Welcome to Jester's Trek.
I'm your host, Jester. I've been an EVE Online player for about six years. One of my four mains is Ripard Teg, pictured at left. Sadly, I've succumbed to "bittervet" disease, but I'm wandering the New Eden landscape (and from time to time, the MMO landscape) in search of a cure.
You can follow along, if you want...

Tuesday, August 21, 2012

Ten out of twenty

This is going to be the first of two CSM-related posts today.  This one focuses on the text of the CSM Town Hall over the weekend.  The second one will focus on the sub-text.  Ready?  Here goes.

Last night and this morning I got an opportunity to listen to the CSM Town Hall over the weekend.  I guessed correctly on one thing: there weren't any quotes in it to match what I posted for QOTW yesterday.  Elise Randolph sure gave it his best shot, though!  He said several things that were quite amusing if you take them in context.  My two favorites were "I don't see giant super-cap blobs being a problem in low-sec" and "I don't think tech -- especially with alchemy involved -- is a big problem."

Uhhhh... OK.  Thanks, Elise.

There was little to no introductory session to the Town Hall, no "presentation" as such... it went straight into answering player questions.  And I guess the CSM got together and specifically decided to answer all ten of my questions from Friday.  Because every single one of them was asked, nine of them in the exact wording I posted them on my blog.  The exception was the tech question, which was basically asked as "What about tech?"  That was the source of the Elise quote above and unfortunately missed my key point that even with alchemy, tech costs exactly what it did 15 months ago when this problem first came up.  The only thing alchemy is doing is keeping the price of tech from doubling again.  Alchemy therefore doesn't solve the (non-existent?) problem: tech is still a huge bottleneck and is still concentrating an absolute ton of passive income in a small number of hands.

For two of my questions, the CSM rejected the premises my questions were based on.  One was the question about the CSM believing that players are too rich.  The reason the CSM thinks players are too rich is because they've been playing the game for approximately 56 years between them and they just know players are too rich.  Eight years ago, losing a battleship meant something and now it doesn't.  Besides, all decent 0.0 alliances have full ship replacement funds and for those that don't, there's incursions and wormholes and such.

Uhhhh... OK.  Thanks, guys.  If only we knew where those reimbursement programs were coming from.~

Anyway, here are my ten questions, in the order that I asked them (they answered them in a different order), with the notes I took while I was listening to the answers plus a comment or two here and there from me (the stuff tagged "Jester>"):

What is CSM7's process for actively soliciting (not passively reading) player feedback about the game between summits?  Will there be a crowd-sourcing effort this year?
  • No crowd-sourcing this year
  • Changes in the way CSM interfaces with CCP
  • More interactive feedback on the forums as opposed to polling
  • Have the CSM involved at more steps in the development process
  • Jester> OK, but how are you getting actual players involved in these processes?
  • Jester> What we've got here is the CSM version of representative democracy

CSM7 stated they would greatly improve CSM-to-player communications over CSM6.  Do you feel that goal is being met so far?  Will the CSM be having more frequent meetings with the players in the rest of 2012?
  • Does Seleene think the communications goal is being met so far?  "Yes and no."
  • Seleene essentially states that the greatly expanded minutes met part of this commitment
  • There hasn't been a lot to talk about on a day-to-day basis
  • Large blocs of CCP have been on vacation since the end of the Summit
  • Does say that there will be more frequent town halls (every 4-6 weeks) for the rest of the term
  • Jester> There's no time to talk during crises (CSM6), not a lot to talk about during vacations (CSM7).

Does this CSM regard super-cap balance and proliferation as a problem?  If so, why?  If not, why not?
  • Ease of building is the key driver for proliferation
  • But super-caps aren't that useful, so they don't get flown that often
  • Jester> Wait... what?
  • Make them useful, people will use them, and they'll die
  • Gone are the days of 14 billion ISK super-caps
  • Mineral compression is making it easy for one person to build supers
  • The genie is out of the bottle
  • Jester> Last one is the real answer: CSM clearly feels it's too late to do anything about them.

When the CSM stated (in the Summit Minutes) that players are rich, losses don't matter, and player income should be reduced across the board, was this based on player feedback?  If not, what was it based on?
  • Not based on player feedback.
  • Seleene blamed himself for saying this, but a couple of other CSM members (correctly) stated they said it, too.
  • "There's so many ways to make money nowadays, and alliances have such good reimbursement policies, that the losses don't really matter that much." -- Elise
  • "Almost every 0.0 alliance worth anything has a full ship replacement fund." -- Aleks
  • Jester> CSM obviously feels like this one is self-evident, and rejected the premise of the question.

