These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Jita Park Speakers Corner

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[CSM8] Ripard Teg for CSM8

First post First post
Author
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#141 - 2013-02-22 14:48:42 UTC
Ripard Teg wrote:
Dyvim Slorm wrote:
These are a few questions I put to Malcanis and I would be interested in your response to them as well:

I was wondering as to your view regarding the balance between high, low and null.

It's my *perception* (and I use that word advisedly) that null and low have almost swapped places. Back in the "good old days" we used to have a clear path for training new pilots, start them in highsec, then move them to low to harden them up and then to null once they had proved their worth.

It does seem now that the path is more high -> null -> low as it certainly appears that null is a better environment to train rookies in the next stages rather than low.

Do you have a view on how the balance would be corrected, or the perception changed if this is incorrect, or if it even needs changing?



So in general, for income, it should be high-sec income < low-sec income < null-sec income < upgraded null-sec income.



Why do you think Null sec should pay higher than low sec?

Do you think Low Sec is less risky than null sec? If so why do you think that?

Last statistics I read showed that more ships exploded per person and per system in low sec than anywhere else in eve. Or at any rate Null sec and Low sec were about equally dangerous far outstripping wormholes and high sec.

Also in response to Dyvim Slorm I think this has to do with the sorts of pvp you get in null versus low sec. Null sec has more larger fleets where the fcs skill is very important but the actually grunt in the fleet probably is not going to make much of a difference. If the noob gets a shot in on the primary great help. But in low sec the pvp involves smaller gangs where everyones actions are important.

So yes it makes sense that new players would go from high sec to null sec and then to low sec.

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815

Ripard Teg
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#142 - 2013-02-22 15:13:42 UTC
admiral root wrote:

So you have no answer, then? All you have is a wild accusation based on an alliance that I've been in for all of 10 minutes.

My answer is that 98% of the people bringing up this issue did not read the blog post in question and are attempting -- and in my view, failing -- to make political hay out of a manufactured issue that simply has no merit or basis in reality. Trying to argue that I advocate **** and slavery is just... plain... silly.

Had you lived in 1729, you'd obviously want Swift arrested for cannibalism.

aka Jester, who apparently was once Deemed Worthy To Wield The Banhammer to good effect.

Nathan Jameson
Grumpy Bastards
#143 - 2013-02-22 15:54:09 UTC
Ripard Teg wrote:
Had you lived in 1729, you'd obviously want Swift arrested for cannibalism.


Pshaw, they're Irish, who cares.

http://www.wormholes.info

TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#144 - 2013-02-22 16:04:20 UTC
Ripard Teg wrote:
admiral root wrote:

So you have no answer, then? All you have is a wild accusation based on an alliance that I've been in for all of 10 minutes.

My answer is that 98% of the people bringing up this issue did not read the blog post in question and are attempting -- and in my view, failing -- to make political hay out of a manufactured issue that simply has no merit or basis in reality. Trying to argue that I advocate **** and slavery is just... plain... silly.

Had you lived in 1729, you'd obviously want Swift arrested for cannibalism.


Well, I've not said you advocate those things, only that demonising "gankers" by comparing shooting spaceships in a spaceship game to those things is offensive, stupid and not conducive to any discussions of the issues. Of which there aren't any, in my opinion, as ganking people isn't solely the domain of the mysterious old, rich null vets (but then again, even if it was... what would the issue be? It's not as if the targets of things like hulkageddon or the New Order are specifically hapless newbies)
Josef Djugashvilis
#145 - 2013-02-22 16:10:16 UTC
Nathan Jameson wrote:
Ripard Teg wrote:
Had you lived in 1729, you'd obviously want Swift arrested for cannibalism.


Pshaw, they're Irish, who cares.


As an Irishman, I do.

This is not a signature.

Aesil Maril
Destructive Brothers
#146 - 2013-02-22 17:05:56 UTC
I was almost tempted to not reply because I didn't want to get into a conversation that I feel will not really bring about to anything, but in the end I conceded and went looking into the CSM Meeting minutes. This will be a reply in 2 parts since the forum doesn't allow too much space and I had to quote your replies.

Part 1

Ripard Teg wrote:

Aesil Maril wrote:
You also mentioned that highsec is almost at equilibrium, maybe slightly in favour of the ganker at the moment.


Yep, but again, it's very slight. The primary differentiating factor here, in my view, is that the gankers have many more ISK and SP than their targets, by and large. A lovely example of this are the multiple flashy ganking Thrashers that spend their time within one jump of Niarja. I'm sure dozens of such ships get lost per day and the players in them have no concern about this at all because a single T1 hauler kill with as little as 50m ISK in loot makes up for a dozen such losses. This usually represents a major loss for the much newer EVE player involved.

I certainly have no objections to ganking and non-consensual PvP and I said as much in the Xander interview. But I believe the amount of ISK at risk to both sides should be within a single order of magnitude. Right now, it isn't even close.


I disagree with your conclusion that gankers have much more ISK and SPs then their targets. And also with the conclusion that they are new players and that they are poor. A new and poor player will not mine with Hulk or Mackinaw. Or drive a freighter. He will have to skill intensely to get in those ships and have money to buy them. I would expect that by this time they would be versed enough in EVE to know that they have to tank their ships. By admission of the gankers themselves, they do not attack tanked ships, they go for those that are untanked because they are easier pray. The example you have depicted, the 50 mil T1 hauler containing all the ISK of a newbie player essentially does not happen. It might have happened a few years ago but all the nerfs to ganking have made it essentially dissapear. A ganker will not go trough all the trouble that a gank these days ensues for the eventual profit of 50 mil. Even if such a situation would occur, however unlikely, I would still like to point out that your assertion that the ganker has more ISK and SP then the T1 hauler would still be flawed. The T1 hauler and the Thrasher are more or less in the same price range and the skill requirements to fly both effectively are within the reach of a few days training for any newbie pilot. At the end of this paragraph I will poke a stick at the 'ISK tanking' idea that you are promulgating. And let's not mince words, because your assertion that 'gankers have many more ISK and SP than their targets, by and large' is essentially that, the concept that one should use an equal amount of ISK in ships to be allowed to kill another ship. Ever since the inception of EVE the concept that exponential increase of ISK spent does not equal exponential increase in power, diminishing returns, has been a staple of the game. By your rationale for example, a moderately fit Machariel (about 1.3 bil for hull+ 200-300 mil in modules) should not be killable by, let's say, a gank of 15-20 T1 cruisers worth approximately 200-300 mil (I'm not gonna bring to play frigates, it would be even worse). We all know that this is not the case and should not be the case. Exponential ISK expenditure should not bring immunity to loss. I think even you would agree here, since by your own admission you are a PVPer. Yet if it is so in this situation, why it should not hold true in the situation of a gank as well? I do not understand, where is the difference? Should different rules with regards to the concept of diminishing returns apply in highsec, lowsec and nullsec? Because from what you are saying this is the conclusion that I'm drawing.
Aesil Maril
Destructive Brothers
#147 - 2013-02-22 17:06:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Aesil Maril
Part 2

Ripard Teg wrote:
Aesil Maril wrote:
...according to CCP we are at an all time low in EVE history as far as all types of ganking in highsec are concerned.


If this is true -- and I'd love to have a link to your source -- then I'd say this is because of the difficulty in getting the loot away from the victims rather than an inherent nerf to the ability of gankers to kill their targets. CCP is trying to take the profit out of the endeavor. Once there's a tankier T1 hauler (something I also endorse), I suspect the previous equilibrium is going to reestablish itself since the gankers will be able to use these to scoop their loot and escape before they themselves can be ganked.


