to the aforementioned permanent build-able “thing”? Author would like to state that this would be after dealing with gaping chestwounds, would be far in the future. Preferably years from now when the standard computer setup for an eve player has caught up with the ccp view of what they feel they should offer, graphics-wise.

A wall of fame and shame
Player benchmarks on display. Right now you have to leaf through all manner of logs in the client or through piles of information offered up by secondary outlets to see your own greatness. Do you feel player benchmarks such as first hull, first pod, first gcc, biggest fight partaken in, biggest loss suffered, npc corporate standing and other logged happenings should be on display for the player? Corpmates? Alliancemates? Everyone? In CQ? On player lookup?

Thanks mittens
that is all

Nutter . . . fair enough, I play and write different than you so I must be nuts.

Failed runs (fixed that for you)

I do know what an NDA is but I am comparing the minutes of previous CSM meetings where we could see what the CSM was discussing prior to their work with CCP to the silence out of your CSM until changes are announced.

Nope, don't doubt your dedication to your self image at all.

Followup Questions

Is there CSM/CCP work on the winter expansion still ongoing or have sights been set to things further on the horizon?

Are you encouraging other members of the CSM to follow your lead in this excellent idea to talk to the player base in the forums that were created for that purpose?

m

I made a topic about distributing the resources in nullsec better to permit self sufficiency because I am such a awesome poster.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=28733&find=unread


In short instead having huge mult regional areas with only one racial of rat or ice have it be a over-representation of one (50%) then a mix of others.

That way more of a abundance of one resource, and a shortage of another then a total exclusion of some.

What would you support of that?

How would you feel about using Single Transferable Vote for CSM elections instead of the current First Past The Post system?

I don't see such a change keeping the null sec alliances from controlling the CSM if they want to. If anything it would make it easier to get a ticket through. On the other hand, it would give high sec a shot at electing someone rather than splintering their vote between dozens of candidates.

As it stands, Sov warfare in null sec sucks. It's probably the most boring and monotonous task in EVE. Most alliances aren't blessed with a DBRB who absolutely love taking out massive fleets for the sole purpose of shooting structures for hours on end.

There are so many times in eve where you go to visit an alliance to raise hell and they just dock up for a week or two. The only other offense is to hit sov and completely remove them. This aspect of the game requires an astounding amount of resources, not just effort where the defending party can just hide behind a station spammed constellation/region.

What are your ideas for making inactive/hiding alliances who hold sov in nullsec lives a bit more difficult so that the "blueball" technique is less used and attacking parties don't have to commit so much in terms of resources for those who don't utilize their space?

Would you like to see more of a dynamic system in null sec where activity and system use is what determines the difficulty to take/remove sov from people?

I.E.: ihubs/stations HP nerfed (hardcore) and sov levels of system usage (military/industry/ a new marketing and jump activity as well as potentially moon mineral per month accumulation etc..now determines strategic level)

Then, Sov increases the resistances of structures. Potentially, the sov V systems also have a reduction in sov bills!!

What would you like to see in null sec going forward so we don't continue to have the "screw grinding sov structures" problem that currently exists?

We have a substantial level of influence, but not an overwhelming - or any kind of formalized power. We're not 'in charge' of anything; the CCP folks who work on FiS get along smashingly with the CSM and we have a solid, professional working relationship.

We have many direct lines for feedback, most notably the 24/7 CCP/CSM Skype channel.

I mostly delegated discussion of hybrid issues to the CSM6 hybrid experts, Prometheus Exenthal and White Tree. I'm a nullsec sovwar guy, whether rails need a 10% buff and a 12% grid decrease is really too micro for me. I'd just mess things up.

I'm pretty happy with what Tallest has posted in his hybrid blog.

Make up your own mind. I like power, everyone knows it - and so does anyone else who runs for CSM, but they might lie or mince words or - worse still - be personally deluded about their own motives. I don't lie about it.

You trust me with your vote or you don't. vOv

Nullsec will always need a strong representative on the CSM. CSM5 only had Vuk, and Vuk was away when a gaggle of people who have never used a jump bridge in their life told Greyscale that removing bridges would be peachy. Null said 'never again', and here we are.

Mmm, that signatures thing might have some benefits.

I am not sure where you stand yet on my second question. Can I conclude from your statements that the CSM doesn't represent all players and that's the way you think it should be?

IIRC the CSM now serves in one year terms. What if 3 months after the election, something happens and a certain group of players becomes motivated and organized, but alas, the election is 9 months away. What do you think the CSM should do in this situation?