Jita Park Speakers Corner

Psychotic Monk, what do you think of Ripard Teg's ISK tanking proposals? Specifically, Ripards suggestion that it should cost more to gank expensive ships than it currently does. To what extent should ISK determine a pilots PvP capabilities?

We've all heard the stories about ridiculously expensive ships being brought down with guile and ingenuity, such as this 12b ISK Scorpion, killed with t2 equipment costing a fraction of the victims ship. Should this be eliminated from EVE in favor of Ripards idea of providing ISK armor to the wealthy?

To focus the question even more in light of your previous statements in this thread, let's assume that two pilots have similar situational awareness and neither fits horribly. Should the more expensive one be at a significant advantage as Ripard suggests?

Not at all, your response was pretty sharp and actually gave me hope for better fights if your ideas are heard.

Why not both? You get to make a list this time of your top 14. You can rank them in the order that you want them too.

It's absolutly fine as it is. This isn't a game centered around grinding and the SP and equipment account for only a very small factor in your success.

Ariadne, those are super good questions.

1) This one has a couple layers to it. Firstly, I'd like to state the idea of a dec following individual as the best possible solution, but it's one of the best around at the moment, so I'll defend it as such. If anyone has a better one, I'd love to hear it.

A dec following a character would, if I had a magic wand, last for seven days or until the war dropped, exactly like the timer to rejoin a corp at war currently does. This way an aggressor gets what he paid for and the defenders aren't locked into something without even the option to leave. However, that's the short-term effect. A while ago I put up a forum post ranting against terrible CEOs feeling that having a corporation was their right despite the fact that their poor leadership was poisoning our newbies by filling them with fear and ignorance. That's one of the reasons that I do what I do in game, hoping that terrible corps either crack under the pressure or find a hidden reserve of excellence.

In my hopes and dreams, highsec would have far fewer corps that have much more organization at the top, guiding and protecting their newbies and also interfering with each others business as they saw fit. The way to do this is to kill the weak corps until a corp can no longer leave their members out in the cold and dressed in filthy rags and still expect to survive. CCP seems to think instead the ignorant and badly organized should be protected as a 'play style' rather than letting them lose for the greater health of the game.

This is the same line of reasoning that would cause CCP to prefer those in nullsec being disorganized or without material support of some kind were it applied to nullsec.

2) Yes, you gain immense advantage from having alts in this game. And you gain some amount from having better equipment. But these are roles that can be more than made up for by having friends. All else being equal, two t1 cruisers are most often better than one t2 cruiser. (Except for Falcon, that ************.) While it is advantageous to have alts, having actual dedicated human beings filling those roles is better.

The second part of this question is do I think a player should be able to get a lot out of this game without very much invested in it. The awnser is a qualified yes. When properly supported a new or casual player can get a great deal out of this game. The way Goons treat their newbees and line members is a great example of this. They're taken in, given several great sources of information, both static (their wiki) and live (their mentorship programs and jabber channels) and are handed the things they need to get ahead without undue grinding. A newbie's first Noctis is pretty commonly free. And past that stage, they're given a communication system so that even if they don't want to do anything else they know when they can log in for an hour or two in fleet, or whatever.

Or there's a parallel in my own work. I'm fairly experienced at what I do, but I can invest an hour or so and find several ways to get a kill or steal something. It won't be something large, but then I only spent an hour doing it . This can be done solo or with one or two friends and, more importantly I can take a one-day-old player and lead them as they do it, too. Our systems aren't as sophisticated as goon systems, but the effect is the same.

So yes, a single player with minimal investment should be able to have a fulfilling play experience, but that's best achieved with the guidance and support of competent leadership or a system that serves that role.

Ah! This is a favourite topic of mine.

But first a slight correction. You say that one side of this question has players being forced into pvp (and I assume what you mean here is the pew pew ship combat sense of the term.) That's incorrect. The one side has players forced to protect themselves or find some sort of mechanism to protect them. If that means keeping a sharp eye on your intel tools and a finger near the warp button then that's good. If that means shooting other ships in space, that's also wonderful. If that means joining a corporation that protects you then I'm super glad you're actually getting some value out of your corporation. By no means should actually getting into a combat boat be your only option, but protection should be something that you or someone looking out for you does, rather than something you simply get to have.

That correction aside, I tend to equate the money through large subs vs. character of the game to the arguement between McDonalds and a high-quality intimate resturaunt. Eve was not built as a Skinner's Box, meant to give you small sense of accomplishment at regular enough intervals to keep you playing. Eve is a contact sport for your brain, meant to cater to a specific audience. You could argue to the owner of a fine resturaunt that he would make more money if he opened a McDonalds, but that's not why he opened his resturaunt. If he wanted a ton of money there's many better ways to do that. He has a specific feeling and a specific clientele and a specific menu in mind. His client-base isn't as large as McDonalds, but the clients he wants wouldn't go to McDonalds anyways. Showing up there and expecting a Big Mac is absurd and even if he did retool to serve those customers he'd make a ****** imitation of McDonalds, if that's even possible.

That would be unwise. James often points out that he's invincible and it's a little known fact that I'm unstoppable. We best not tempt fate.

James is a fine human being doing important work, but if you're looking for a more interesting and interactive highsec you should read his platform again. The changes he's proposing are stated to be in order to drive people to lowsec and nullsec. I instead feel that there can be engaging and challenging gameplay here in highsec if only the players were treated as adults and allowed to interfere in each other's gameplay.

While the most general direction is the same between us, both the destination and the course are quite different.

Also, I have a monocle and he doesn't.

Should James 315's platform be realized, there is no reason why all the interesting things you allude to wouldn't follow people into low and null. It's certainly not the Concord that keeps the fun in high sec.

I agree with most of your points, Mr. Monk, but, I'd like to throw a question at you re: wardecs following individuals.

How would you feel about some sort of "escape valve" allowing an individual to extract themselves from a corp wardec? Being a continual target that can't fight back does suck, and it would be a real morale killer for some.

A hypothetical example of what I am speaking of:

Corp gets wardecced. Individual can drop corp, and have a guaranteed 7 day end, or individual can suspend skill training for a week, to end being "target listed" instantly.

That may or may not be a good idea, but I think it gets my idea across. There should be a way to get off the target list instantly, but it should involve a hefty cost to the person using it.

Thanks in advance for your time, and good luck on the CSM bid.

There can be and frequently is interesting gameplay outside of highsec, yes. But there also can be interesting and engaging gameplay inside of highsec, too. Each area of space has a particular flavour, and gutting one area of space and destroying its flavour of gameplay in favour of another isn't the answer.

In my work, people do occasionally find that they aren't tough enough for a highsec where people can find ways to shoot them and they leave for nullsec or wormholes, so I'm sure I'm driving content in those directions, but losing all content in highsec because it's been made into the starter area that some people actually think it is destroys that flavour as surely as no one being able to shoot anyone else does.

Let me be clear. I do believe that the top end of earning potential in highsec should probably be nerfed, and the correct solution for a nullsec industry buff may (but not neccesarily) require a highsec industry nerf. I don't feel that highsec should be made smaller or that concord should be removed or that level 4 and level 3 missions should be moved to nullsec entirely.