Rubbish, the only reason you got away with it is that it would have tarred your real life reputation, that’s why CCP backed off.
You outed your rl identity when you were caught, effectively leaving CCP’s hands tied when threatened with a lawsuit.
Argue as much as you like, your honesty and reputation is now well known in the game.
They should have stuck to their guns and banned you for life.
I want whatever drugs you’re taking because it must be some good ■■■■ to make you spew nonsense like this.
I believe that title belongs to Chribba 
Also you may find that your forum experience will improve greatly if you block Lucas…
Stagnation is there, but it has (or had) more to do with how oppressive logi is - there is that size were you have enough logis on the field that nothing gets destroyed. At that point one needs to alpha ships, but that already means that fight has to escalate to quite huge sizes.
They have block function, just hidden a bit.
This is all false.
I didn’t “get away” with anything. The charges were not true. CCP confirmed as much in the dev blog. They came to this conclusion on their own after hearing our side of the story. There were no threats, no outside lawyers, nothing.
It’s really annoying that you guys keep making this stuff up. My honesty and reputation remain unblemished.
Hey Brisc,
After the latest Imperium news I am probably going to vote for you for CSM. The only thing I was hung up on was when you started addressing Olemca and stating it is problematic that he can drop dreads but his assets can’t be attacked. I have a few questions for you regarding those statements.
Do you think players living in lowsec should be able to keep carriers and dreads in NPC stations? I am personally a lowsec player and want to make sure you aren’t going to drive the game into a place where massive nullsec power blocks can basically wipe away the assets of lowsec players.
Do you find citadels problematic? How would you deal with this asset safety garbage that literally gives people no reason to fight and a way to secure all their assets safely and log off. Presumably something would need to be done to NPC stations as well to fix this problem.
Do you see lowsec players inability to make isk as a problem? Many lowsec systems are by far the most dangerous space to be in yet the rewards are absolute garbage. I hear you talk about risk verse rewards a lot but the rewards for playing in lowsec pirate systems seem to be way out of line while things in highsec exist like incursions.
It seems giving incursion runners in highsec the suspect status was brought up in the meeting. I am hoping you also agree this is a ridiculous idea and would absolutely kill HS incursions.
Lastly what is the main way we can get corporations fighting and attempting to evict each other? If there is not a net positive gain for going to war no one will do it. There are no humanitarian crisis that need to be stopped in Eve online so the only motivation for war currently is hatred for a group, which doesn’t motivate once you are losing ships and your space. The only plausible conflict driver I can think of is it needs to be a net monetary gain to win wars when you calculate in the ship and time costs compared to other isk making strategies.
Thanks,
Chad
Sounds like something a metagamer would say.
In null, there’s incentive to fight, but a smaller group is not always going to throw their ships into a meat grinder for the entertainment of a larger or same-size but better equipped group. Thus a structure bash doesn’t always bring the fight an attacker hopes for.
A 15% tax is nothing to sneeze at, and moving however many items and ships you didn’t move between the armor timer and the final - out of the lowsec “safe” station back to where you want the stuff, can be a headache.
While it would not surprise me if CCP increases the tax or starts destroying some assets, I’m not sure it will lead to any more desperate-last-stand sort of fights that some attackers might hope for.
I think lowsec belt ratting, in some cases, pays better than null. (ofc all null has anoms and sov-null with an iHub is farmville. I’m just referring to belt ratting drops.) Clone Soldier tags, the occasional Garmur bpc - low isn’t terrible, imo.
I didn’t want to pick sides here, but to be honest your logic is totally flawed. I was actually on your side of this RMT debate until I thought about it more in depth. The thing that makes it RMT isn’t the isk exchanging hands, it is the exchange of in game goods and services for real money. Using your logic Player A logging into Player B’s account and farming him a ton of items for $100 wouldn’t be RMT since as you say “No ISK involved”. That is clearly against the rules and RMT. Your argument really falls apart when you answer the following question. What if a streamer was doing an ISK giveaway on his stream? This would surely be considered RMT to you since isk was exchanged for an indirect monetary profit right? Now hopefully you can see the confusions your argument creates.