In the Minutes, it seems clear that CCP was fishing for a CSM member to volunteer to rewrite or revise the White Paper.  Why didn't a CSM member volunteer to do this?  What is the current thinking about the CSM8 election process?
  • Public discussion of CSM8 election process in September, after the winter release plan is set
  • "The details are more or less up to the CSM." -- CCP Xhagen
  • Was CCP fishing?  CCP Xhagen: "Yes and no."
  • Much discussion about a collaborative writing process for this
  • Jester> The trouble with a collaborative writing process is someone has to start writing.

CSM6 and CCP first discussed how unbalanced the moon situation was 15 months ago at the May 2011 Summit.  Since then, little seems to have been done.  Tech costs exactly what it did last May and continues to be the key T2 production bottleneck.  Does CSM7 feel that CCP is acting with a sense of urgency about this situation?  Why or why not?
  • CSM didn't use my question... just answered a general "what about tech?" question
  • "Alchemy is here now and it's putting a price cap on things." -- Elise
  • "I don't think tech -- especially with alchemy involved -- is a big problem." -- Elise again
  • Elise seems to think that tech prices make current moons not all that valuable
  • They're still worth fighting for, but only just
  • Jester> CSM ignored the fact that tech post-alchemy costs the same as it did pre-alchemy, pre-OTEC.

For Seleene and Elise Randolph: why do you feel that 16 or 17 Titans "isn't a lot" when there are, at most, only five groups in EVE that can field this many?  Do you feel super-caps are too concentrated into the hands of only a few players?
  • Seleene kinda sorta felt like the quote was taken out of context
  • If you want to kill super-caps, you have to bring super-caps
  • "You have to risk it to get the biscuit." -- Elise
  • Elise clearly feels that there are plenty of groups that could bring this many Titans, and just don't
  • Jester> I wonder why that might be?

CCP has stated in the past that they would like null-sec to become a chaotic mess of very small independent fiefdoms that engage in warfare with their neighbors instead of NAP'ing them.  Do you feel that is still CCP's goal?  Is this CSM encouraging that direction?
  • CSM questioned whether CCP really said that
  • Jester> Yep, they did.  It's Greyscale's vision for 0.0, stated since December 2010 Summit and since.
  • CSM says you can't stop someone from having friends
  • Generally just rejected the premise behind the question

What if anything is CSM7 doing to promote a positive image of EVE in the gaming press?
  • CCP has never been shy about "whoring out" the CSM to the media
  • CCP Xhagen and Manifest were both a little uncomfortable with CSM members representing EVE this way
  • Nobody brought up Mittens, who did gaming press interviews routinely when he wanted something
  • Jester> Was kind of curious if anyone would bring up Mittens's strategy of controlling the narrative.  Answer: nope.

What are CSM7's goals for the second half of their term?  What can players do that will be most helpful to CSM7 in those goals?
  • CSM more involved in release planning
  • This is particularly true for the August decision-making session for the Winter expansion
  • Follow-up with stuff from past CSM Summit Minutes
  • Not much mentioned that players can help with

Seleene called a halt to the "official" proceedings about 110 minutes in.  By that time, they'd answered 20 questions, ten of them mine.  I took notes on a couple of the other questions I found interesting, too:

Do you think faction warfare should be spread everywhere?  What is going to be done about low-sec?
  • CSM (rightly) reacted with horror at the idea of faction warfare throughout low-sec
  • They acknowledge that low-sec continues to be EVE's red-headed step-child

Should supers be banned from low-sec?
  • Elise says banning super-caps in low-sec mucks with the risk/reward equation
  • Jester> I haven't got a clue what he means by this, but he seems sincere about it.
  • Elise wants Titans to be able to DD in low-sec
  • If you're limiting their capabilities, that should be the ship, not the geography.
  • "I don't see giant super-cap blobs being a problem in low-sec." -- Elise
  • Hans? Aleks? (correctly) jumped on Elise's face at this point.  Can't bubble in low-sec, for instance.
  • That makes supers -- particularly fleets of them -- almost impossible to kill in low-sec
  • Elise mostly conceeded the point.
  • Jester> Spread-out Titans or blap dreads make very short work of hictors in low-sec.

