Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 27 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1867
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 23:29:00 -
[91] - Quote
Abdiel Kavash wrote:The Mittani wrote:Nullsec will always need a strong representative on the CSM. CSM5 only had Vuk, and Vuk was away when a gaggle of people who have never used a jump bridge in their life told Greyscale that removing bridges would be peachy. Null said 'never again', and here we are. To follow up, what is your opinion on the actual JB change that hit TQ? Specifically a) only one bridge per system, b) jump-capable ships not being able to use JBs.
That was sort of a holding action on the part of CSM6, and our first major battle.
First of all, the very idea that bridges were 'safe' was something only a fool believes in. As we've seen though, until CSM6 took office, many foolish ideas about nullsec were espoused. As anyone who lives in null knows, you can camp a bridge with a dictor or hictor simply by parking your bubbler 300km off the bridge in line with the other bridge, safely outside of the range of any pos-guns.
So there was a lot of howling from 'small gang pvp experts' who have never run a bridge network that had no clue how to interdict bridges despite their 'expertise'; these are the sort of rabble that clog up forums like Failheap. They were pathetic, but they made a lot of noise and so our 'start point' of negotiations in CSM6 was from CSM5's laughably uninformed 'removing bridges would be fine' idea.
Since our start point was mired in ignorance, going from "remove bridges" to "one bridge per system plus a 300% fuel bay buff" is a success. Now the simpletons who never figured out how to camp a bridge with a dictor 300km off a pos can be on a gate instead, which is a lot easier and more obvious than a in-situ cloaking bridge-camp.
Did I include enough dismissive contempt for the 'remove bridges' wretches in this post? I can probably add more if needed. The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1869
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 23:38:00 -
[92] - Quote
Che Biko wrote: I am not sure where you stand yet on my second question. Can I conclude from your statements that the CSM doesn't represent all players and that's the way you think it should be?
I've seen your bad thread in Jita Park. You have a preconceived notion about the nature of the CSM and will twist anything I say to try to support that notion.
I won't play ball with your tinfoil. Maybe you could go roleplay some on Mike Azariah's blog? The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
Poetic Stanziel
Arrakis Technology
230
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 23:54:00 -
[93] - Quote
The Mittani wrote:Maybe you could go roleplay some on Mike Azariah's blog? Answer thy good gentleman's query, scoundrel! A pox upon your protestant soul!
EVE Online: Incarna - New Coke EVE Online: Winter Expansion - Coke Classic |
Temba Ronin
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
17
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 00:02:00 -
[94] - Quote
The Mittani wrote:[quote=Raid'En]1) people always says small alliances can't make a place on nullsec, do you agree ? if so, do you have an idea on what to do ?
Nerf supercaps and boost anomaly income, as well as provide more sources of isk for starting alliance by buffing exploration and fixing the Tech problem.
Looks like we've already got the supercap thing and the anomaly thing in motion.
[quote]
Mr. Chairman can you please explain why nerfing supercaps is a good idea? It would be helpful if you could enlighten those of us reading your thread who are not Null sec residents as to why and how taking something which seems like fun (flying an awesome killing machine) out of the game before we can get a chance to skill up and try it ourselves. |
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1869
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 00:03:00 -
[95] - Quote
Solo Player wrote:Questions I'd like to see you answer, dear Mittani:
1. What is your stance on the importance of plausibility/coherence of the game universe vs. gameplay mechanics?
1.a. In regard to your answer for 1., how do you feel a paint job for a ship should be priced in relation to the price of the ship itself?
1.b. As players of a subscription-based MMO, should we not be able to expect the majority of customization options (both current and future) to be free apart from a relatively small range of vanity extras?
I care more about balanced game mechanics than the 'coherence of the universe', since not many of my constituents pay attention to EVE's schizophrenic fluff anyway. Because of this, I'm not too interested in relating the pricing of paint vis a vis actual ingame 'fluff' paint value.
I don't know what 'players of a subscription based MMO' expect in an industry shifting from subs from microtransactions. I don't really give a crap about what they price vanity items so long as pay-to-win never shows up in EVE. The $70 monocle was stupid and doomed the NeX to failure, but my constituents are mostly nullsec warriors who don't care about fashion. I'd prefer their pricing strategy to be actually successful so CCP stops firing their employees, though.
