EVE General Discussion

Being unsubbed for about a year will have that effect, but I don't debate for a specific faction. I argue against a specific type of loon, but that's because I put reason and evidence in high regard. Still, nice try. 3/10 - next time, try to half-answer a few points, and you might keep it going for longer.

Illustrated that you are incapable of factually supporting your claims.

75% of EVE players disagree!

You made an assertion.

I asked you to support that assertion.

You posted "evidence" that conclusively disproved your assertion.

You then said that the evidence doesn't matter, only your anecdotal tale of high-sec political missionary work does.

How do you imagine that I have, in any way, argued against "All Eve players knowing about the CSM?"

My problem is that you're making things up and expecting them to be regarded as fact, even when you are provably lying.

I have removed some off topic Posts, and those quoiting them.

Selling the CSM to the eve playerbase should be easier than selling water in the desert, a "virtual space council" is exactly the sort of pretentious turgid horseshit that your typical overprivileged nerd creams themselves for, regardless of what area of space they play in, the fact they're even playing this ******* game in any capacity should qualify them as at least potentially interested in ~a space election~. If CCP can barely scrape a 10% turnout for it then they've been doing something wrong.

Okay, so as usual, you make a number of mistakes here.
"If it did come out" shouldn't be an "if". It's known, and has been for each year CCP has released the election results. You're trying to fabricate a conspiracy, while the only reason you know anything at all is because CCP released the information in public.
"informed" should be "interested". To be informed takes clicking a splash page link and 5 minutes. Those who do are interested, those who don't aren't, but nothing is hidden away.
"make ... your input ... questionable" is dishonest and deceptive, seemingly based on your anger at being rejected yourself (While that is entirely, purely and 100% your own fault as a poor candidate).
"CCP could have been steered..." is wrong. CSM doesn't steer.

And again, most fundamentally, is your opposition to democracy. Wanting to disenfranchise one group for the audacity that you perceive them to vote more than others, is not the right way to go. You don't become more electable by removing voters, except by comparison to more succesful candidates whose voters you might remove.
Being engaged in a democratic election entails accepting the judgement of the voters. You can't simply decide to make up a new electorate because the old one didn't vote like you wanted, and trying to limit opposing votes isn't democratic.

I can buy it so you dont have to vote, for 1 000 000 ISK. Just send me your corpse. Units: 1. I will use it for ancient minmatar Doodoo rituals if I see you voting.

Sorry, I forgot about this thread.
Two days during the working week last year?
In a launcher that many of us by-pass? Good response.
Personally, I like Phoebe, less hot dropping going on all over the place.
If the vision ever comes true then EVE would see more strategy.
Others hate the changes and have quit the game over it. Can't please everyone and will always lose some. How many left, I don't know.

Steering in the wrong direction may well be the Null Sec focus and coming at it from the wrong approach. The priority might have been better on High Sec, where the majority are.
Sure, they only stick around for a year and a half on average and I can see the logic in trying to get more of them out to Null Sec to then stay longer.

However, Fozzie's team have sacrificed depth while trying to reduce complexity. Their dream of little groups taking space and blooming in Null Sec have not been realised.
Why not?
I think it is because Null Sec is a tough place to live, it is like a surface rock that smaller groups can't always penetrate to get to the water and soil beneath.

As EVE stands today, I would recommend that any new corp gets jump clones on opposite sides of High Sec, levels their PVE ships, sticks to one tank type and when ready move into a Class 2 or Class 3 worm hole.
There is far better access control with worm holes and it can be an incubator to build wealth and skill points as a group, being able to lay down an infrastructure.
. The trouble at this point is that if you recruit people, you usually need to trust them. If you have a weak time zone they can sneak enemies into your worm hole and you can lose your system. So you can't really grow well in numbers. It is a much larger risk than High Sec or even Low Sec in some regards.
So, if you look at worm holes and Null Sec, all you can really do is have more worm holes, have one for newbies, have drama, have POSes in there blown up and keep going up the WH classes.

Even when you get to Class 6 and a fairly established corp or alliance, you are now left with the people who like worm holes and people who like blingy ships in moderately sized engagement.



It can work as an incubator but it is not the best solution. There is also a great deal that can and is in many cases being done socially to try and build more new players in Null Sec. The trouble is that they are usually being built by the larges coalitions and not by smaller entities.

Anyway, I am rambling on uselessly and anyone reading up to the point of this last paragraph has probably had their eyes glaze over and their minds' switch off.

What you quoted and this are not clear.

Entosis:
Waving a mining laser at a structure from a little ship.
No longer is there time saving and cost / benefits to stacking your fleet for DPS to grind down a structure. That is one aspect of depth that has been lost.
No longer do you need to put a 100 man fleet out there to be attacked. You can simply send out some T3Ds to kill the annoying interceptors.

... and boy can you farm the little groups now.
Want to really make them unwelcome? Just drop capital blobs around that they can't break and tag team the entosis work.