That's it from my notes.  There were a few other questions, but they didn't make all that big of an impression on me, so I didn't write down notes for them.

Overall, I'd estimate the Seleene did about 30% of the talking, Elise about 30%, Hans, Trebor, and Two step about 10% each, and everyone else about 10% between them.  So, there was a pretty good mix of different people talking, unless you're not a PL fan in which case PL dominated the meeting.  ;-)

So much for the straight text.  What does this Town Hall mean in the larger sub-text?  I started to include that in this post, but it's already pretty long, so let's put that in a second post.  In the meantime, thanks to the CSM for answering all of my questions!  I may not agree with the answers, but they were certainly illuminating!


  1. Damn I hate Elise....

    1. Comes off as a pretty elitist asshole who can't see anything outside his supper rich PL existence doesn't he?

    2. You are being too kind. We need to impale Elise.

      I think I gonna read this one again: http://community.eveonline.com/background/potw/default.asp?cid=29-01-07

  2. "Hans (correctly) jumped on Elise's face at this point. Can't bubble in low-sec, for instance."

    That was Alekseyev Karrde

    1. It also seemed to me to be Aleks' voice instead of Hans'

    2. I wish someone would actually jump on Elise's face, it might cause them to wake up out of their ISK-induced stupor.

  3. I had high hopes for CSM7, but it looks like that with Seleene and Elise in the mix, we aren't going to make any good progress, especially if it touches anything that might change the dynamic of the 0.0 superpowers. Those two seem particularly bent on shoring up their respective alliances to the detriment of the game. Elise in particular seems more of a knucklehead in his total disregard that anything outside of his vision exists, despite what the facts are.

    I missed the part of the townhall where they talked about how everyone was rich.. but it flabbergasts me that they didn't make the connection that technetium was the only reason those alliances have all those perks in the first place.

    I think the theme for describing the CSM7 is "What?! Are you serious?!"

  4. I got all happy about being able to launch bombs in highsec there for a minute.

    1. Huh?!?!?! Did the CSM talk at all about HISEC for a minute straight?

  5. Maybe you should have explicitly asked the CSM members to consider the underlying viewpoint before they answered the questions.

  6. I find the tech comment particularly funny. It's only the goons that are fighting for Tech in the north, so clearly it isn't that valuable...

    Just like yourself, Jester, I fail to see how current tech prices are 'ok' when there was uproar about similar prices 12 months ago.The problem isn't fixed by any means, it's just gone from 'ridiculous profit making' to 'AFK bank', and more importantly it hasn't changed hands at all. The same entities that were benefiting from tech before alchemy still are.

  7. i do agree with anon@3:57pm ^^

    cocnerning FW on all low sec, it's something a CCPer said once, don't remember where... but i'm glad the CSMs don't feel like it would be a good idea ^^

  8. No caps in high, no supers in low makes sense to me, and would play hell with force projection (and, unfortunately, supercap trading). Am I right on this? I live in a lowsec system where caps are common and supercaps present but almost always passing through/being traded by Chribba or whoever.

  9. To paraphrase a certain Rock Paper Scissors interview, I imagine certain null sec power blocs watching the idiotic ideas of the CSM with mounting horror and saying, “well, fuck!” Nullsec candidates are a terrible idea, because they cannot be expected to look after the interests of all null sec players. They are too deeply ensconced in their way of thinking (The Alliance above all else) that they cannot be trusted to express a meaningful opinion about null sec, much less the rest of the game.

    1. This is why Mittani was a particularly good chair. Despite obviously supporting his alliance, the very nature of the goons meant that he supported the newer players, while still having a good understanding of null conflict. Most of the current members ARE spacerich, in spacerich alliances with tech, and consist almost exclusively of bittervets.

      I think the main issue is that CSM7 has no direction. They seem to have raised there arms and gone 'everything more or less works', and then were bedazzled by CCP presentations.

      To give the CSM more focus, I think it's time that each chair had a certain role, not just 'everyone talks about stuff'. You elect a given number of members, each of whom is tasked with a specific area (null/lowsec/industry/FW/highsec) to carry the concerns of the community.

      I feel like the community has a shitload of concerns, in various areas (the current FW debacle for example), and that none of them are being voiced. I don't want to hear the CSM saying 'everything is more or less fine', I want to hear them listing all the things that are wrong with EVE, and giving suggestions on how to fix them to CCP.