A streamer is essentially playing the game to get viewers on his stream. He is then taking those viewers and making direct ad revenue from them and donations from them. This is the exact same indirect profiting from an exchange of “services” in the game and isn’t RMT.
Sure. The point we were making with Olmeca was simply the one-sidedness of his arguments. All of the Imperium’s assets are available for him to mess around with - citadels, jump gates, beacons, sov, and a ton of other stuff that is out there and can be hit whenever he feels like it to provoke a fight. He, on the other hand, only risks what he undocks, and the rest of the time, he’s largely invulnerable.
Stations are always going to be the fallback point if you’re getting attacked by a bigger force, and I don’t expect that to change. I certainly won’t be advocating for it. But I also want Olmeca and others like him to recognize that the risk factor on what they do vs. what others do isn’t a lop sided as they try to make it out to be, simply because somebody has a supercap umbrella.
Citadels are the #1 content denier in the game right now. They are way too powerful, way too common, way too cheap, and they provide benefits above and beyond what outposts do. They absolutely need to be addressed. Asset safety is a problem as well, but at the same time I know from CCP’s public statements that they don’t want to remove asset safety entirely because they don’t want to penalize people who take a break from the game. I thought the “expensive part that always drops” idea that CCP Rise talked about on Pando’s stream to be a good idea to potentially provide a meaningful reason to blow up stuff. I also think that asset safety should tie into fuel or insurance or something along those lines - if your structure runs out of fuel, you lose asset safety. That way there’s a real reason to make sure you fuel your stuff and there aren’t space garbage low power structures all over the place.
I think it’s clear that there needs to be a full rethinking of lowsec/FW, and the issue of isk generation in those areas should be part of that.
There is a desire in the high sec PvP community (I know, I know) to provide more targets for them, so that’s where these ideas come from. The same idea was put forward when abyssal filaments came out, and the result was high sec guys were getting ganked so much that nobody ran them in high sec. That was “temporarily” turned off a year ago and there’s a reason it hasn’t been turned back on. I don’t think the suspect thing is a good idea for that reason.
Conflict drivers are in my top three issues to focus on next year. There are a lot of things we can do, but I’d say fixing citadels, providing some meaningful things to fight over and making sov valuable and less tedious to capture and contest would go a long way.
Thanks for the response.
All sounds pretty reasonable. One idea I had for asset safety was to only give it to players who have not logged in for 3-4+ weeks or so. Also the protection from asset safety should be a sliding scale depending on how long you have been gone. A player who has been gone for 4+ years should lose almost nothing when a citadel pops with their items in it. A player who quit a month ago when the war started should only be able to keep 20% of their assets in that citadel as the more recent they have quit the more likely they are trying to avoid the risk by not playing.
I know this could be abused with alts but it could potentially only be a feature for Omega accounts to stop the ability to spread assets out across hundreds of alpha accounts.
I really think it would be a massive conflict driver if loot actually was dropped when taking over a station or evicting someone and killing their citadels, the same as citadels in WH systems.
I also have some radical ideas for dealing with n+1 problems like getting rid of the ability to shoot through fleetmates but that would require many things like formations etc and it is more then likely a bad change in the end.
Are there any ideas already floating around on how to handle the citadel spam? I’ve always thought that number of citadels should be limited per, let’s say, constellation (e.g. N = System Count/ 2 + 1). This way, the conflict would theoretically increase. But then you have moon mining to address 
Luckily I am not the responsible for “ideas & suggestions” 
What exactly is the incentive to fight in nullsec? What do you gain by losing tons of assets to evict your neighbor? There is no scarcity of resources or isk so it is always better to just turtle up and keep farming your system/s. The fact that you can sit in your system and farm ISK directly is a major problem. That just isn’t how the world works and IMO eve needs to shift away from this type of farming. Bounties need to be tuned way down and all the isk generation / sinks should be scaled way back. This would create many more supply lines, more resource scarcity, and require a lot more collaboration or wars to happen.
The idea is to create more incentive for corps to actually invade another system. If we move asset safety to only inactive players and boost the income of holding systems this would highly motivate both sides to engage in conflict.
You have an interesting idea for asset safety. But on the subject of income and scarcity, CCP seems to be moving toward reducing incomes and creating scarcity in null, and have a long term plan to move resources around, in hopes that groups might get into conflict over that.
This type of idea has been thrown around and will always be shot down because it’ll make Citadel spam and content creation WORSE. How are you supposed to gain a foothold in hostile space to stage your attacks from if the system’s citadel limit is maxed?
Why would this encourage conflict. Why do I want to bother fighting for your system when my system makes plenty of isk.
And then we also just have an inactive alt that we transfer everything to for asset safety.
And without asset safety goons win EVE by looting everyone elses stuff in a snowball effect since as they win fights, they get all their losses replaced while everyone else loses even larger than before.
The whole idea of ‘lets only do it for inactives’ has been brought up before and it always has these massive holes in it.
that’s not new, just updated.
possible Drifter Ships or T2 Trig Command Cruiser and T2 Maruder or Black-OP’s
can’t think of anything else that could be classes as new.
though the New Weapons part makes me think Drifters
And I bet you think you know better as well. 
And do realize that CSM’s get bombarded with suggestions (that sometimes actually take the form of multi-page write ups). So, try to be a little understanding when they’d rather do something other than listen to/read the one thousandth rant on how to fix Eve.
First of all, many CSM’s have demonstrated (1) a concern for play styles other than their own, (2) that they value the entire player ecosystem, (3) a concern about the long term health of the game. I’ve tried providing evidence of this to others in the past, only to have them hand wave it away. It’s almost like they suffer from confirmation bias.
Second, it’s a lot easier to influence someone’s thinking when they don’t have preexisting schemas that might conflict with what you’re trying to say. In other words, it’s actually easier to influence their thinking when it comes to things outside of the area of expertise, and harder when they already have their own ideas on fixes and game direction.
So, perhaps you might want to ask yourself how you might improve your persuasive attempts instead of just accusing people of being closed minded?
And if you disagree with me, it’s only because you’re only accessible and open-minded to the posts that already agree with you.
Fortunately, we’re not either. All we really need to be able to do is highlight that this is an issue for CCP to address, and one that’s critical. They’re the ones who get paid to figure out how to fix this stuff.
The difference is Faylee presents long well written structured arguments on why they are right.
I have some disagreements with what Faylee wants myself, but often those are on the exact numbers, not on the overall intent or even overall direction. And I present those arguments with structure and backing reasons also.
A lot of those who disagree however I’ve noticed tend to just be shouting loudly, accusing Faylee of self interest and the like.
Yes… that’s why we have CSM members literally calling an entire section of space bots. I mean seriously? And the entire rest of the CSM did not denounce that as inappropriate and demand they withdraw it, which makes them complicit in silence.
Okay. The player base suggests a ton of ideas. Players make approximately 1.6k threads in the player features and ideas category every year. And that doesn’t even count the ideas that come from other forum posts in feed back threads, reddit posts, blogs, vlogs, videos, and direct emails to CSM members. Then, on top of that, players often have conflicting values and beliefs.
Naturally, this creates a metric butt ton of contradictory feedback -and some of that feedback is straight up terrible, and would do nothing but waste the CSM’s time with CCP devs. For example, this guy thinks that CCP should sell isk directly to the players. Thus, it is logistically impossible (and would be a waste of time if it wasn’t) for the CSM to simply regurgitate the feedback that we’re already providing to them via the forums and reddit.
If you want your feedback to rise above the noise, you should try to be as persuasive as possible, try to gain support for it, and/or cut out the middleman and run for CSM yourself.