Jita Park Speakers Corner

factional warfare is done in low sec not high sec.

…funnily enough, that's one of the larger problems with lowsec right now if you want to try to carve out a little niche for yourself. You can certainly do it and nothing is stopping you, but the cost quickly becomes so prohibitively high in terms of retaining your options and flexibility that it's a better long-term choice not to be in lowsec at all in spite of the (very slightly) better benefits.

…and at this point, it pretty much has to be a chosen condition when we consider how easy it is for them to find out and to vote if they really want to. Your comedy doesn't change the facts of sampling, by the way.

…assuming that minority doesn't represent the majority anyway — and there's nothing to suggest that this isn't the case — and even so, annoying them is not the right tool to get them to engage. Dismissing the opinions of those who do engage as unrepresentative with nothing to prove it is just plain despotic, and trying to paint the massive engagement numbers EVE has as “bad” in any way is still dishonest.

The fundamental question remains: what is the problem with the current representation?

Nor is the current level of voting any reason to not try harder to get an even higher level of involvement.

dont take multi bilion isk ships into lowsec ?

but honestly you can build and run with a few friends or fw in low sec and not spend anywere near what you would on mission fit to get an effective ship. i mean you wouldnt unless your good run around in null with billion isk ship. but no in my opinion low sec should be fw and outlaw space no recourse for pvp except possible loss of ships.

If you'll notice, I wasn't talking about ISK but about something far more valuable: options and flexibility.

No, the big point is that yelling will not make them change their mind and that you need to stop looking at ⅙ as being bad engagement or lack of representation. If people are interested and want to vote, they will; if they aren't and don't, they won't. The current methods are working exceedingly well and you might want to consider the possibility that the results are entirely true to what people actually think…

Ok, you're not getting what I'm saying.

The problem with trying to establish yourself in lowsec is that you have a choice: live under pretty much the same rule as in highsec — you can't actively target people who are gunning for you — and thus always be on the defensive, or give up all thoughts about ever returning to highsec, which means the (tiny) added benefits you gain for being there are lost because you can't spend them on anything. Lowsec locks you in in a way that neither highsec nor nullsec does: the supposed benefit of being able to protect yourself only hurts you and does so in such a way as to render any benefits from being lowsec rather meaningless.

Yes, the odd -10 passing by will be a legit target, but those are surprisingly few and far between — “nuisance attackers” (what would in highsec be labelled suicide gankers) are plenty common and they make sure that going after them is a costly business because you have to waste precious time and effort to clean up after yourself — time and effort that was meant to go towards reaping those (tiny) added rewards the space had to offer.

Yes, as usual, alts are a way around this but as always, any design that means you have to rely on alts to lead a normal life is fundamentally broken.

Says who?

argh forum software failure.... deleted

snipping lots, only because there was, in fact lots....



See "personal opnion", you could vote how you like.



Thats a campaigning issue. If a candidate only stood for reduced clicks, that would make them a **** poor candidate. But the same argument can be made against the current system - there is nothing stopping the current CSM focussing on their own personal irrelevance. What the suggestion would mean is that there would be some explicit lobby for indy (whether or not its useful is an issue for voters)



No I doubt that. Well unless a complete idiot was elected - which i guess is possible. One of the problems on the forums is that nullers et al make the assumption that highseccers just want more reward and less risk. In fact most recognise IMHO that balance is really important. There is confusion on the boards as to what HS is for - we see 'the noob area' and 'a valid gameplay choice' in equal measure. A decent PVE rep should be attacking the barriers to LS and NS PVE not seeking buffs for the already well subscribed HS activity. If CCP simply proposed 'nerf HS bounties', then of course a rep should be saying 'hold on, where's the balance? What are you giving us to do to to make ISK instead?'

TBH what I think your doing here is portraying a potential 'mission runner' rep as the worst of the forums carebear whiners - its a sort of generalised ad-hominem attack. Whilst forgetting that a lot of people run mission-alts to fund PVP and other game activity.




Are you serious? Missions... should require PVP fits not dedicated PVE fits so that people actually learn how to play. Mission AI? ? Boringness? Its only if your perspective is that missions are an intentional painful grind to make isk, that missions don't need love.



All decisions are up to CCP. All we are talking about is representation to that dictatorship. But CCP does worry and count how much time is spent doing what - thats their food supply. And it should be a guide - I am not saying that 60% of the CSM should be HS orientated, because that would be foolish - but it could be improved from what we have now - short answer - its up to CCP.

Wrong. Try again.