    2. I would put this on a different perspective.

      Constituents. Elise has them. Mittani has them.

      Goonswarm elected two candidates on CSM6, one of them being the chairman. Add to this the fact that half the other members were from nullsec blocks and you had talks going on how nullsec was dominating it; from Hilmar stating that he was concerned of CSM being focused on a single playstyle, to the top nine being reduced to top 7, and also all the discussions (still ongoing) on how to change the election process.

      Mittani saw all this and realized he didn't need to put more pressure into it since he was already winning this metagame, thus they went to CSM7 with only one candidate.

      And then the Alliance Panel happened and suddenly Goonswarm no longer had a direct voice on CSM. What we are seeing here is the result of this. It is why every nullsec block tries its hardest to elect its own candidates, because they cannot thrust the other blocks to defend their views.

      It's not so much that nullsec candidates have terrible ideas, it's that each block needs its own CSM member to police each other so that only the ideas that are good overall for all sov nullsec pass. And, no, they don't care for anything else.

      I mean, I don't know why nobody is complaining about this. One of the things that horrified me the most on the summer meeting minutes is how they say it in a straight face that a serious world shaping is in order in NPC nullsec, just because once in a while it annoys them.

      Hotdropping NPC nullsec and lowsec residents: 'fine, working as intended'. Being attacked from an Alliance based on a NPC station: 'Not cool, bro, not cool'.

      Hypocrites, hypocrites!

  10. These answers are what I expected to happen since the CSM election is based purely on numbers and doesn't provide a cross-section of EVE players/activities. I would much rather have seen the 7 seats divided up into 3 general seats, 1 Null sec, 1 Low sec, 1 High sec, and 1 WH representative.

    That said, I'm rather disillusioned with the entire CSM concept and reality. I watched last year as Mittani kept jumping in front of player opinion and acted as if he was leading the charge. I read reports of all the changes CCP was being encouraged to make and yet what has changed this year? Tech is still driving prices of T2 ships, Null sec is still controlled by whoever can bring in the most Supers, Low sec is still unpopular, and Hi sec continues to be the most populous yet most derided area of the game.

    There have been changes to ships, upcoming changes to ships, nerfs to Incursions, unnerfs to Incursions, FW changes, and quite a few other areas of dev time and investment but where are the fundamental adjustments to how the game works? The single biggest push over the past year has been to balancing ships and making them look better. However when the basics of the game stay the same it's like taking a house with rotten foundation and putting on a new coat of paint, whitewashing the fence, and planting some flowers. Sure it looks prettier and people "ooh" and "ahh" at all of the work done, but in the end the house is still one bad storm away from collapsing.

    Supers are of great concern to the survivability of the game. Supers limit the ability of new groups to move into Null sec and operate in Low sec. Supers limit the ability of new players to get into capitals. Yet here we see the CSM apparently thinking Supers are fine, waving their hands saying "these are not the issue your looking for, move along, move along."

    Tech is still a problem but I have faith the concept of moon mining will level the playing field. Personally I don't understand why the total number of moons by type can't be used to adjust the required materials for ship construction but I might have too simplistic a view of the problem. I don't understand why moons are needed to drive conflict. Seems to me conflict could be driven by something simple like complexes or exploration sites which can move around as needed and offer mobile fights instead of structure bashing.

    I'll stop there though as this post is getting long winded. All I know right now is I feel as if voting for the CSM is a waste of time. CCP does what it wants to do anyway, the CSM just pushes an agenda for their individual Null sec bloc, and the game as a whole is becoming a stagnant pool filled with multiple accounts and hostile veterans. Either play the way the Null sec bloc wants you to play or you're a carebear and should stop subscribing as soon as possible.

    In fact, maybe it's time I start seriously considering why I continue to keep a subscription to a game I'm becoming so disenfranchised with.

  11. In a sense, tech is no longer a problem. It's been a problem for so long now that if CCP deleted it from the game tomorrow morning, the alliances that hoarded those moons would still have trillions upon trillions of ISK, and the ability to replace ships (up to and including titans) at will for a very long time. Even if they have to find other means of making ISK, years of tech money have given them the numbers and a big fat cushion on which to ride while they find those other sources and exploit them.

    If you look at it that way, the problem becomes much harder than "nerf tech" or "nerf supers." I suspect that that's why it's so intractable. If you nerf supers, the big 0.0 alliances have the ISK to bury people under huge fleets of pilots continually reshipping in T3s (for example). Nerf T3s, and they'll find another way to crush their opponents under a mountain of ISK. The problem now is the mountain of ISK. It's not that EVE players in general are rich, it's that a stark minority of EVE alliances (and players in those alliances) are hilariously rich. Do you nerf their wallets? I imagine that would really go over well...

    Someone made a really good point that supers are far too easy to manufacture, largely due to mineral compression, but also because manufacturing in EVE is far too easy in the general case.

    1. *tinfoilhattery*

      well, it's obvious that CCP thinks that having an evil empire from star wars will be great for marketing. And who better to personify this glorious revenue source than the arch-villain himself, Mittens!

    2. There are many industrialists in null sec who would dispute your claim that "manufacturing is far too easy in the general case." Mineral compression is about the ease of transport, not the ease of manufacture. The supply "chains" are more like Star Trek teleporters than caravans of the Wild West. One freighter here, one freighter there: compressing minerals by a factor of 40 to 100 means there are that many fewer freighters required to provide for null sec's industrial needs. Nerfing mineral compression means that supply chains actually become chains, and taking out one link will actually hurt.

      At the same time, null sec industry needs some help: starting with updating POS refineries so that they work faster and with up to 100% efficiency (assuming skills and implants), and degrading NPC refineries so they work slower and less efficiently.

      You're right that industry is "too easy" in some cases, but those cases are where hisec industrialists have far too many hand-outs from NPCs. Cheap research lines. Cheap manufacturing lines. Easily accessible refineries with infinitely high throughput. Those free handouts need to stop.

  12. Hi Jester,

    How invested are you in Tech? If you're so sure that alchemy is doing nothing, it seems like one of the best investments you can make.

    1. I didn't say "alchemy is doing nothing", I said alchemy has returned us to the days prior to OTEC. But tech is still a massive bottleneck and is still concentrated in very few hands. In THAT way, alchemy did nothing.

    2. so you think 10 units of platinum technite is worth getting into? says here jita buy orders are hovering at 58k isk pu. so that's 580k isk/hr. I'll get right on that!

      oh wait

      say i ran it on a medium POS at 20 fuel blocks per hour. that's (say 13,000 isk/pu) *plays with calculator* 260k isk/hr. that's not too bad.

      oh wait

      my alchemy reaction puts out 40 neo mercurite per hour. It was up to a nice peak there for a while but it's now back down to it's usual 15,500 isk level. Which makes 620k isk/hr. I think i'll stick with my instincts...OR i could do what Jester thinks is a great investment and finally get into FW. yeah.

      oh wait

    3. If you had read the learn to play dev blog comments. Fonzy stated that he wanted to set up a fair price for tech, not completely crash it.

      It was pretty much designed to do nothing the way you stated it. Only to ruins tech cartels, but CCP still wanted tech to be the primary driver in null and same price as way before.

    4. "If you had read the learn to play dev blog comments. Fonzy stated that he wanted to set up a fair price for tech, not completely crash it.

      So the DEV went from "wacka wacka wacka" Fozzy from the mupphets

      Either DEV looks to be a caraciture & it looks to me the DEV can't win any way: the TECH cartels are soo space rich right now I doubt even if TECH crashed they'd be much affected

  13. Also, no supers in low seems like a good idea, but it makes proper invasion of some null sec regions nearly impossible due to the jump limitations and how spread out some regions are (tenal-CE, querious-catch, etc). Would definitely need to rejigger the map a lot of that change goes in.

    1. Why do you need to invade some place on the other side of the galaxy? This might actually break up the nap fest in nullsec. If you want to fight, fight your neighbour. If not, die of boredom

    2. Wouldn't it be sad if null sec alliances had to keep multiple fleets active, the way naval powers used to have separate Pacific and Atlantic fleets? No more jumping capital fleets around the place: you'd be required to take the longer null sec route (a whole two extra jumps! Oh my!) or reship from your Pacific fleet to stealth bombers to be Black Ops portalled around through the Indian Ocean of low sec over to the ships of your Atlantic fleet.

      How horrible would it be for terrain to play a role in the way null sec fleets operate, or indeed how far the null sec alliances' tentacles can reach?

  14. --Sarcasm on--
    You know anybody is able to build titans and it is very easy to get the minerals in and your friendly neighbor would never think about killing it before it is ready.

