Jita Park Speakers Corner

I thought I'd cross-post this here, just trying to get this into the ears oft the people who can do something about it (AKA, bring it up with CCP). Wallet Flash Threshold

Copy from the OP:
"I would love to see a setting in the wallet where you can set a minimum transaction value for triggering the wallet to flash. I don't know about everyone else, but I don't really care much about that 3k ISK bounty for killing the frig that I barely even noticed, but I do want to know when someone buys a sell order for 50M that I have.

I propose that there be an option to set a threshold in the wallet settings and any transaction under that threshold doesn't trigger the wallet icon to flash. "

Thanks for that idea. I posted it in that forum too (link). Anything to get more awareness for it. It seems like a really simple idea that would make things a lot less annoying at times, low hanging fruit and all that.

Not this question again.

Seriously, are you going to believe Mitanni, or for that matter any CSM rep if they say they care for the player base as a whole? What does that even mean when the player base is divided on so many issues? You can't argue for prioritizing development of flying in space over walking in stations and prioritizing development of walking in stations over flying in space; when someone says they "represent the player base as a whole" they are merely pretending the people who don't agree with them on the issues they care about aren't actually part of the player base.

Educate yourself on what Mitanni has done as CSM6 chair, perhaps by reading this thread or his candidate thread (the candidate thread's OP is very informative in particular). Ask any questions you still have about specific issues. If you like what he's done for the game then vote for him. If you don't, don't.

The only thing he can really mention, and has been mentioned before, as caring about what's good for the game (not in the interest of "the player base as a whole") as opposed to solely advancing his bloc's interest is advocacy for a technetium nerf when our alliance is absurdly rich from technetium. Some delusional posters have claimed that this is merely because we do not have more than half the technetium moons in the game, and thus are advocating for a tech nerf because everyone else in 0.0 combined has more tech income than we do. There's also his well-known advocacy for supercap nerfs, which people have disparaged as being solely for the benefit of fighting our foes. This is of course ignoring how the existence of supercaps in their current state keep poorer, newer alliances without supercaps from being able to compete with supercap-having alliances (including ours).

The simple fact is that goonswarm's playstyle aligns with the playstyle Mitanni advocates for as CSM, so of course it's going to seem like he's advancing his alliance's interests. Because he is, by making the game more enjoyable to them. Ultimately I don't think it's productive to worry about whether you can fully trust any one candidate; in Mitanni's case you should be considering whether the changes he brought about in CSM6 are the kind of changes you want more of. Anybody can promise you what they think you want to hear, but results are indisputable.

You're making way too much sense for him dude.

He won't understand.

Is advocating for nerfing technetium, supercaps, and hotdropping (implementing capital jump drive spool up timers), in "everyone's" interest? These are things he has proposed, but I don't think they benefit everyone, certainly not supercapowning, hotdropping, techmoonhaving groups.

I'm confused how asking someone to look at what he's done as a CSM chariman and decide from that track record if this is a person they can trust to make the game the way they enjoy it instead of trusting in unverifiable promises is "political doublespeak". Note that I don't say "better for everyone" or "better for the majority", this is not how democracy works. Mitanni advocates for nullsec warriors, griefers, and prioritizing flying in space over walking in stations. Other candidates advocate for different playstyles. The only thing you can really realize from his support of the technetium nerf is that the Mitanni is able to put aside his alliance loyalties to represent the wider playstyle of his constituents.

A single candidate representing "everyone" is frankly absurd and I would not put trust in such a person if you do not know and approve of his or her actual playstyle (which will be the playstyle they will actually champion when elected).




An actual question for Mitanni.

Way back in August of last year a devblog brought up an idea called "smallholding", an interesting concept that would allow small groups looking to set up shop and cause trouble in areas of nullsec without taking sovereignty. Even as a member of a sovholding alliance I am interested in this idea as the thought of being able to more conveniently live in enemy territory appeals to me.

Is this concept still under development by CCP? I haven't heard any mention of it since the linked August devblog.

Oh so that's why they want to wipe out all goons and related parties. Because we're not bipolar.

There's still an issue with anomalies.. Take Mag/radar sites in HS. Radar will give you an average of about 10mil per site. You'd be lucky to get 1 mil from a mag site there. The way I see it both sites are about the same difficulty in running. Can't comment on the nullsec/lowsec portion.. I have noticed a similar disparity in the WHs too though. I'm not saying to make it so that you run 1 site and you're stinking rich. But it'd be nice to have a balance so that when you scan a site, and it turns out to be a mag site, instead of ignore scan, you'd waste the time to scan to 100% and save location.

My question is about low sec: I'd like it to be possible for pirates to catch the cupbeers much more easily so that they cannot jump quickly through a gate laughing at the pirate. At the same time the cupbeers must have better tools to defend from being attacked by a pirate so that a long fight can happen (for the sake of fun). I also like the blobs at the gates to be removed (cupbeer cannot defend against blob and dies, not being a target for pirates anymore = unhappy pirate) but the gates still staying in low sec so that pirates and cupbeers can run and hunt between systems in low sec. Does your CSM program cover such a feature?

Will you ask CCP to double the current size of 0.0 space. I believe it will allow players to get involved in null sec shenanigans with the feeling they actually have a chance to effect and drive game content. I also believe that the current blocs would not be able to hold all that space, lead to the the breaking up of some power blocs. Hopefully the combination of fresh blood and dispersion of power blocs might attract new players to the game who feel like there is a new frontier to conquer so to speak.

I literally have no idea what you're trying to say.



I like the idea of being able to checkbox pirate vs faction mission types. I'm not a big mission guy, but I love checkboxes.



Nope. Most of nullsec as it stands is empty and uninhabited because the risk/reward balance is so ****, most folks park in hisec doing incursions or running L4s. Doubling the size of nullsec will just dilute a thin population more.

The issue you want to solve is risk/reward balance so there's a reason to live in null, make money, and fight over it.