I say drop them smack in the middle of a fleet battle soon as the exit character creation.

Your views on the place of moongoo are excellent. "An organizational perk, but not absolutely necessary to be remotely competitive" is about as perfect a place for moongoo as you can get. I'd be willing to state that the majority of people who comment on moongo don't even know that it was never the intent for technetium to be the bottleneck, nor even the nature of the bottlenecking inherent in current t2 extraction and production that is the ultimate cause of all the moongoo issues.

The knee-jerk reaction seems to be "remove moons" or something else similarly extreme, while even in their broken state they have provided half a decade of decent gameplay. If done right for once, moons absolutely have a place in Eve, as they are an organizational reward and, all else being equal, an excellent way to provoke fights.

Hmm that doesn't accord with my recollection: I seem to remember that the elite spreadsheet crew in Market Discussion (particularly Akita T) spotted the tech bottleneck almost immediately, and tried quite hard to get CCP to acknowledge. But CCP were pretty much "We're done talking about this, enjoy your :18 months: while we focus on spacebarbie monocoles"

This is my soapbox, and if I'm ready to ask you to entrust me with the considerable responsibility of representing you, then I'm ready to answer your queries.

Mynnna could probably answer that better, but with FW as a major source of datacores, I don't think the revenue would be going to high sec.

Long term, the answer is to have better rats that require PvP fits and are optimally dealt with by groups of players. Until then there's no obvious solution that will make everyone happy.

As for the CCP comment, it was in the original testserver/F&I post (don't recall which forum it was). CCP Foxfour said it wasn't a bug, perhaps not intended, but to HTFU. He said those looking to gank ratters would just have to adapt or bring friends. It shouldn't necessarily be a solo endeavor to kill a ratter. As to the RP version, if you were in a fight and couldn't kill the giant carrier taking out your friends, and some other guy in a frigate warped in, wouldn't you want to take something out before dying?

As to the whole make pve use pvp fits, that'd be great if the ships were being balanced that way, and the missions were being redesigned to accomplish that goal. As CCP Foxfour isn't even on either team anymore as far as I can tell, this is just another thing that someone had a vision for, and was then abandoned as they got moved to do something else.

high risk high reward high sec gameplay (done - by Incursions).

Overview configs can be shared already, but it's finicky and means messing about in the game file folders. I really like the in-game item concept, even if it means restarting the client to make it take effect. I'll be pushing the idea, and more importantly the theme behind it which is to allow players to help other players play the game.

So in essence, you want to nerf one form of play-style to make your own more relevant?

As it is, the wind seems to be blowing against a high-sec nerf. The latest patch added more manufacturing lines to high-sec space, and .

I respect your position, and I sincerely hope to see more null-sec buffs and features. But I can't agree with doing it at the expense of high-sec.

You're seriously not on Twitter? A candidate who is not on Twitter is a candidate with no intention of communicating with the players.

Yes. It's entirely absurd to be on the forums and Twitter. You're so absurd, Mynnna. Every major candidate, but Malcanis, is so damned absurd.

my point still stands, nerfbat is bad and a benevolent CSM is bad for eve in my opinion, no votes from me,
thx for your time.