    And any decent alliance has tech moons that generate vast amounts of income or at least other good moons and a lot of space they rent those beggars who are clearly unworthy to play the game just good enough to pay others game.

    Oh and stop bitching around about supers, those who deserve them have them and will do everything that non unworthy group will have a chance to amass some of them to beat us.

    --sarcasm off--

    It is very sad that some of these CSM dudes are so detached from "small scale" game play. Yes it is nice to have friends sure. But managing a horde of 2k player you can't tell me you know most of them. By the way: IT IS A GAME! you can shoot each other and still be friends. No one would be mad if those big coalitions would fight them self. It might even be more entertaining than wiping out much smaller enemies.

  15. I came away from this meeting feeling that Elise is an idiot and somehow I don't feel that I need to explain why?

    "risk reward equation" indeed.

  16. I live in NPC null, my corp doesn't have a tech moon empire to give out free ships. I, like many, have to make the isk to pay for my ships. It is bizarre to me that there are no dissenting voices in the CSM arguing against the idea we are rolling in isk.

    I have two questions:

    1. What benefit to players does nearing income give them?
    2. If the argument is that alliance reimbursement program's make players rich, doesn't that mean alliances are too rich, not the players.

  17. Can we all please get on with the future failure of Dust so we can get back to, you know, EVE?

    The CSM is a joke and its very design limits any real possibility of decent changes. The Ego and Hubris displayed by most CSM members has proven this.

    Frankly, the CSM is nothing more than one more layer of BS that CCP tossed up to shield itself from, well, itself. When you have a vast majority calling for what needs to be looked into/fixed and instead we get commentary on how multiple Supers or Titans aren't an issue the gig is up.

    Want CCP to change?...Unsub en masse then watch the sudden embracing of change. CCP needs a wake up call that pew-pewing a statue in Jita will not accomplish. Hit em in the pocketbook.

    I for one simply cannot wait to watch Dust come out, be regarded as the savior of CCP....and then watch it die within a year because of new shooters coming out.

    Followed inevitably by a Hilmar comment of "We remain committed to the EVE universe and to show you that we've made a new Frigate!" *crickets*

    Walk from the game for 6 months, take your money with you.

    As for the CSM, please relegate it to the dustbin of history where it sorely belongs.

  18. "CSM (rightly) reacted with horror at the idea of faction warfare throughout low-sec"
    Uh....what the fuck?
    The #1 problem with EVE as regards faction warfare, and why it's so "game-able" and even the "lolRPers" are giving up their "lolRP" in favor of "trading spaces" to maximize ISK, as _you yourself_ pointed out, is that it is, essentially "PvP battlegrounds".
    Do countries at "total" war, assuming they're fairly adjacent land-wise, set "middle grounds" to fight on, and play a glorified game of "Capture the Flag"? Fuck no. They fight to take territory, then take more territory, and plant their flag in the middle of a pile of crushed enemy skulls, right in the center of the burned-out capitol.
    If you want EVE to be "_real_" and FW to be more than a game of CTF and print LP, then FW has to affect all of lowsec, all of hisec, and yes, even be able to affect nullsec in a direct and meaningful way.
    Why would the Empires not seek to explore and expand their territories and span of influence outwards toward the riches of nullsec as well? Why would they wage absolute 'war', right up until they hit a .5 system, then call a screeching halt to it?
    And don't give me that "storyline"/CONCORD bullshit. Supposedly, according to the canon storyline ("EVE: The Empyrean Age"), a bunch of Thukkers building supercaps in the Great Wildlands managed to make CONCORD _LITERALLY_ shit their drawers.

    FW should not only affect all of lowsec, it should affect hisec as well. Imagine logging in to Jita, only to find it belongs to the Gallente Federation... now there's some "EVE is REAL" for you.

  19. Seems like the CSM's belief that all EVE players are super rich is based on the fact that the big alliance power blocs are super rich. IE, if you're not a cog in the nullsec war machine, you're not an EVE player worth considering. It also seems like they aren't even aware that they're making this assumption. Fair, I suppose, given points long since debated into pulverized equine status, but it still annoys me.

    I haven't listened to the recording yet, but as the W-space "representative" did Two Step say, you know, anything at all with regards to that question? W-space, after all, is one of the few remaining refuges for the "little guys" who don't operate things like reimbursement policies and get rich off moon go - and I'll shoot the first person who suggests that sleeper loot is anywhere near the smallest fraction as profitable as tech moons.


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.