| Pages: [1] 2 3 |
1. CSM7 Dec Summit Topic - Ship Balancing - in Jita Park Speakers Corner [original thread]
While you are balancing the ships, can you take a look at the warp speed and do something more interesting with it? Maybe mix it up a bit more between different ships, and expand the range between the slowest and the fastest? Or, perhaps, since ...
- by Sizeof Void - at 2012.12.08 08:28:00
|
2. CSM7 Dec Summit Topic - Ship Balancing - in Jita Park Speakers Corner [original thread]
T1 industrials, please. Always neglected and completely unbalanced. And, how about adding a combat industrial? Perhaps, a true Battle Badger?
- by Sizeof Void - at 2012.12.08 08:13:00
|
3. CSM7 Dec Summit Topic - EVE Economy & PLEX - in Jita Park Speakers Corner [original thread]
Don't particularly care much about arguing about in-game PLEX prices. Inasmuch as CCP has a monopoly on RL price and supply, they can always control the in-game prices, as they wish (or not). However, as long as you mentioned the "EVE Economy", I...
- by Sizeof Void - at 2012.12.08 07:55:00
|
4. CSM7 Dec Summit Topic - Mercs, Wars and Crimewatch - in Jita Park Speakers Corner [original thread]
Wardec fees should be based on the sizes of both the aggressor corp/alliance and the defender corp/alliance, such that: (a) base fees are based on the sum total of the members in both corps/alliances; and (b) if the aggressor corp/alliance is la...
- by Sizeof Void - at 2012.12.08 07:43:00
|
5. CSM7 Dec Summit Topic - Improvements on Bounty Hunting - in Jita Park Speakers Corner [original thread]
My feedback: 1. Bounties should only be placed on players with negative sec status. 2. A bounty should come with a persistent Suspect flag, making it legal to shoot players with bounties in high sec. 3. Outlaws (sec status -5.0 or lower) with a...
- by Sizeof Void - at 2012.12.08 07:29:00
|
6. Sticky:The voting reform discussion - in Jita Park Speakers Corner [original thread]
Lord Zim wrote: Sizeof Void wrote: Lord Zim wrote: And what do you think a hisec industry nerf would do, no matter how well it was explained to the playerbase, to the guy that was elected to "represent hisec" or "represent industry"? No...
- by Sizeof Void - at 2012.09.12 23:42:00
|
7. Sticky:The voting reform discussion - in Jita Park Speakers Corner [original thread]
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote: "lets keep marginalizing the engaged, motivated voters until some npc corp demagogue who speaks 'for the players' is satisfied. voters not turning up after my panacea of election reforms went through? we musn't have lim...
- by Sizeof Void - at 2012.09.12 23:34:00
|
8. Sticky:The voting reform discussion - in Jita Park Speakers Corner [original thread]
Lord Zim wrote: So why, then, require that CSM members pidgeonhole themselves to get elected, if they're supposed to be an all-encompassing conduit between the playerbase and CCP? Because, as I said before, this has nothing to do with the ca...
- by Sizeof Void - at 2012.09.12 23:15:00
|
9. Sticky:The voting reform discussion - in Jita Park Speakers Corner [original thread]
Ok, another idea to float by CCP and y'all (not a word, I know): Currently, we've got a handful of CSM members and alts. They don't get paid, the perks aren't all that spectacular, and yet they are expected to shoulder a lot of responsibility, do...
- by Sizeof Void - at 2012.09.12 22:59:00
|
10. Sticky:The voting reform discussion - in Jita Park Speakers Corner [original thread]
Lord Zim wrote: If someone says "I shall make sure CCP fixes POSes", and that's the position he's getting hired to do, people will expect him to focus on that. If someone actually said that, I'd probably vote against him/her. We're not hir...
- by Sizeof Void - at 2012.09.12 22:12:00
|
11. Sticky:The voting reform discussion - in Jita Park Speakers Corner [original thread]
Dersen Lowery wrote: Still, the fact is that those efforts are being undone by people actively spending hundreds of millions of dollars to convince people that it's just not worth voting, so it's hard to say what their effectiveness would be i...
- by Sizeof Void - at 2012.09.12 21:28:00
|
12. Sticky:The voting reform discussion - in Jita Park Speakers Corner [original thread]
Poetic Stanziel wrote: Sizeof Void wrote: Not exactly an impressive turnout. But, if you know of a way to get even a 50% turnout, under the current election system, then please suggest it. No one is likely to complain about that solution. Y...
- by Sizeof Void - at 2012.09.12 21:26:00
|
13. Sticky:The voting reform discussion - in Jita Park Speakers Corner [original thread]
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote: Sizeof Void wrote: Good in theory, but this is how it is setup now and it isn't working. (proof? - Nicolo) Obviously, we would not be having this discussion, if the current election system worked as CCP Xhagen ...
- by Sizeof Void - at 2012.09.12 19:56:00
|
14. Sticky:The voting reform discussion - in Jita Park Speakers Corner [original thread]
Dersen Lowery wrote: You're assuming that all of those billions are allocated toward increasing the voting pool. A lot of ads, specifically the negative ads, are intended to shrink the pool, and they're quite successful. Not at all. I wa...
- by Sizeof Void - at 2012.09.12 19:46:00
|
15. Sticky:The voting reform discussion - in Jita Park Speakers Corner [original thread]
Poetic Stanziel wrote: People will always organize into groups. How are you going to stop this? More non-alliance nullbloc people were voted into power in CSM7 than were voted in to CSM6. The greater voter turnout on CSM7 helped dilute the powe...
- by Sizeof Void - at 2012.09.12 19:37:00
|
16. Sticky:The voting reform discussion - in Jita Park Speakers Corner [original thread]
CCP Xhagen wrote: ...(but I seriously dislike the idea about having them pay to be able to run!) I agree. Unlike the AT, candidates for the CSM are not competing to win a prize - they are competing to take on a responsibility, one which come...
- by Sizeof Void - at 2012.09.12 19:21:00
|
17. Sticky:The voting reform discussion - in Jita Park Speakers Corner [original thread]
Malcanis wrote: Dierdra Vaal wrote: As such I think the real solution is here to encourage and facilitate voting more. Couldn't agree more. I really don't think anyone disagrees with this statement, but, thus far, no one has proposed ...
- by Sizeof Void - at 2012.09.12 19:16:00
|
18. Sticky:The voting reform discussion - in Jita Park Speakers Corner [original thread]
CCP Xhagen wrote: Regarding platforms or having predefined areas that candidates run for: I've always wanted the CSM to be as much player driven as possible. I feel that by declaring that people have to run on gamestyles limits the CSM in manne...
- by Sizeof Void - at 2012.09.12 19:13:00
|
19. Sticky:The voting reform discussion - in Jita Park Speakers Corner [original thread]
Lord Zim wrote: Sizeof Void wrote: 1. CSM seats are allocated to specific areas and issues in the game. One seat each is allocated to high-sec, low-sec, null-sec and WH space. Three seats are allocated to the highest-priority issues which CC...
- by Sizeof Void - at 2012.09.12 10:09:00
|
20. Sticky:The voting reform discussion - in Jita Park Speakers Corner [original thread]
Garet Jackson wrote: You do realize the genius of the CFC running for a high sec seat, right? To use as a sponge for all those high sec industry guys 'against' vote. Forcing them to use their against for that as opposed to a seat they really w...
- by Sizeof Void - at 2012.09.12 09:32:00
|
| Pages: [1] 2 3 |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |