CSM Campaigns

Salutations and a good day to you,

My name is Radu Lupescu and I am officially declaring my campaign for CSM10.

I have been a citizen of New Eden for a couple years now and I've embraced almost every facet Eve has to offer. Be it intentionally, or inadvertently, I have been exposed to a full array of Eve's choices and consequences and lived to tell the tale of some rather unique stories that tie in directly to Eve's "school of hard knocks". Like all of you, I started out very green. Took me a while to figure out that a Badger 1 isn't the best ship to mine in . But that same badger led to me accidentally becoming a hauler. As a hauler I worked hard to build a name that people could trust and had always made sure to run square deals and stay clean. Over time... that will to do well and succeed was recognized by those around me, and especially my superiors. In retrospect it was all rather quick, but, I climbed and was led all the way from base member to director in two well-founded industrial corporations. I have held dual directorship ever since.

I have had to problem-solve through all stages of my personal developments. And anyone who's ever been in corporate administration can tell you... there is a significant amount of problem solving up top. It took me a while to get used to the flow of helping run a Manufacturing/Research and Development Corporation and a Logistics Corporation as well, but, all in all I can say I've always given both every bit of honest dedication that I could and can. I have had to:

- negotiate with other alliances and corporations
- handle issues between my corporation and the customer
- find problem areas and propose solutions
- implement solutions
- review and renovate old policies
- craft industrial doctrines and policies
- create departments
- recruit
- teach new players

All the while I have continued working, albeit more slowly, as a hauler. And under no circumstance did I forget where I started from or forget those that I've known since my beginning. Because of this, as a director I have always done everything I could to listen to each and all members of my corporations. I careful analyzed all propositions and looked for any way to implement them if they seemed healthy for the corporation. And this entire wall of text ties in directly with why I'm running for CSM10.

I need to preface with saying that I have no personal qualms with the current or past CSM's. I, as the rest of you, am aware that they've tried to do their duty faithfully and done everything they could to help the citizenry of New Eden. For that they have my respect. Looking at them one can see almost every demographic of Eve being amply represented. But... there is a "but" though. And that rests with the voices of haulers. I know these voices well and I listen to them every single day. Between the various hauler channels, anti-ganking channels, Push Interstellar Industries channels, and local channels, I have read and discussed many concerns. Most of them can be traced back to the feelings of, "Nobody cares what I think" and "CCP has no idea what living life as a hauler in New Eden means". Every time I hear something like that I purse my brows. That is because something doesn't seem right there.

Now I'm not looking to take away the joys of gankers. Obviously it's within the game mechanic and silence from the powers that be does equal consent. So I won't go there. What I am looking to do though is allow every voice in the hauling community to have equal say and representation to other CSM members and CCP... directly. I also wish to review what can be done to even the scale between haulers and gankers. And I'll even add that miners could use some attention too. So their voices would be just as well heard to me.

My number one goal though is for this gank targeted minority to be able to say they finally have a voice that they, the CSM, and CCP can communicate with freely and openly. I realize that it may seem a small thing to some - but to me and them, I am sure, it is something major. Given what I have previously stated about myself, and being a director at Push Industries, means that I am the right person for that job. All I want is the chance to influence and help whatever ideas and positive changes, however small, come to life. Also, rest assured, if I feel I have done a poor job of it I will not run for an additional term. Further though I would at least expect to not be voted in again. But I feel that if I am elected to be a CSM10, as I've outline, good things will follow.

Thank you kindly for reading and for you consideration ,

Fly safely,

Radu Lupescu

Given that ganking has received a string of nerfs over the years without ever receiving a buff, and given that people who currently use the tools available to them have no problems avoiding gankers, does this mean you'll be speaking up for us in the interests of the scales being balanced?

Radu, off-hand, I would say that Root is referring to the mining barge and exhumer buffs that came along with crimewatch in the retribution era, and this year we have seen freighter buffs in June, and something called a higgs rig that was just introduced. All of these increase the challenge of ganking. However, we do feel the changes have been rather one sided.