Quote: 2. As a stricly solo player (who has his reasons to stay that way) in EVE, I currently don't find many paths in the game to really be fun. Do you think players like me should be considered at all or should they just bugger off and play a single player game?
2.a. If the former, what would you suggest to be done make the game more fun for solo players?
A solo player finds a game designed to be played in a group tedious and boring? Quick, let's redesign the social game to accommodate him!
Go play X3. It's a much better singleplayer space game than 'solo EVE'.
Quote: 3. Is high sec empire space more of a theme park or a sandbox, and what should it be?
Sounds like a trivial semantic distinction between vague abstractions, and thus meaningless.
Quote: 4. Do you avoid the Assembly Hall on purpose?
I don't go there often. The Assembly Hall has the odd good idea in it, but I think it should be merged with 'Features and Ideas'. The AH subforum is a relic of the first couple of CSMs when the CSM was considered a parliamentary organization rather than an advocacy group, and it deludes the players who go to the AH with the false hope that the CSM is like a 'space congress' where votes on proposals result in game changes being 'passed'. The CSM isn't parliamentary at all, which is why years worth of upvoted AH proposals rot on a backlog, ignored by CCP.
Quote: 5. What do you answer those whe decry this thread as an empty PR vehicle of the current CSM establishment?
6. What's your conntection to ancient Mesopotamia and the Hurrians?
5. Something between "lol" and "suck my ****". Take your pick.
6. I got a minor in Ancient Law and learned Akkadian back in college. We studied the Amarna Letters which had a lot to do with discourse between Egypt, Mittani and Akkad. The name was cool so I named a Malkavian Elder in a WoD game 'The Mittani', and recyled the name when I came to EVE. The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1869
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 00:09:00 -
[96] - Quote
Amber Green Thorn wrote:Any politician when asked 'will you stand for re-election', no matter what their intentions, will always be advised by his or her sleezie advisors to say yes!!- lest the politician seems lacking in staying power or committment.
Mittani -You are very good at this sh*t and have done well for us all in the last year. Thank you. Not read anywhere that you intend to stand down, however I may be mistaken. The question many will be asking is this: Will you say now that you intend to stand again for the CSM?
also BTW - Are you gaye?? Or do you just like the look?
I've already said in this thread that I'll run for CSM7, barring being banned or CCP driving the game off a cliff. CSM6 is the most organized and effective CSM yet, and I don't see why we should toss that kind of power away now that we've finally gotten CCP to focus on spaceships.
I'm not gay, but I am very, very pretty. Ain't no thang. The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
Solo Player
60
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 00:11:00 -
[97] - Quote
Since I believe you did not exude enough dismissive contempt in your last post on the subject:
The argument could be made that a space setting requires a strong sense of vast distances, and thus, in EVE, distances should matter a lot. Now, some would feel that this illusion is negatively impacted on by JBs (as well as by jump drives, jump clones and, not least, warp to zero). Due to these conveniences, treks from the fringe to jita are felt to have turned into trips, and power is much too easily projected across swathes of space.
I gather you do not share these feelings. What disadvantage do you feel has been removed by this development, aside from inconvenience? Wouldn't you say that locality and strategy have suffered from it? |
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1869
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 00:11:00 -
[98] - Quote
Nubs McIbis wrote:The Mittani,
As Chairman of the CSM and King of Space, you must get many letters from irate pubbie constituents. Can you please publish a blog of the most entertaining complaints you have received? I am particularly interested in reading letters written in-character by Very Serious Roleplayers. Also any letters threatening legal action.
Sincerely, Nubs McIbis, Concerned Voter
Sadly, I don't. Most of my voters are die-hard null types who appreciate what I've managed to do, and the irate pubbies who didn't vote for me are either drooling, eating paste, or penning whine thread about how I blew up their Mackinaw. The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1871
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 00:59:00 -
[99] - Quote
Temba Ronin wrote: Mr. Chairman can you please explain why nerfing supercaps is a good idea? It would be helpful if you could enlighten those of us reading your thread who are not Null sec residents as to why and how taking something which seems like fun (flying an awesome killing machine) out of the game before we can get a chance to skill up and try it ourselves.
You can do your own research. There's a ton of threads related to this, including the comments in the supercap nerf blog itself. The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
Temba Ronin
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
17
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 01:04:00 -
[100] - Quote
The Mittani wrote:Temba Ronin wrote: Mr. Chairman can you please explain why nerfing supercaps is a good idea? It would be helpful if you could enlighten those of us reading your thread who are not Null sec residents as to why and how taking something which seems like fun (flying an awesome killing machine) out of the game before we can get a chance to skill up and try it ourselves. You can do your own research. There's a ton of threads related to this, including the comments in the supercap nerf blog itself. Mr. Chairman thanks for the swift response i shall indeed research this issue as you have instructed. |
|
Zagdul
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
68
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 02:25:00 -
[101] - Quote
The Mittani wrote:Zagdul wrote: What are your ideas for making inactive/hiding alliances who hold sov in nullsec lives a bit more difficult so that the "blueball" technique is less used and attacking parties don't have to commit so much in terms of resources for those who don't utilize their space?
Would you like to see more of a dynamic system in null sec where activity and system use is what determines the difficulty to take/remove sov from people?
I.E.: ihubs/stations HP nerfed (hardcore) and sov levels of system usage (military/industry/ a new marketing and jump activity as well as potentially moon mineral per month accumulation etc..now determines strategic level)
Then, Sov increases the resistances of structures. Potentially, the sov V systems also have a reduction in sov bills!!
What would you like to see in null sec going forward so we don't continue to have the "screw grinding sov structures" problem that currently exists?
I think destructible outposts will make a huge difference. People who hide will have their empire burn around them; people who dislike shooting structures will have a different view of the experience when the outpost they're shooting becomes a smoking ruin at the end of the day. Destructible outposts also open up the possibility of punitive invasions, rather than invasions purely of conquest. No one wants to conquer Cobalt Edge, but a lot of people would enjoy burning IRC out of their hovels. I don't have any 'magic bullet' sov fix ideas, sadly; I'm not a game designer. I know a dumb idea when I see one, though. Distributable/Incapacitated outposts in my opinion don't provide enough incentive for an attacking alliance to hit someone.
An idea I've been trying to push/develop is the activity in held space = reward. The more active a system is, the higher the resistances on the sov infrastructure thus increasing it's hp.
If an alliance decides to abandon it's space, the resistances drop, thus the EHP drops and making "cleanup" easier. However, current infrastructure would need an HP nerf.
When you're at Sov1 the HP is low enough that a fleet of 100 people can hit a system and reinforce it with battleships in < 30 minutes time. As it stands now, this is not possible due to the insane hp sov structures + stations have.
When we went to provi to hit a smaller alliance, they hid. This made creating fleets to go harass them dull and boring. Burning someone smaller to the ground should be fun and engaging. Keeping participation up to be involved with this activity should be enjoyable for the attacker but currently isn't as all you need to do as a defender is spam a station throughout your constellation. If you come under attack, hide for 2 weeks till the attackers leave.
Hiding behind the shield of HP shouldn't be a viable defense. I don't believe distributable outposts solve the problem.
It's not Rocket Surgery |
Takara Mora
University of Caille Gallente Federation
11
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 02:31:00 -
[102] - Quote
The Mittani wrote:This thread is to provide a consolidated place for my constituents to ask questions and receive personal responses from me.
In the midst of Goonswarm's campaign against the mining bots cluttering up empire, there has been a tremendous amount of noise and distortion about my opinions and positions as Chairman of the CSM, which have nothing to do with my perfectly honorable and reasonable desire to drop Brutixes on Exhumers.
While I do not promise to suffer fools or kiss babies, I'm happy to clarify my positions on the issues of the day if you're wondering what I think about... whatever, be it the hybrid changes, whether there should be insurance payouts for CONCORD killmails, or lunatic conspiracy theories about how I hate wormholes.
I'm going to toss a link to this thread into my sig and just turn it into a general Chairman's FAQ as it progresses.
So, are there really no mining bots in Goon space? :) |
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1872
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 04:06:00 -
[103] - Quote
Takara Mora wrote: So, are there really no mining bots in Goon space? :)
I know that it's ~completely mindblowing~ for a hiseccer, but most nullsec alliances don't mine. Except IRC.
Mining is awful. Don't do it. The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
Poetic Stanziel
Arrakis Technology
231
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 04:34:00 -
[104] - Quote
Why is Goonswarm Federation listed as a FACTION on EVE Gate and not as an alliance?