I must correct myself, the actual quote says: "For reasons that are left as an exercise to the reader, Exhumers are now blowing up at historically low rates." [CCP Meeting minutes, December 2012, p104]
As far as I'm aware, the only thing that has changed in the meantime that could account for that is the buff to mining ship tank. As far as the impact of the changes to Crimewatch on other types of ganking, it was not discussed, but seeing as it has essentially been a drastic nerf to ganking I would assume that the amount of other types of highsec gankings has gone down dramatically as well. According to Eve-kill, in the last 7 days 14 freighters and and JFs have been killed in highsec, and only one of them has been victim to a suicide gank, all the rest have been victims to wardecs or faction warfare. Comparing this number to the numbers from before the latest changes (when on 'calm' weeks this number would be at around 50-60 and touching peaks of 100+ on 'hot' weeks) we can see there has been a sharp decline of these kind of ganks as well. All of this gives me enough certainty to claim what I have stated, that ganking in highsec is at a historic low. I will not even talk about the topic of ninja salvaging which has dissapeared completely from highsec.

As for your assertion that tankier T1 haulers will restore equilibrium because 'gankers will be able to use these to scoop their loot and escape before they themselves can be ganked' I have grave doubts about that. When you are pointed and everyone in highsec can shoot you, no amount of tank will save you. Maybe fitting some faction cargo extenders or shield mods for some ISK tanking would help? I dunno...
Fawn Tailor
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#148 - 2013-02-22 17:11:08 UTC
Jinrai Tremaine wrote:
Apologies in advance for side-tracking the thread, but I couldn't let that level of irony pass without comment.

Alanis?

AFK mining isn't a way of playing the game, it's a way of not playing the game.

If someone goes from not playing a game to playing a game how can it be forcing them to change the way they play? They weren't playing in the first place!

You want to reward players for doing the bare minimum and you want CCP to continually upgrade the protection afforded to those players who put in the least effort, it seems to me that James' platform is built on the premise that if you want to get ahead in a game you have to actually play it.

I would be interested to hear Ripard's view on AFK mining, is it valid to call it gameplay? Does it need further protection and enhancement?

Highsec Mining Permits - Ask me How! Salvaging Permits also available! www.minerbumping.com

Josef Djugashvilis
#149 - 2013-02-22 17:12:14 UTC
So, tougher ships equals them getting ganked less...who'd a thunk it?

CCP made it quite clear that ganking was never intended to be profitable.

This is not a signature.

Karl Hobb
Imperial Margarine
#150 - 2013-02-22 17:25:02 UTC
Ripard Teg wrote:
My answer is that 98% of the people bringing up this issue did not read the blog post in question and are attempting -- and in my view, failing -- to make political hay out of a manufactured issue that simply has no merit or basis in reality. Trying to argue that I advocate **** and slavery is just... plain... silly.

I don't think any sane individual really thinks you "advocate" such things (I did read the blog post and listened to your Crossing Zebras interview) but, quite frankly, EVE doesn't need any more of these idiotic comparisons between video game violence and real life violence. It probably would have gone unnoticed but you are e-famous, running for a CSM seat, claim that such comparisons are par for the course for the internet, and claim that such comparisons were needed or desired in order to spark serious debate.

Undoubtedly you don't think you did anything wrong, and us making "political hay" out of a "manufactured issue" is unlikely to affect your CSM candidacy considering just how e-famous you are but, if you are going to frame a debate on your own blog using these sensationalist comparisons, can we trust you to not make such silly comparisons when you have a CSM seat? You seem like a smart guy with a good head on your shoulders, you don't need to be sensationalist. Your readers deserve better and the players of EVE deserve better.

A professional astro-bastard was not available so they sent me.

Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#151 - 2013-02-22 17:31:44 UTC
Ripard Teg wrote:

And I'm caught up. If I didn't answer your question and you think I should, point me at it. Thanks for all the great questions!


Thanks for answering so many questions.

I do think you missed mine though:

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2645037#post2645037

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815

Jinrai Tremaine
Cheese It Inc
#152 - 2013-02-22 18:24:12 UTC
Fawn Tailor wrote:
Alanis?

AFK mining isn't a way of playing the game, it's a way of not playing the game.

If someone goes from not playing a game to playing a game how can it be forcing them to change the way they play? They weren't playing in the first place!

