Jita Park Speakers Corner

ty Trebor, quoted in linked thread

Well, given that I don't have a bloc behind me, I have to diligently wh*re for every vote I can get.

"Trebor -- servicing EVE players since CSM5"

+1 Man

Even better, I now have a warehouse full of Hello Kitty -- and it is an open secret that certain devs are huge Hello Kitty fans.

+1 You've got my vote.

I have succumbed to a memetic virus -- enjoy "I am a CSM"

Define "help". Quite frankly, some people think they are ISK-faucets that need to be nerfed a bit. My position is (as with other issues like ABC in WH) that CCP shouldn't do anything without having hard data with which to justify their actions, and that tweaks to Incursions should be aimed at rebalancing risk/reward and increasing the fun/challenge as opposed to blinding wielding the nerf-bat.


I have been pushing for a POS rewrite since CSM5 (I crowdsourced player POS concerns and raised and passed the Possibly Practical POS Performance Proposal); I think it's something that is way overdue, and something that fits in nicely with a overhaul of corporate roles. I have been actively lobbying for a POS rewrite to be the centerpiece of the Winter 2012 expansion.


I've been pushing for more effort here since I got on the CSM almost 2 years ago. I am seriously concerned about the lack of transparency (both to CSM and to the players) being demonstrated by CCP -- quite frankly, using "that's a security issue, we won't talk about it" as an excuse is a load of crap.

At the most recent summit, I was the CSM who called out CCP Sreegs and told him that his proposed "technical" approach to botters was flat out wrong.

RMT is an even more difficult problem than botting, because it interacts much more with the real world. I have repeatedly suggested to CCP that they engage the services of a forensic accountant to investigate RMT (just as they have an Economist on staff). Apart from helping fight RMT, the information gained may also provide insights into real-world criminal activity like money-laundering -- certainly there are some interesting and entertaining academic papers that could be written on EVE RMT.

There's simply not enough time to plan and implement such a major feature in time for the summer, IMHO.


It's a technical term, and I used it in that sense; Incursions and farming bounties both inject ISK into the economy.


One should be careful about stating "the data proves". It's all in how you evaluate the data. For example, the total amount of ISK injected into the economy by Incursions vs. other methods of earning ISK is a simplistic measurement. A better yardstick would be the earning rate per hour adjusted by the investment (in equipment) needed to achieve those earnings.

CCP seems to be on the right track regarding their current approach to balancing issues like Incursions. To quote from the December 2011 Summit Minutes, Page 8:

Focusing the discussion on Incursions, CSM brought up the point that Incursions are unbalanced in that the easier levels of Incursions are more profitable than the more difficult levels – something that CCP has noted as well and is working on adjusting. The full details of that adjustment are not known at this time as there are several options available. And the issue is not just monetary, the gameplay is also becoming too predictable, and with this predictability, the risk is reduced. Players applying cookie-cutter solutions to the sites, and running some in just a few minutes, is a problem that needs to be addressed. Both the CSM and CCP agree on that Incursions are good in terms of gameplay and ISK payout, but the time for adjustments based on player behavior data is at hand – adjusting the distribution of the sites and adjusting the payout being highest on the list. But this is a positive problem, these issues are cropping up because there are so many people running Incursions. Such changes will be another example of the iterative approach CCP is committing to.


The safety of deep nullsec and the resulting risk/reward imbalances are a well-known issue -- and the devil is always in the details. If you want to see the Lords of Nullsec go apeshit, just suggest that truesec dynamically adjust based on the estimated risk in each system (say, by keeping track of player losses).

Seems to me, though, that we are in broad agreement. Some tweaks are needed, and the idea should be to tweak the level of challenge in preference to level of reward to get the risk/reward to the right place.

Furthermore, I and others on the CSM are continually pushing for CCP to consult directly with affected player communities before making any final decisions. To quote again from the minutes:

The CSM reminded CCP that any changes done to game systems purely in terms of graphs and ISK consideration (i.e. in a vacuum) usually had some side effects on player behavior that resulted in increased player dissatisfaction. The CSM stressed that when game systems are to be changed, it has to be done in a holistic manner and in consultation with the playerbase. The CSM also wanted to make the point that such public discussions regarding Incursions, like the one taking place at the summit, were exactly the steps that needed to be taken to prevent these mishaps. CCP accepted the criticism and was also glad that the steps of discussing changes before implementation (another example is the hybrid balance done in Crucible), to prevent dissatisfaction in the future were accepted by the CSM.

Different people have different motivations for running for CSM, and their apparent motivations should be a factor that influences who gets your vote.

This would be hilarious (since we'd abuse the crap out of it by thunderdoming in rifters or smartbombing shuttles with neutral alts or some other such method).