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. "

Huh, that's a really good idea. To get it more visibility, I'd suggest posting it in the stickied 'little things' thread general discussion. The devs actually read that!

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.

Do you actually care for the player base as a whole, or only the interests of goonswarm and its allies?

yeah, because everyone's opinion deserves respect

lawl

Opinions don't, but most people should be treated with respect even if you don't respect them. It's common courtesy. Even though you've treated me with far less respect than I've treated you, it still does not stop me from showing you more than you show me.
If I have done anything that makes me not worthy of being treated with respect, than please tell me what it is.

If you are tired of discussing a certain topic with me there are more polite ways to let me know. If you choose not to do so without a valid reason (and there are few valid reasons IMO) then it looks like you are trying to manipulate me emotionally.

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 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.

Opinions don't, but most people should be treated with respect even if you don't respect them. It's common courtesy.

Instead of increasing the value of anomolies, why not decrease some of the rewards from other regions, such as highsec incursions (which are already grossly imbalanced with respect to risk/reward.) This, in turn, would increase the inherent value of anomolies. There's already more than enough ISK flowing into the system, do we really need more? It's simply causing inflation. CCP should be looking at removing some of the ISK flowing into the system, not increasing the flow.

Was the CCP economist one of the people laid off? It would seem so.

What's actually being asked here is really simple.

Can he overlook self-interest in order to put forward an idea that is in everyone's best interests?

Is he actually capable of that?

Due to your political double-speak I'd suggest the real answer is probably no.

The problem: For a lot of LP store items, it is simply unprofitable (even, in some cases, virtually impossible) to acquire the tags required to purchase items, due to really low drop rates of particular tags. In addition, the distribution of antifaction missions is really lopsided (for example, in Gallente space, the main antifaction missions are Pot and Kettle and In the Midst of Deadspace...where the enemy is Amarr. Nice going, CCP!).

The solution: Split the distribution of missions, so that either wholly anti-pirate or anti-faction missions are offered. When a capsuleer first approaches their agent, for example, a dialogue box would pop up asking "Hello [name], I can offer you a choice of either political or law and order missions. Which one would you like take?"

I'm sure there are problems somewhere with this but I don't have the time to intricately go through them now. I will later, though.


Thanks for your comments/ideas/supports/trolls.


Adding mxzf's suggestion (see below):

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?

Whilst we are not all carebears, we do all to one degree or another rely on faction modules and the like from various LP stores. As you may be aware, these are horribly broken in terms of tag requirements, primarily to do with the frequency and distribution of anti-faction missions.

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.

Ah Leader, how fare you today?

Question, how would you feel about the removal of barges/exhumers from hi-sec as a carrot/stick incentive for Industrials to advance into low and null?

Obligatory 'eve has sound' joke goes here. From what I understand the bug hunters are volunteers, but I haven't looked into this as your post is the first I've heard of it. It might also be a known issue - ie, they know it's broken so they close it, but it never gets fixed by CCP, since bug hunters can't fix bugs, only find them and dump them on an issue list.

Ah Leader, how fare you today?

Question, how would you feel about the removal of barges/exhumers from hi-sec as a carrot/stick incentive for Industrials to advance into low and null?

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.

Oh No.. I agree with the Mittani... I really am going to Hell