You want to reward players for doing the bare minimum and you want CCP to continually upgrade the protection afforded to those players who put in the least effort, it seems to me that James' platform is built on the premise that if you want to get ahead in a game you have to actually play it.

I would be interested to hear Ripard's view on AFK mining, is it valid to call it gameplay? Does it need further protection and enhancement?


It's always black and white for you New Order members; clearly I didn't point out the irony in your previous post just because it amused me to do so, it's because I'm supporting AFK miners! Clearly I "want to reward players for doing the bare minimum" and " want CCP to continually upgrade the protection afforded to those players who put in the least effort" otherwise why would I even think about disagreeing with something a New Order member said? I would say it's a lovely bit of rhetoric that James 315 has crafted that has you automatically jumping to this conclusion, but in all honesty the false dilemma - "us or them", as James uses it - is one of the oldest tricks in the book.

First off, James 315's platform of highsec changes reach waaaaaaay beyond AFK mining; he wants to shrink highsec significantly, move missions over L2 out of hisec and move nearly all ore types out of hisec. If that came to pass it would affect the gameplay for a lot more people than just AFK miners, all with a goal of driving PvE players out of hisec and into low/null. Regardless of whether or not AFK mining counts as gameplay, it's still entirely valid to say that the changes James 315 (and, based on his blog responses, the New Order) espouses are trying to change EVE and change people's playstyles to what James/The NO want them to be, the same thing he and you are accusing the hisec players of doing.

Second, AFK mining still involves interaction with the game - it is still gameplay. It is not very much gameplay, requiring one brief period of interaction every 25-45 minutes depending on skills, boosts and mining targets, but it still requires that interaction to produce results. Saying it is "a way of not playing the game" is disingenuous
Fawn Tailor
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#153 - 2013-02-22 20:17:46 UTC
Jinrai Tremaine wrote:
I would say it's a lovely bit of rhetoric that James 315 has crafted that has you automatically jumping to this conclusion, but in all honesty the false dilemma - "us or them", as James uses it - is one of the oldest tricks in the book.

Second, AFK mining still involves interaction with the game - it is still gameplay.

However I reached my conclusion, I was correct, you support AFK mining. Sorry for being right.

Having declared your support for playing a game at the rate of 2-clicks per hour, can you tell me, how do you feel about bots?

I'm sure that in setting up a bot a person has to make a few mouse-clicks, select some stuff from a drop-down list, maybe do some typing... that might average out to be around 1 or 2 click per hour, depending on how long they run the software.

Does that qualify as gameplay in your mind too?

Highsec Mining Permits - Ask me How! Salvaging Permits also available! www.minerbumping.com

Josef Djugashvilis
#154 - 2013-02-22 21:10:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Josef Djugashvilis
Fawn Tailor wrote:
Jinrai Tremaine wrote:
I would say it's a lovely bit of rhetoric that James 315 has crafted that has you automatically jumping to this conclusion, but in all honesty the false dilemma - "us or them", as James uses it - is one of the oldest tricks in the book.

Second, AFK mining still involves interaction with the game - it is still gameplay.

However I reached my conclusion, I was correct, you support AFK mining. Sorry for being right.

Having declared your support for playing a game at the rate of 2-clicks per hour, can you tell me, how do you feel about bots?

I'm sure that in setting up a bot a person has to make a few mouse-clicks, select some stuff from a drop-down list, maybe do some typing... that might average out to be around 1 or 2 click per hour, depending on how long they run the software.

Does that qualify as gameplay in your mind too?


One breaks the rules i.e. botting

The other is a tedious type of gameplay i.e. ice mining.

CCP is alright with the latter, but not the former.

Easy really.

This is not a signature.

Jinrai Tremaine
Cheese It Inc
#155 - 2013-02-22 21:28:19 UTC
Fawn Tailor wrote:
However I reached my conclusion, I was correct, you support AFK mining. Sorry for being right.


How exactly is pointing out that AFK mining still requires some interaction with the game the same as "support"? I mean it's a factual statement; it really does require regular input, just with large amounts of time between those inputs.