What is the difference between Goonswarm Federation and GoonSwarm (the Alliance)? (I'd link Goonswarm Federation, but factions don't get their own EVE Gate page, so they are not linkable.) EVE Online: Incarna - New Coke EVE Online: Winter Expansion - Coke Classic |
Takara Mora
University of Caille Gallente Federation
11
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 04:56:00 -
[105] - Quote
The Mittani wrote:Takara Mora wrote: So, are there really no mining bots in Goon space? :)
I know that it's ~completely mindblowing~ for a hiseccer, but most nullsec alliances don't mine. Except IRC. Mining is awful. Don't do it.
Yeah, you're right ... I actually DON'T believe you :)
But that's what bad guys are for .... |
Tasiv Deka
The Baseborn Syndicate
8
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 06:50:00 -
[106] - Quote
First off I don't care what people think about me for saying this but, I find Combat PVP to be truly boring of course while i have only gone on a few low/null runs (roughly 20 ventures lasting anywhere from 1 to 3 hours) there never seems to be anyone to fight (and no i am not saying this because i have only ever died i did find my fights entertaining when i could manage to find them) and the idea of attacking a mining/industrial that's just going to sit there like a moron doesn't seem interesting (i am an adrenaline junky after all) so my question (ignoring the significant sized build up) is do you consider lack of small scale PvP opportunities to be a "Gaping Chest Wound" as i believe you called it, and if not do you consider it a problem at all?
Also I do have to agree with you that the idea of being able to raze systems would be entertaining just to hear about if nothing else.
oh yes before i forget you say in most of your posts that mining is terrible yet i believe it was in an earlier one in this thread that you stated that 0.0 mining had become worthless is this why you have your views on mining? and if so how is the CSM expressing to CCP that mining needs to be changed apart from the botters because unfortunately that is part of MMO life.
Edit: My apologies the post i was talking about is on the first page of "How can we as players help fix the sandbox that is EVE" and goes as follows
Gank miners in empire to make nullsec mining worthwhile again.
sorry for not quoting it but posting from my phone is already an enormous chore |
Mike Azariah
Gallente Benevolence Association
4
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 06:52:00 -
[107] - Quote
Poetic Stanziel wrote:The Mittani wrote:Maybe you could go roleplay some on Mike Azariah's blog? Answer thy good gentleman's query, scoundrel! A pox upon your protestant soul!
Guys, he did answer that early on in this thread. Do try to keep up. He does NOT represent everybody nor does he care to. Tell the truth I totally agree with him on this one. There are a lot of folks who prove that they need less representation and more medication.
As to whether the CSM as a whole represents the player base . . . I doubt you could form a committee of 9 that DID.
Each election we get what organization and apathy and stone cold ignorance conspires to give us.
This year we Got Mittens and crew.
Speakin of which, yer lordship, sir . . .
I understand you separation of player (ganking ice miners) and CSM chair. Please do me the same courtesy of keeping my fictional blog separate from questions or opinions expressed here. Others seem to have managed to make that distinction.
Is the CSM in the loop for Dust 514 or is that a) NDA covered b) Not Eve therefore not your baliwick
m
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
987
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 07:44:00 -
[108] - Quote
The Mittani wrote:Takara Mora wrote: So, are there really no mining bots in Goon space? :)
I know that it's ~completely mindblowing~ for a hiseccer, but most nullsec alliances don't mine. Except IRC. Mining is awful. Don't do it.
You made (what I assume was) a complimentary response to my hi-sec manifesto. Obviously CSM6 has it's hands full with getting CCP to deal with the 0.0 issues we're all so familiar with, but is there a chance you'd press CCP to give some thought as to how hi-sec should work if you're re-elected? Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Lord Zim
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
64
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 07:49:00 -
[109] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:You made (what I assume was) a complimentary response to my hi-sec manifesto. Obviously CSM6 has it's hands full with getting CCP to deal with the 0.0 issues we're all so familiar with, but is there a chance you'd press CCP to give some thought as to how hi-sec should work if you're re-elected? I assume you've had a chat with Vile Rat? |
Redklaw
VALHALLA'S Wrath True Reign
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 10:13:00 -
[110] - Quote
Mittani,
I'm a member of a small alliance in null and am anxious as to what forseeable solutions there are to existing problems with sovereignty mechanics.
I feel that this among the top things holding back small groups from actually making an impact on the enviroment of nullsec. The vast majority of claimable null is unoccupied with sov held by mega alliances or their pets, this space would be better utilized and would bring health back to null if smaller alliances were fighting for this territory.
It feels game killing to be in a small alliance that can keep a ton of it's members nearly 23/7 in claimed area only to have it taken at leisure by a mega alliance that only even visits the system to re-enforce or protect a structure.
I believe that Mega alliances should truly be juggernauts when it comes to SOV and tracts of held space, but there should be a mechanism for alliances of all sizes to hold space if they show the dedication to do so.
I'm wondering if there is a proposal to somehow change sov mechanics to be based on actual occupancy and activity within an area, or at least make it feasible for a small alliance to hold sov at all.
And if there isn't, would you be willing to plead the case for one? |
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
987
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 10:16:00 -
[111] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Malcanis wrote:You made (what I assume was) a complimentary response to my hi-sec manifesto. Obviously CSM6 has it's hands full with getting CCP to deal with the 0.0 issues we're all so familiar with, but is there a chance you'd press CCP to give some thought as to how hi-sec should work if you're re-elected? I assume you've had a chat with Vile Rat?
Actually I haven't. Should I? Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Max Flipper
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 10:25:00 -
[112] - Quote
Kaver Linkovir wrote: A wall of fame and shame Player benchmarks on display. Right now you have to leaf through all manner of logs in the client or through piles of information offered up by secondary outlets to see your own greatness. Do you feel player benchmarks such as first hull, first pod, first gcc, biggest fight partaken in, biggest loss suffered, npc corporate standing and other logged happenings should be on display for the player? Corpmates? Alliancemates? Everyone? In CQ? On player lookup?
You want Achievements? In my EvE? Its more like then not to be implemented in a ******** way. With a Sandboxgame like EvE most "notable" Achievments are hard to measure in a predictable way. How do you detect if someone has successfully infiltraded a Corp, made someone Ragequiet and so on. So please don't
|
Lord Zim
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
64
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 10:46:00 -
[113] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Lord Zim wrote:Malcanis wrote:You made (what I assume was) a complimentary response to my hi-sec manifesto. Obviously CSM6 has it's hands full with getting CCP to deal with the 0.0 issues we're all so familiar with, but is there a chance you'd press CCP to give some thought as to how hi-sec should work if you're re-elected? I assume you've had a chat with Vile Rat? Actually I haven't. Should I? I think so: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=22653&find=unread |
Zyrbalax III
Goldcrest Enterprises
18
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 11:34:00 -
[114] - Quote
This thread has allayed a lot of my concerns about CSM and also about your chairmanship of it. This is the kind of communication I would hope to see from a CSM chairman. Thank you for taking the time to create it and respond to so many posts. |
Arkanon Nerevar
2
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 11:37:00 -
[115] - Quote
I have a few questions mostly directed towards your position as the null-sec representative, there fairly interlinked questions so feel free to structure the answers as you see fit.
Q:do you think the coming supercapital changes are going to shift null battles away from super cap pilots being the most desired by the alliances
Q:sub cap fleets today have mostly moved to just BCs (whelpcanes, drake) do you think null batttles will now shift back to the tactical BS fights of yore, which we quite frankly call "the good old days"
Q:do you think the coming gallente changes are enough to make their ships viable across the board for null-sec life/battles
Q:some players (myself) have a strong inclination to want to fly just one factions ships, generally because of a combination of looks/mechanics/feel, do you think this kind of thought is applicable/viable in null-sec in general Trust Not in God, but Have Faith in Antimatter-Gallente capsuleer motto |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
987
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 14:05:00 -
[116] - Quote
Arkanon Nerevar wrote: Q:sub cap fleets today have mostly moved to just BCs (whelpcanes, drake) do you think null batttles will now shift back to the tactical BS fights of yore, which we quite frankly call "the good old days"
~Citation Needed~
I'm still seeing BS as the go-to subcap fleet ship for large fights. Drakearmy has had it's heyday and been in decline since PL rolled out their Hellcat doctrine (and since Team Gridlock did their excellent thing and pushed the lagbar so much higher).
What we don't see any more are the old-school long-range BS, due to the extreme efficiency of on-grid probing. Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Quebber
Edge of Midnight
6
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 17:00:00 -
[117] - Quote
You have been quite vocal when it comes to the RMT and Botting that it is up to CCP to police there own game how exactly does that reconcile in your own and the CSM's role of "policing" ccp, bringing players together to fight any changes in eve that are seen as wrong or impact the game as a whole.
How can you justify sitting on the fence and saying it is not ours or a players problem, I agree ccp needs to put more effort into dealing with these problems but as my local police man told me "we can not be everywhere, we need your help and comunity support to deal with these issues" If we do not take a stand if leaders do not help set a standard nothing that ccp does will solve this.
This may be their world but it is our home. I have actually left alliances and lost "friends" because I did what I believe was right in standing up to RMT and botters. |
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1908
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 17:51:00 -
[118] - Quote
Solo Player wrote:Since I believe you did not exude enough dismissive contempt in your last post on the subject:
The argument could be made that a space setting requires a strong sense of vast distances, and thus, in EVE, distances should matter a lot. Now, some would feel that this illusion is negatively impacted on by JBs (as well as by jump drives, jump clones and, not least, warp to zero). Due to these conveniences, treks from the fringe to jita are felt to have turned into trips, and power is much too easily projected across swathes of space.
I gather you do not share these feelings. What disadvantage do you feel has been removed by this development, aside from inconvenience? Wouldn't you say that locality and strategy have suffered from it?
This is one of the inexperience-fueled delusions that beguiled CSM5. Having never run a war before, they didn't understand that sov war is based on staging systems, alliance contracts, and forward deployments. One moves into a staging area and sets up shop for ops; one doesn't bounce between the front and your homeland. Fleet combat alts stay at the front, isk-making alts remain home or in hisec. Ignorant cries of 'but but, homeland defense' are met with a smirk and a remark about jump clones.
Removing jump bridges would only impact the lives of people inhabiting a region, and not change one's ability to wage distant war. Goonswarm is at war in Delve right now on a lark, half a galaxy away from Deklein. Our pilots are not trekking 7+ regions up and down the map each op.
So no: locality and strategy have nothing to do with it. There needs to be an incentive to bother building up a civilization in nullsec, since god knows after the Anomaly nerf there's not much point to holding and upgrading sov. You don't need sov to make moon income, after all.
Quote:Edit: thanks for your frank answers to my other post. Therein, it seems you use a limited view of your constituency as your null-sec voters. I think in other instances, you regard the whole of (at least the fundamentally sane) Eve playerdom as your constituents. What'll it be?
My voters are my constituents, but I do try to unfuck the game as a whole. The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
Che Biko
Humanitarian Communists
29
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 18:42:00 -
[119] - Quote
The Mittani wrote:You have a preconceived notion about the nature of the CSM and will twist anything I say to try to support that notion.
I won't play ball with your tinfoil. You seem to have a preconceived notion about me.
I'll asume that you think my notion is "the CSM does not represent all players, but it should". I hope you'll agree that you haven't written anything (to me, anyway) that indicates the contrary, even when I ask you to clarify your statements. Quite the opposite, you avoid giving me clear answers, leaving me thinking you don't want to give clear answers.
You could have answered my question either a simple "yes" or "no" but instead you decided to post this (which is, as far as I can tell, supposed to be the answer to my question):
The Mittani wrote:The CSM, like all democratic bodies, represents those interests which care enough about their issues to get off their asses and vote in an organized way. This means that the unorganized and unmotivated are completely unrepresented, just like in the real world. Because this does not give me a clear answer, you leave it to me to interpret it. And when I then ask if a certain interpretation is the correct one, you refuse to answer, and seemingly try to discredit me to justify your actions.
I have been, and still am, more respectful to you than you have been to me. I therefor find it ironic that you are done playing ball with me. |
Venus Vermillion
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
207
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 20:31:00 -
[120] - Quote
Oh great and powerful King of Space,
I have but a few small questions for you that I hope you will bless with answers.
1 - How does it feel to be so incredibly ~spacefamous~ that your name causes people to go on spy hunts? (The Mittani sends his regards.)
2 - You miss Prencleeve, right? I mean seriously.
3 - As your sponsoree, have I done you proud?
4 - Is it true that I'm actually your alt? Riverini seems to indicate that I am and I can't disprove it. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 27 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |