Jita Park Speakers Corner

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)

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



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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

*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?