Hello Amyclas Amatin,

I am pleased to also meet you, thank you for joining in. And thank you for your reply, Admiral Root.

I'll begin by making sure my initial statement remains clear here because it seems to be getting lost. In my initial post I stated:

(emphasis added)

Examination of Examples

Please keep the following statement and question in mind as we proceed:



What was the balance before and where is it now? The underlying question to that question being: Is the balance between gankers and their victims even?

You bring up points that are more tangible. Below I restate them and add comments and or questions:

"... mining barge and exhumer buffs..."
- I have to ask, is it possible that CCP did this because the balance between ganker offensive ability superseded miner defensibility?
> If "yes", then the next question is: Is it now even scale?
> If "no", then the next question is: Why do you believe CCP brought on the change?

"... and this year we have seen freighter buffs in June..."
- Again, is it possible that CCP did this because the balance between ganker offensive ability superseded hauler defensibility?
> If "yes", then the next question is: Is it now even scale?
> If "no", then the next question is: Why do you believe CCP brought on the change?

"... came along with crimewatch..."
- Crimewatch is rather straightforward regarding what it is. It is first and foremost a documenting system for other players and CCP. As stated by CCP Masterplan.

"... There's also the decreased Concord response time..."
- Is a decrease in Concord response time not of benefit to gankers? If not, please explain.

"... the sudden declaration of boomeranging being an exploit (hardly the first time CCP has flip-flopped)..."
- As I understand it, gankers use this so as to draw Concord away from a ship being ganked. Do they not?

"... GCC preventing pilots from ejecting / boarding ships and, I'm told, the fact that you used to be able and allowed to evade Concord, to name a few."
- How exactly does this hinder gankers?

"... the insurance nerf... "
- I'm not as familiar with this one. Could you describe it for me please? And could you also explain how this goes against gankers?

"... If you truly want balance there needs to be give and take."
- One question (multifaceted) and one statement here:
> Can a freighter or hauling ship destroy a fighting ship? Also, out of curiosity, how or why not?
-- Purely for fun of thought, would it not add more interesting content to the game if a freighter could destroy a fighting ship?
> If a balance is too one sided, as demonstrated with RL liberation movements (it's just an example), then there is usually a lot of taking from one end so as to give to the other. So no, you don't always have or need equal give-and-take to get balance.

"... nor a single nerf to the safety of carebears."
- Are you suggesting that carebears are too safe and therefore that safety should be nerfed?

"... There are nerfs going back years and years... "
- Two questions here:
> When exactly did it begin?
> Why did it begin?

All in all, besides insurance, none of these are "nerfs" in the traditional sense of the term. And this is not me "picking at hairs", mind you. Given that ganking plights have been brought up, I am listening very carefully to understand the practical and exact nature of said plights. That said, nerfs remain undefined, for the moment. And every question asked is directly pertinent to the attempt of providing total clarity to the subject at hand. Only with that can we then begin looking for exact solutions.

Looking forward to your reply,

~ Radu Lupescu

It's worth noting that none of the buffs mentioned by the honourable undesireable gentleman were introduced as buffs to ganking, gankers just picked up some side benefits of those changes. Nerfs to ganking, however, were specifically introduced as nerfs to ganking. Personally, I think it was pretty silly that we could get insurance on gank ships, but that's far from the only attack on our play style we've seen over the years.

Now, either CCP are horribly inept at balancing the situation, given that 11 years later they still haven't got it right, or they're increasingly catering to the one more nerf crowd, who think AFK mining whilst watching netflix or even doing non-computer things should be perfectly safe to do.

It's worth noting that almost every time I pull stats for the same 3 ganking hotspots (Uedama, Niarja and Jita), there's well under 1% chance of ships dying for any reason that the API tracks (wardecs, duels, going suspect, ganks, losses to NPCs, etc), even when the New Order is swinging the gank hammer at everything that moves.

