EVE General Discussion

Seeing as how there are 14 CSM seats, your example would mean that there would be 4 nullsec CSM members and 10 Highsec CSM members.

The real problem is that you don't produce candidates and you don't vote.

The one and only final resource needed to be elected is voters. Number of them. Some people try hard to convince that absolute majority live in highsec (and that that imagined majority has a very special interests, which evil minority manages to ignore and stomp on, etc. etc. and further nonsense).

Natural conclusion is then that resources needed to be elected are in a highsec... Something is wrong in some of the pictures, isn't it.

I may live in high sec but when I can I go to low sec to pew pew. Not a whole lot of money in high sec. Incursions over crowded. Missions are my passion

Write in Ron Paul for CSM

Actually, to improve your safety, I was about to suggest that CONCORD help take care of the invasions.

If I recall correctly, their biggest police ship is capable of killing an enemy supercarrier in one shot. This will be a shot heard all around Empire. The smaller ships can take care of the rest of the enemy fleet, to ensure that the system is perfectly safe to mine in.

Of course anyone attempting to interfere with CONCORD handling of the clear and present threat would be similarly neutralized.

Nicolo 2012 - Ban NPC Corps

The game is classified as an MMO, EVERYONE who reviews the game, plays the game, and made the game will acknowledge that the game is indeed an MMO and the purpose of which is to try and interact with other players. I get it, we all like to play solo once in a while, but playing the entire game by yourself when you could play with any number of 44,000 people is just ridiculous. Your better off playing SPORE in the Space Stage because that's essentially what you are doing here.

Plus playing with bots doesn't make a game harder. Enemies are stupid and teammates actually work as a team. With actual people you have to worry about smart enemies and generally ignorant teammates.



That's not what I mean at all. TV is not advertised as a banana related device. What I'm saying is that it would be a bit odd for a company called "Reliable Bananas" yet it's main product are apples. That's how EVE is. It's advertised as a mostly combat game, in fact the only time mining ever shows up in any of the trailers in the Incursion trailer, right before they get blown up by combat ships of course. Wouldn't you be disappointed if you bought a game advertised to be mostly about combat, yet people focus more on mining?



I'm not denying that EVE is a sandbox, however, what do kids mostly do in a sandbox, try to build sand-castles or throw sand at other kids? Most sandboxes I've been in mostly focus on kids building sandcastles while one poo-poo-face covers our heads in said sand. (NOTE: I know EVE isn't a literal sandbox, just a metaphor)

Just because EVE is a sandbox doesn't mean all the activities in EVE have equal priority. Look at all the ships in EVE. Note how the vast majority (somewhere around 80% to 90% not exactly sure) of ships are for direct combat, or something to support combat. Why would CCP possibly put more combat ships than any other ship if their focus wasn't combat? If each role was meant to be played equally, wouldn't it make sense for CCP to put an equal amount of Combat Ships, Industrials, Mining ships, and whatever other niches ships can fill?

Plus, CCP didn't hire a naval combat expert because naval combat takes place on flat 180 degree oceans and seas (for the most part). Spaceship combat takes place in a 360 degree environment. I guess you could argue that CCP should hire an air warfare expert, but there's that whole Zero Gravity and No-Drag thing going on, but I digress.




1. I never said that markets should be eliminated, I myself rely on Hi-Sec partly because of the markets. I just don't want to see it boosted, i think it's fine now but if any change needs to be made it should be nerfed.

2. Guess what the highest selling game of 2011 was (not counting items included packages), it was Call of Duty Black Ops. Wonder why? It wasn't the single player, it was the multiplayer. From the fun of killing zombies with your friends to the excitement of killing your friends with a wide range of weaponry most of the games success came from it's multiplayer.

Plus you yourself said that hi-sec carebears only make up 1/3rd of the game population. That means that if PVP combat were removed 2/3rds of the game's population would vanish.

…except that bananas are berries.

She's hot.

While I do acknowledge that all sorts of accusations are tossed around by everyone with all of this saber-rattling; allow me to address some of your points because I feel they fall short of the mark


-The "Putting it all on the line" mentality so common in nullsec.

True, you shouldn't be in null/low if you don't want to risk your ship. However, you can lose ships anywhere in space. Even industrialists who never leave high-sec frequently 'put it all on the line' by taking speculative positions in the market.

-Non sensible 0.0 sovereignty mechanics.

Very, very true. No one likes shooting structures.

-Perpetual CTA's.

While this is true in some parts of space it isn't true in others. My advice: shop around a little better and don't settle for less.

-Future plans for destructible outposts and the high possibility of super caps rolling in and destroying all your assets.

Well hopefully it's implemented in an environment that sees a better balance of supers. The idea itself is a good one in terms of adding more risk to a stagnant null, opportunity to meaningfully wage war, and should encourage more space to be utilized as alliances spread their hubs out.

-Massive blob tactics.

Not for everyone, but TiDi has really turned large fleet fights into enjoyable endeavors.

-Constant pirate attacks.

After you've lived in null for maybe a week or two you pretty much know how to travel in a fashion that minimizes the risks. Opportunities for pvp aren't really a negative anyways, you just have to fight back.

-Lack of a market.

Not true, depending on how bad your alliance is. Sure, its not going to beat Jita but JFs make null markets pretty easy to establish.

-The feeling of being in danger 23/7/365.

Again, not true. As long as you fly smart, risk in null can be mitigated.

-0.0 alliance leadership and their bad habits of using members as meatshields on a whim.

[citation needed]

-The inability for smaller corps and alliances to wedge their way into 0.0 without paying unreasonable renter fees or getting destroyed on day two.

NPC nullsec.

-Poor logistics if any in 0.0.

Jump freighters make logistics a walk in the park for anybody in 0.0

-Terrible opportunities for industry production or mining. Especially with non stop CTA's.

Perhaps, but consider this: there's also a lot more demand and a decreased supply for ship hulls and modules. Find a way to exploit that. However on a large scale industry in null needs a buff.

-Not knowing if you log off one night in nullsec and log back in a few days later with the outpost under new management.

The lines don't really change that fast. They can, but rarely without warning.

-Nullsec alliances and events are NOT casual player friendly.

To get good mileage out of null, you can be a casual player as long as you have 'block time' available. ie: you can play 4 hours a week on a Sunday and have lots of fun.

-It's just not fun for most players.

[citation needed]

-The inability to financially keep up with the constant losses of expensive ships.

Incursions, PI, anoms, etc. The isk is there.

-The fact that most players don't have more than 100 million isk and are unable to pay for T2 ships and constant replacements.

See above.

-The unwelcoming attitude towards pilots flying T1 ships such as cruisers, destroyers and frigates. We have ships ready and able to PvP, so why are we always turned away unless it's T2?

[Citation needed]