Jita Park Speakers Corner

Like, oh I dunno, THE REACTION CONNECTOR INTERFAAHAGFADGFAJHFKAJHDKLJFHADF

LET MY PEOPLE DOCK, CCP!

Pff! You obviously haven't played enough dystopian-future RPGs.
Would Renraku unceremoniously off any shadowrunner in Shiawase's employ that they encounter? Of course they would! Pod pilots aren't civilians — they're free-roaming WMDs who have in the past shown themselves perfectly willing to ram stations and make them burn for 4+ years… shoot them and bill the clone for the ammo, I say!

Anyway yes, like I said: the numbers were just place-holders to demonstrate what could be done and what the consequences would be. It needn't be anywhere near that severe. The main point is really that corps would impose both limits and flat modifiers, so even if you ground enough standings to not be particularly affected by the negative modifier, they still don't like you very much on pure principle, and that the granularity of standings could (and should) be used for far more things than just let you run missions and/or get a good tax dodge out of it… and not all of those things should be positive.

Of course. I just picked Lai Dai as an example because they have that nice intra-faction rivalry going on with other Caldari corps, which could have some interesting consequences — both positive and negative.

Come to think of it, why is it that when I manufacture Falcons in a Lai Dai station, there isn't some obstructive and lethargic foreman who waddles up and says ”Sheeee, doc… I don't know if we have the tools for those parts. What's this? A 4.5 microfurlong bolt? Sorry, we only do metric here. I could order the bits, but it'll cost ya… 10% because you're such a swell guy.” (And who offers you a discount whenever you try to build Basilisks because they have a pallet of left-over nanoglue that hey haven't been able to shift.)

“T2 manufacturing is too simple and straightforward — it's the estimation of invention profit that is complicated”. There you go.

Just to complicate matters further, I originally thought to make a similar suggestion regarding T1 manufacturing, but I couldn't find a good or accurate database over which corps sold which BPOs.

…and either way, it would have to be accompanied by a complete industry revamp (including POS changes) to give people more reason and more tools to get out from under the restrictions NPC stations would impose — cleaning up T2 manufacturing would have to be a part of that. The aforementioned foreman is obstructive for a reason, and it's not just to RP in some individual benefits and penalties for joining a specific corp.

As mentioned, it's a tangent and a very loose “what if…” idea.

April, I believe.

What would it take to convince you?

Expanded answer (posting from a smartphone does not encourage going into detail)

If you're determined to believe that I'm a "company man" HBC stooge then there's not much I can do about that. Maybe I could show you screenshots of the HBC forum thread discussing the HBC primaries to determine who will be the "official HBC candidate"? Hint: It Is Not Malcy.

I don't decide which coalition INIT. belongs to, and I'm not about to leave the friends I've made in INIT over the last 3.5 years to prove a point. I'm reasonably content to be in the HBC and TEST have dealt fairly and generously with us, but I certainly don't think that means I owe them any special favours in the CSM.

Yet the fact is that many of the things that I sincerely advocate will benefit both the HBC and the CFC. I want trickle-up based alliance income, and that favours alliances with large, active memberships. But they won't exclusively benefit from those proposals; everyone in 0.0 will (or so I believe) - the ElitePVP groups will also benefit greatly if my ideas are accepted too, for instance.

And while many Goons and TEST players have posted in support of my ideas, I have never had any problem with disagreeing with someone whatever alliance they may be in. Indeed, here is an example dating from... this afternoon. In short: I agree with many players. Some of them are Goons or TEST or whatever. I disagree with many players. Some of them are Goons or TEST or whatever.

EDIT: If you want a more substantive issue where I disagreed with the CFC line, go look up the Jump Bridge nerf thread. I was definitely on the other side of that argument!



Re: Botting. I am now and always have been absolutely opposed to botting in all its forms. I accept no excuses for doing it, and I take gleeful pleasure in seeing botters punished. In my limited contact with TEST since we joined the HBC, I have seen no advocation of botting, discussion of botting on the forums (there is in fact an explicit rule against discussing EULA breaking activities) and I haven't seen any TEST bots or spoken to any reliable source who has. Are there bots in TEST? I'd be pretty naive to think that there weren't any. But I'd be dishonest if I said that I'd seen any signs of mass botting. At worst, the scale has been reduced to the level where it can be kept discrete.

I've also seen zero evidence that there's any official or unofficial HBC policy in favour of botters. My personal suspicion is that CCP Sreeg's campaign last year has been successful enough to at minimum make the alliance leadership distance themselves from such activities. Handling bot ISK is highly hazardous now, and getting half the alliance leadership banned is too great a strategic risk.

Malcanis, it's great to see you running for CSM.

Me, my alts, and I will all be voting for you!

I know he is not a moron. That is why I am considering giving him my votes.

However, the HBC agenda thing is also important to me, so I thought it would be worth a question or two.

I'm not one for tinfoils, but if someone I respect says "an alliance actively promotes botting" and then they are allies...well, I need to hear what the candidate has to say about it.

A politician joining a formation he vocally opposed before has a thing or two to explain to prospective voters.