Out of interest, if the anti-ganking people (who are frequently vulgar, make RL death threats, etc) want to feel someone on the CSM is listening to them, have they actually tried talking to existing reps? If so, how about they share the chat logs?



The exact same thing could be said about CCP having no idea about ganking - more so, because while their employees are allowed to go space trucking, they're explicitly banned from taking part in suicide ganking.

I've got no particular axe to grind with the OP, though I wonder what his less rational, more vocal constituents will think of him the first time someone gets ganked after he's elected?

Hello Dersen Lowery,

Once again I thank you for the much more detailed picture. I'll reply through your initial post in bullet format.

"Quickly:

Decreased CONCORD response time means CONCORD responds more quickly, which means more ships (or more waves of ships) are needed to execute a gank;"

> Given that it is a criminal enterprise I believe that to have this kind of response is called for. The premise being that we're in a future where we can travel entire solar systems in a flash should lend itself to information traveling even more quickly, so this makes sense.

"The insurance nerf refers to a change where there's no insurance payout for a ship lost to CONCORD. Previously, you did get your insurance payout if CONCORD blew you up;"

> It also makes sense that the empires, who founded Concord and preside over insurance companies, would not want criminals reaping the reward of insurance claims based on criminal actions.

"While you have CONCORD's attention, they will now blow up any ship you get into. For example, if you gank a Bowhead, pull a fitted ship out of the wreck and board it, CONCORD will blow that ship up, too;"

> Concord is obviously not intended to be a mindless drone but one that is capable of spotting a criminal in all forms of his actions. Their getting administered justice, as with the bowhead example, makes sense.

"The Crimewatch revision streamlined things significantly, which eliminated a number of loopholes that gankers had used to great effect, such as having logistics ships get flagged in the middle of an Incursion site--as I understand it, being repped by a flagged ship flagged the ship getting reps, so CONCORD would basically show up and blow up a significant amount of the fleet if you did it right. Under the new Crimewatch, flags don't propagate anymore;"

> This also seems a logical system. If the scale is to be balanced then I believe all loopholes should be closed so as to keep things even/fair.

"You used to be able to tank CONCORD, some years back;"

> We have RL examples of police and their vehicles using as much sophistication as possible so as to be able to outmatch criminals. It makes sense then that in an intergalactic age you would get something similar, if not even more so.

"EDIT: you used to be able to outrun CONCORD. That's what boomeranging is. Essentially, you gank something relatively flimsy, like a barge, then warp to your next target before CONCORD spawns on that grid, then gank something there, then warp off before CONCORD spawns, etc., for as long as you have targets. Now, it's an exploit to leave grid after you've done something to summon CONCORD."

> I wasn't entirely aware of this before now. I'm glad it's cleaned up though. What I'm left wondering about now is, I hear that Concord can be drawn far away from a future gank victim by another ganker using a rookie ship to pull them away to the other side of the system. I'm curious what can be done to correct what appears to be a loophole.

"There are industrials with various levels of combat capability, from cheap ones like the Venture, the Nereus and the Badger to giants like the Rorqual. One of the pilots in my old corp blew up a stealth bomber with a Retriever in a WH once. They can't stop any serious effort."

> I knew before this that you can put a gun on a badger and other indie ships but their effectiveness is rather moot against "a serious effort". My somewhat playful question is if a truly effective mod can be placed on indie ships where their attacking power is taken far more seriously. I'm obviously not entirely sold on the idea but I'm curious what the ramifications would be.

"There have been buffs which have benefited gankers: The blaster Catalyst was buffed from a joke into a face-melting short-range DPS platform no fewer than three times in the last three-odd years. The Tornado and the Talos were introduced. The Brutix was buffed into a monster during the BC rebalance. The freighter buff improved their fitting variability, not necessarily their gank resistance. I suppose you could look at the general nerf to cargo capacity as a ganking nerf, but that's stretching it."

> Now these are some points that I find of particular interest. That is because the Catalyst seems to be the ganker's ship of choice but I've heard of Talos fleets as well. Now I see why.

- