Jita Park Speakers Corner

You... do appreciate the irony involved in saying "You're trying to turn my opinion into a personal failing on my part" at the same time as you tell me "I believe you are allowing yourself to be victimized by one person", right? I am honestly confused where I've given the impression that I'm implying a personal failing on your part, because it's not an impression I intended to give, or a view that I personally hold.

I think the reason this has gone on so long is that we're looking at this from opposite sides - you're focusing on the risk the AFK cloaker poses to the residents, I'm focusing on the risk the residents pose to the AFK cloaker. Asking about the latter and only getting a response referring to the former wasn't answering the question I was interested in; I said back in my first post on the subject that I was fine with that side of the equation. Now that you've given an answer to the actual question I wanted, I'll stop asking about it. I can't say I understand why that is your answer, but at least I have it.

Ripard, you missed a spot

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2653650#post2653650

And because you made me wait I have a further question along that line: what is a game mechanic that you would like to see changed so it does not punish solo players as much anymore?

Ripard, about your article:
"COTW: Ganking isn't PvP and never was"
http://jestertrek.blogspot.sg/2013/01/cotw-ganking-isnt-pvp-and-never-was.html

and your article on wardecs:
Tears in the big picture
http://jestertrek.blogspot.sg/2011/10/tears-in-big-picture.html

In my honest opinion, Eve online is a war-game, and the only "fairness" in it is that every group of players can and will press every advantage they have to achieve "victory" - whatever that is. It is also my opinion that no player, whether pvp inclined or not, should be sheltered from the consequences of pvp. In a truly connected world, everyone is "fair game".

Asymmetric or unbalanced combat is always a fact of war. One side plans better, or has better supply lines and thus fields bigger armies. The smart way to fight is not always to seek fun "decisive battles", but it also involves shutting down trade, industry, and crippling enemy morale. - All of which involves a good deal of ganking and guerrilla style combat / space-ship terrorism.

I see high-sec war-decs as the equivalent of piracy in high-sec. And almost all piracy is predatory or opportunistic in nature. As such the victims of this predation are often the weak, the new players (I still love you, E-Uni...), disorganised industrial corps with "kitchen-sink" defense fleets, mission and incursion runners in blinged out pve ships, etc...

I can empathize with the fact that victims often don't stand a chance - which is why they are victims in the first place. Sometimes people adapt. They learn to fit warp core stabs, they learn their gate and bubble mechanics, and learn to deal with non-consensual pvp situations, and sometimes they don't, they dock up and quit or complain of harassment.

You sir, are trying to gather sympathy for those who refuse to adapt, the lowest common denominators in the player-base. All on the basis of the "value of their subscriptions".

Eve history has shown us that there are many cases in which new players can wreck havoc on veterans. But one could argue that they were all aggressive madmen to begin with. And good leadership is mandatory for inferior groups to defeat superior ones. Groups of victims often lack both: Aggressive madmen who keep them safe at night, and experienced leaders.

There are many heartless pvpers who say that victims should just get involved with the low and null community if they want proper protection. But there are many social difficulties for passive players when dealing with aggressive players - mostly arising from fear and false perceptions. That and you have to deal with politics and sov grinds... and strict background anti-spai checks, and general pvp paranoia.

Game-Balance wise, I believe that enough concessions have been made for passive high-sec players in the form of concord and mining barge buffs. Pvpers are still relentless, and they always will be, no matter how you try to modify the field against them. And in truth, there will be no respite for high-sec "carebears" without a game-breaking war-dec nerf and a complete eradication of high-sec ganking.

Professional pvp, short of dueling and heroic-elite pvp, is mostly the art of ganking, and catching your enemy off-balance. (That, or blobbing and bashing. ) Newbies with suicidal tendencies and the ability to create or get access to endless supplies of ships to whelp themselves in, can thrive in any environment. But my sympathies go out to those who can't.

But I don't believe that the pvp nature of high-sec should be broken even further to accommodate or protect groups of players because they are in a weak or pathetic situation. There are enough avenues for escaping war-decs, and as CCP says, high-sec ganking is at and all time low.

Heh, thing is Wescro isn't running for CSM and making comments about how to fit ships, whereas some key arguments around your platform regarding suicide ganking and highsec are based on a demonstrably flawed understanding of how it's actually done.

PS. May as well pre-empt it, I'm also pretty bad at fitting ships.

Remember when reading this post that the opinions in it were expressed by the commenter, not myself. There is one and only one opinion of mine in that entire post. I do agree a lot of people have been confused by the distinction in a rush to judgement. And that's probably quibbling over semantics in any case.

One of the things I respect about New Order is that while they're not completely ideologically pure in this regard, the bulk of their pilots are not "level 90"s; they've made a deliberate choice to ply their trade with only a few million skill points. I respect that. I'm still not convinced it's anything like a majority stake in suicide ganking, but I can get behind what they do for that reason.

You on the other hand are making a strong argument for the right of "level 90"s to attack all the "level 1"s they want. After all, you paid your dues, got your level 90 and now it is your duty to inflict misery on the pathetic level 1s. I'm sure a lot of people feel that it is a valid argument.

