Jita Park Speakers Corner

Arguable. They can be trivialised by bling but bling brings its own risks as you Goons know rather well. When I was doing them last year (and I don't believe the difficulty has changed much) we lost people often enough to make it interesting. It was also possible to escalate both risk and reward by popping the triggers and tanking multiple waves.

So while not high risk, certainly not risk free.

I also think that this is the kind of issue that sees us in danger of circular logic. Most people in high sec simply can't do excursions at all. They lack the leadership, the ability to do third party research and the contacts in the incursion community to get fleets. So they don't do them. If they did they'd get killed.

So it is high risk to those people but they don't run them at all rather than accept the dangers.

It's something that would be quite interesting to see the metrics on. What is the current score between Sanshas and us? Is it more dangerous to run a high sec incursion or a null sec anomaly? And if none of it is truly dangerous (since players can choose not to enter such sites if they'll probably die) why does one area of space have better reward than any other since all risk is equal except the risk from players.

Balance is achieved not, I agree, by parity of wealth but by evening out power. I listened to Elise reminiscing about soloing 200 people with his titan in the old days on a podcast (possibly Declarations of War). And I thought while it's a cool story this is exactly what we need to get away from, a gameplay situation that is fun for one person and sucks for 200 others.

One of the iconic images of Eve history is the Goon rifters tearing down the old and established. That can't be done if one older player is worth dozens of young players. As Eve ages we need to make sure it's possible for the poor to bring down the rich which won't happen if pvp is HACs or gtfo.

That's why I see the Retribution Cruiser tiericide as one of the most important redistributions of wealth in Eve history. It didn't give impoverished new players more money. It gave them more value for the ships they can afford.

I've just read and very much enjoyed your articles on lex malcanis and goon culture.

Regarding the effort required to become king of nullsec. Frankly I don't care who is king. What concerns me is that king ruling the whole map. If the test/fa thing blows over and PL drives into the drone regions we could see an all blue null within a year, at least as far as sov and infrastructure is concerned. I would much rather see a patchwork quilt of rival warlords.

I have no inside knowledge on whether the HBC and CFC want this to happen but if they did who could stop them?

Yeah, no, he's not. How 'bout them facts?

Vote Herr Ronin for someone who REALLY knows high-sec.

Let's see his manifesto:

Incursions
War Mechanics
Mission Running

Extensive list, indeed, and is certain to bring new prosperity to hisec, and balance hisec with the other security statuses in meaningful ways. I can definitely see why he would be someone's first choice.

Sounds like something THEY would say

<.<
>.>
-.-

I want to like Malcanis' candidacy. But then I see Frying Doom supports him. I feel like I'm being tricked.

Ok one of the hardest posts I have ever had to frame in my mind. Why would I support a candidate from Null sec.

Well let us start with some of the standard things most Null candidates say. (Well how it comes across to me anyway)

Q: What do you think should happen to Hi-sec Industry
A: Hi-sec is only a starting area, so Hi-sec should be nerfed and they should have to move to lo-sec or Null sec.

Q: What about small corps that don't want to join a large Null alliance.
A: Oh they need to go to Null so we can have target practice.

Q: Do you think the CSM should be a body for the whole of EvE.
A: No it makes a better lobby group for Null sec.

Q: Where do you think CCP should spend its resources?
A: Null

Q: Ok after Null where should it spend the rest of its resources?
A: Null

And so on.

There are those who still want the CSM to be a Null sec lobby group and a title for their alliance but little more than that. But CCP will never take a Null sec lobby group seriously. Now the balance of CSM 7 has helped but other factors have hindered it.

Malcanis, well he does not fit the profile of someone who is all for Null, his approach seems to cover the who game. This approach has now become more valuable with CCPs theme approach as I like the idea of having a CSM member who actually seems to understand the game and how it interlocks.

In a recent thread I learned Malcanis's views on a lot of EvE and his views for the future are similar to mine. Not the same but similar.

My future view of EvE is actually very simple it is Risk vs Reward and works kind of like this
Lowest risk to highest risk.

1. NPC corp member
2. Hi-sec player corp member
3. Lo-sec player corp member
4. NPC Null sec player corp member
5. SOV Null sec corp member
6. Wormhole player corp member

Now I can hear people say but an Null NPC corp member is risking more than a hi-sec NPC corp member. Well they are not really, they are risking what they are flying and nothing else.

NPC facilities should be the lower bracket in any space, Players in corporations risk POSs, Outposts and infrastructure such as logistics that NPC corps just don't have.

With this Dangerous space needs to grow, for example I am in favour of a usage based Sov system so it removes the structure grind but actually means to keep the area you just forced someone out of you must use it yourself to get Sov or just keep it empty to make it go back to unclaimed space. But the whole thing comes back to risk vs reward, Null players should be rewarded more han hi-sec ones but at the same time players spending hundreds of millions of isk on a POS in hi-sec should be rewarded more than someone just using NPC facilities.

So as I said risk vs reward and Malcanis seems to know risk vs reward better over the whole game than any candidate I have ever seen before so I am voting for him. It really is that simple.

Yes rambling a bit in this one sorry.

AFK cloaky campers aren't "impossible" to counter. They take some effort and some changes in your ship fitting to counter. Organising into a defence gang is also a very good idea. They're "impossible" to counter if you try and run 0.0 anoms like hi-sec missions.

That said...

I would support one nerf to cloakers: a cloaked ship should not be able to actively scan. If you want to use the DSCAN, system scan or probes, you should have to be uncloaked. That would mean a cloaker would have to briefly decloak to locate targets off his grid. That would give you your opportunity to know whether he was active or not.

Well to name only the most obvious example, the "answer" to the very first question in his list is the direct opposite of my view. Rather than hi-sec being nerfed to reflect it being a starter area, I think the way we look at hi-sec needs to be completely revolutionised, because it's clearly and obviously not just a starter area and hasn't been for the majority of EVE's existence.