CSM Campaigns

Bump for good man

MAY PAPA GNOME REPRESENT THE GREAT GNOMELAND OF LAWN AT CSM X!!!!!!!

go get em thoric, you have my vote!

I have few unusually direct questions for you being as you and your alliance was one of those impacted by this change..

Was the phoebe jump changes a mistake?
Would you fight to revert them? (Would you get rid of the 5 ly jump change? Jump bridge fatigue, etc)
Do you believe there should be no jump fatigue timer at all?

One final question... It's pretty well known that the phoebe jump changes killed the botlord treaty.

Do you believe botlord was a good thing, and would you fight to reinstate such agreements if the phoebe changes were reverted? In other words, would you agree to return everything to the way it was before phoebe?

Thanks for the questions Phoenix.

1) The idea of neutering force projection was necessary, and I support it for the health of EVE. The way it has been implemented with jump fatigue I find to be singularly annoying and punitive. I would argue that the 5ly jump limit needs to be extended slightly because it prevents people from easily moving even within regions. Jump bridge fatigue is excessive and punitive given the cost and effort involved in holding the sov in the first place and installing the bridges. The timers are aggravating because they can reduce ability to coordinate in fleets because of previously acquired fatigue. I think there's a way of implementing a force projection limitation that doesn't involve this excessively complex and annoying mechanic.

2) There are many treaties and agreements in place that aren't as well known as B0Tlord. Many of them remain in force, and others are negotiated all the time. Politics is a thing in EVE. As an alliance leader, I will support whatever, at a diplomacy level, secures the interests of my alliance.

At a different level, I want to say that your premise is slightly off. B0Tlord didn't die because of Phoebe, at least not directly. It died because PL gave up its sov. That happened because of Phoebe. But if PL had sov today, I would bet you dollars to doughnuts that it would still be in force.

I'll go back to expand on my original candidate statement, and say that you can't "fix" EVE by telling people not to play the game to win, or to do things that aren't in their own interest to make your life easier. Human nature says that won't happen. What is needed are changes to the ruleset that penalize risk averse behavior. If signing something like B0Tlord kept you from acquiring resources that your alliance or coalition NEEDED to have, or which put you in a substantially better position, you wouldn't sign it. But since the resources don't change, and so once acquired, tend to stay acquired by the same entity, inertia sets in and those agreements make a lot of sense if your goal is to minimize risk to your own resources.

Hail Thoric !! he surely get my vote

If you don't vote for this great man you are a casual.

I agree with this. However, what would you propose to fix the fatigue problem?

What would you think about expanding New Eden, rather than constraining players into a smaller place. Rather than tying the players hand why not give them more room to move. I see no reason to penalize someone for using a faster method of transport if it is their desire to move rapidly across New Eden for any reason. Why not give new regions in all zones of space to explore and expand into?

If you want to reduce current SOV holders grasp. Why not do it through PVE as well as PVP. Create new NPC forces that wish to destroy all life that directly attack SOV structures with Capital and Subcap fleets of thier own. Why not have CCP generate more content for the players rather than completely leaving them alone to only come back and punish them for being successful.

I do not see the logic in the using punitive measures to control the players, when you can reshape the scenario in a positive manner.

What I am saying is, content, not penalty timers.

Awesome, thank you for the thought out response.