Fawn Tailor wrote:
how do you feel about bots?


I feel it's a good thing that they are banned because the competitive nature of EVE being what it is, if they were not banned then they would be used heavily by at least a large minority of EVE players and would skew all ISK production in favour of the botters. Botting would be required to be truly effective in any field, which would ruin the player-driven nature of things like the EVE economy. With bots banned, using them in violation of the EULA represents an unfair advantage and should be punished by CCP.

Fawn Tailor wrote:
I'm sure that in setting up a bot a person has to make a few mouse-clicks, select some stuff from a drop-down list, maybe do some typing... that might average out to be around 1 or 2 click per hour, depending on how long they run the software.

Does that qualify as gameplay in your mind too?


Since the input in that case is with the botting program rather than the game client, no it does not. I'm not counting the time that an AFK miner spends inputting keystrokes into, say, a word processor as they write a homework essay while AFK mining as gameplay either.
Kainotomiu Ronuken
koahisquad
#156 - 2013-02-22 21:51:47 UTC
Ripard Teg wrote:
Had you lived in 1729, you'd obviously want Swift arrested for cannibalism.

Ehhh... No, I'm afraid you can't make a legitimate comparison between Swift's proposal and your blog post. A Modest Proposal was satire to draw attention to the gross negligence of the English. Your post was at best a testing the waters to see what other people thought of you thinking bad things about highsec.
Nathan Jameson
Grumpy Bastards
#157 - 2013-02-23 04:18:33 UTC
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:
Nathan Jameson wrote:
Ripard Teg wrote:
Had you lived in 1729, you'd obviously want Swift arrested for cannibalism.


Pshaw, they're Irish, who cares.


As an Irishman, I do.


Yeah but you eat your babies.

(I was trolling; I hope you realized that.)

http://www.wormholes.info

rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
#158 - 2013-02-23 06:49:28 UTC
Jinrai Tremaine wrote:
I wouldn't go as far as Rodyas and suggest you're a pawn either


Oh come, Pawns have a good life. In most games they get to move first. Pawns are small so dogs don't chew on them, and when they do, they choke. You are used to explore the enemy and when you are sacrificed its the only time the master doesn't either get emo and cry or rage and throw the board against the wall.

Other pieces have it much harder, and the emotional baggage of using them is too much for most people.

Besides, with Yuri's description of what is fun in a fleet. He is the one heading straight for the pawn role faster, then most people.

But like I said, its not too bad of a life. So congrats to Yuri for finding his EVE goal already.

Signature removed for inappropriate language - CCP Eterne

Josef Djugashvilis
#159 - 2013-02-23 08:13:36 UTC
Nathan Jameson wrote:
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:
Nathan Jameson wrote:
Ripard Teg wrote:
Had you lived in 1729, you'd obviously want Swift arrested for cannibalism.


Pshaw, they're Irish, who cares.


As an Irishman, I do.


Yeah but you eat your babies.

(I was trolling; I hope you realized that.)



Aye Smile

This is not a signature.

admiral root
Red Galaxy
#160 - 2013-02-23 08:28:56 UTC
Ripard Teg wrote:
admiral root wrote:

So you have no answer, then? All you have is a wild accusation based on an alliance that I've been in for all of 10 minutes.

My answer is that 98% of the people bringing up this issue did not read the blog post in question and are attempting -- and in my view, failing -- to make political hay out of a manufactured issue that simply has no merit or basis in reality. Trying to argue that I advocate **** and slavery is just... plain... silly.

Had you lived in 1729, you'd obviously want Swift arrested for cannibalism.


*I* haven't claimed that you're advocating **** and slavery. What *I'm* saying is that if you think the two are in any way comparable to a miner's ship going boom, you're completely out of touch with reality. My question, which is right there for all to see, is how can someone so clueless be of any use to Eve players as part of the CSM?

TBH, I haven't seen anyone, anywhere say that you're an advocate of those awful things. You seem very hostile and defensive when asked a simple question. Is this also behaviour you'll exhibit if elected?

No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff