Ok, I still don’t see that as a reason to not just remove it and leave only injectors. SP farmers are a problem with a different solution needed as regardless of method none of this will impact them (such as changing injector cost so it doesn’t cover a months training or something)
Isk sinks can be solved elsewhere, such as with new implant sets, making the empire ones that currently are pretty sucky actually worth using, and other such ways. Especially since training implant isk sinks aren’t really hitting the people who rake in the billions from faucets that much, they are hitting the players who don’t have that much far harder overall and it’s only total volume that makes it a largish sink.
I know they’re active here in the forums, I think it’s great to see CSM members post replies in threads about various issues and topics. But that seems to happen ‘After the fact.’
I’m talking about getting input from the playerbase before they go to a Summit meeting. They can easily post a thread asking what it is that we want changed, what needs to be fixed and what new content proposals we want discussed with CCP.
1 Like
So what’s the case for removing them? What’s the case for penalizing low-income characters who’ve saved up to buy a set of +4s?
Just to play devil’s advocate:
Can you name me any other representative system where the representatives are expected to do what you’re suggesting?
In my experience, systems of representation—pretty much universally—rely on the populace taking the step of making their issues known to their representatives. If you see an issue, start a thread in the CSM forum. Or the player ideas forum (which they all do read). Or send them all mail (Aryth and Innominate will hate me for saying that).
All too often—and I say this as someone who has to go and solicit development feedback on a regular basis—asking for feedback gets ignored. It gets answered with deafening silence. And in the context of the CSM… the mere existence of the CSM is a standing invitation to contact them with any ideas and concerns you have. You’re years into ‘Tell us what you think, please’. If you’re waiting to be asked, you’ve missed the question.
Make your voice heard, by speaking up.
1 Like
Goons break things because there is something to be broken. MB ThePhotographer bows deeply to whomever invented gridfoo. (this is who CCP is up against, I was part of it for a short time) The problem is the rest of us seem to suffer for it when CCP try’s to balance it out.
In the sprit of kicking ideas out, could the playstyle be nerfed instead? A decrease in boost per fleet size in some cases? Not sure what problems that could solve…
But with a 10, 9 and 8 yr old pay to play accts with all their names on the monument, I have a vested interest in the game.
The rorq, never trained it as it was introduced as a null mining support ship. As it should be imo.
The CSM, didn’t vote last time because there didn’t seem like anyone worth voting for. I know who to vote for now.
Implants, keep them the way they are for now, CCP has enough on its hands atm. I am curious to see what other solutions are out there though.
CCP in general, seems to have lost touch with the player base. It was great when they flew ships and you could show them in person what was working and what was not, and why. And if it seems Goons are getting their way, its just them breaking the game again. That’s as much the player base’s fault as it is CCP’s for not seeing it.
As for Goons, no worthwhile chance of decking them now and that’s a shame. Goon tears are the saltiest! 
As most of my friends have been “adapted” out of the game, I hardly play anymore anyway so most of the changes don’t affect me.
Why not?
It does seem pretty poor that it’s really only 2 out of 10 CSM that seem to actively communicate on the official forums. I get what was said insofar as to chase the CSM if we want to give them our input, but I personally believe that therein lies the problem, in that they are getting complacent in the whole getting re-elected with the block vote of an alliance and that some really don’t care anyway about other parts of the game apart from their own groups bubble.
1 Like
Our ‘bubble’, as you put it, depends on the rest of the game. The long-term health of the game is in our best interests as much as anyone else’s.
As a small corp, we would have to pay the wd price which would be fair since we start the war. Now I have to also sacrifice a citadel as well. Not our 1st choice…
@Brisc_Rubal did this in 4 threads in the Assembly Hall section of the forums after he was elected.
3 Likes
I don’t see the Town Hall, but I’m tired. Assembly hall?
1 Like
Yeah, that’s the one
[quote]CCP Burger asks if removal of attributes
would be a problem for our community and the CSM says that it wouldn’t.[/quote]
From this member of the community - I do not agree and it is a problem. Since attributes are tied to Implants. It is the bread and butter of many of the LP stores. Take a look the LP Store of Astral Mining. Which is just about any NPC corp to mission with outside of Empire Navy, Thukker or SoE. The acquisition of opposing navy tags just adds a barrier to many of the goods available. (A mechanic that would actually better serve within Faction Warfare). This makes implants the most solvent commodities to convert into ISK.
It might actually be interesting if a Mining NPC offered goods (outside of implants) that supported the mining activity/career. But that is not on anybody’s radar, eh?
So, the end result is that I am mug for not doing SoE?
1 Like
The first thing I did on my first day in office was put up a bunch of threads in the CSM area asking for feedback. I’ve been asking for feedback constantly for a year.
If you don’t know what I’ve been doing, then you shouldn’t be making broad generalizations about what I’ve been doing.
2 Likes
At this point, I think miscommunication is EVE’s biggest problem. (I Quit) Would a tab on the login screen that says “Your input is important” or something like that, that leads you to a page that explains the forums and how to navigate them. help. Just another idea to toss out…
@CCP_Dopamine @Brisc_Rubal @Innominate
Of course I have opinions on a lot of things from the minutes, but I absolutely had to respond to Innominate saying that Cloaky Camping should stay in the game until it’s easier catch ratters. I didn’t know that it needed be said, but you guys do know that it discourages activity in the same way War Deck mechanics used to right?
I used to be director in a struggling renter corp (that eventually folded), and this was one of the problems that we had to deal with. Renters could only rat and mine in the systems that they were paying for, and if a cloaky camper decided to post up, many players would just log off and go do something else. They couldn’t PvE anywhere else due to the renters agreement, and they weren’t willing to risk their ships when they had no idea when the cloaky camper was at work, asleep, or at the keyboard.
So, it’s not a big deal in the major alliances, because if someone is camping one system, you can just move to another, but it is a big deal to renters, who are often restricted to 1, maybe 2, systems.
I understand wanting content for your fleets, and the fight against botters and all that, but please realize that cloaky camping has a major impact on renter activity, especially when campers post up in your only system for a week.
Find a better rental arrangement.
Saying that people should play differently doesn’t keep players logging in, nor does it convince those on breaks to come back. And I may no longer be a renter, but I care about these kinds of things because I need other people to keep playing Eve so that I can keep enjoying.
I’m not saying ‘play differently’. I’m saying that if the rental agreements out there don’t serve the needs of the tenants, then maybe the tenants should be speaking to one another and not putting up with those crappy rental agreements.
There’s feedback forums that @Brisc_Rubal created. Even broken down between Sec systems as well.