I'm a level 90 myself. Someone just one page back is having some fun at my expense because I'm out there most every night doing what level 90s do, too. I'm just not doing it high-sec, that's all. The irony of that is completely lost on this person. I say it only to remind you. But let's get back to your statements and those two blog posts.

The one and only one opinion I expressed in the first post you listed is that I myself am conflicted about how far and to what extent this should be part of EVE. Because as long as it is part of EVE, then I believe EVE is doomed to a niche that it will never break out of. DUST 514 is very rapidly becoming the tail that wags EVE's dog and 25 years in business has taught me that successful businesses follow the money. If DUST 514 becomes a massive success and EVE continues to languish, then we're going to watch as more and more of EVE's best people leave to develop for DUST. Smart companies and smart people follow the money.

Put another way: it's called "World of Warcraft". Gee. That kind of implies there was a "Warcraft" once, doesn't it? Was that a game of some sort at some point? I wonder what ever happened to that?

So yeah, you bet I'm conflicted. I admit to that readily.

You didn't link the post that prompted the philosophical discussion, Conflict of self-interest

Read it and you will be reminded that I'm not the only one who's conflicted about this. CCP IS TOO. They were the ones that brought it up. I'm not alone in this boat.

In a recent blog post you wrote about making mining a more engaging game mechanic, I believe, at a fundamental level. Something more complex than - Get Close Enough to Rock ---> Turn on Strip Miner ----> Wait -----> Point Strip Miner at other rocks until cargo hold is full ----> Repeat. I'd love to see mining turn into its own sort of sub-game where the rock is more like a PvP target and it takes some skill on the part of the pilot to make it surrender its ores. Any ideas on that yet? Or do we have to wait for a blog post about it?

From the slavery/rapists/nazism saga, we already know you are an ardent believer of "any publicity is good publicity."



Let me stop you right there. I have nothing against you personally, it's your platform that I dislike, and the occasional insensitivity to rl attrocities for blog traffic. There are many great people with terrible ideas, and vice versa.



I could be the worst ship fitter in the galaxy, (and I probably am), but how is that in any way a valid defense for your ignorance about ganking?

By pivoting to me, you are essentially saying, "my critics suck, therefore I must be right." If we were brawling in a schoolyard, you would probably get points for that nice comeback. Running for CSM involves a slightly more professional form of discourse than some of us might be accustomed to in Local chat.

It's all the more confusing in light of your sales pitch in the OP, where you claim to be a professional negotiator. Tell me how many negotiations you have been a part of where you highlight a completely unrelated weakness of your critic to defend your viewpoint. Is that what we can expect of Ripard the CSM? "Anyone who sucks in my eyes has no right to question me!"

Ultimately, you seem to be missing the necessarily defensive nature of this relationship. You are the (prospective) representative, I am the constituent. I don't have to defend any of my (unrelated) views or lack of skills, since I am not claiming to be your representative, or your advocate, or anyone's advocate but my own. You on the other hand are and must defend your positions, clarify them, present justifications, etc.



Uh, not sure where you're going with that, but don't let anyone say I don't respect that green "elite-non-gank-pvp" killboard of yours. And if you'll read past the critique of your assertions about ganking, I have tried at least three times to get you to clarify your support for ISK tanking, so when you are done guffawing at my terribad fittings, feel free to drop some of your perspective on that.

I'm surprised that you'd include me in that list, since the few contributions I have made to this thread are either defending your '****' comments or asking legitmate questions about your platform. Perhaps the reason you've not bothered to answer any of those questions is because you're assuming that because I'm a member of the New Order I hate you? Because that seems like a bad assumption to make. Or perhaps it's just because I've disagreed with a few of your ideas? Because treating people who are unsure about your platform with hostility doesn't seem like the best way to conduct a campaign.

In any case, I'm certainly not representing James in this thread. All my comments are made with my own worries about your platform in mind.

I do have to say this is the thing that would make me most uneasy about voting for Ripard... even if there is the similarity in the whole desire for power and control over others in the comparisons he made, its kind of a matter of respect and scale. I'm not sure I'd be able to respect someone who makes such strong comparisons like that in things involving a game. Don't need a repeat of the kind of comments that were made by a certain drunken Mittani at a previous Fanfest. I think character is just as or even more important than platform. While I agree with certain aspects of his platform, that bit alone makes me worry he takes it way too much to an extreme level.

I was a bit puzzled to see this as I've posted one comment directly concerning you explaining why I believe ganking, either as a group or solo activity, is a legitimate part of Eve and should continue. Also when you entered our channel I greeted you with hello; I didn't trash talk you, I didn't tell you to leave, I was interested in what you had to say and why you were there... it's actually sad that you would dub me so quickly as not good representation for James and NOL when I actually haven't done anything to warrant such description. No, I do not support your campaign, however, that does not mean I'm not willing to listen. I believe what you wrote here supports the argument that if someone appears to not share your views, then they are automatically wrong and you dismiss them.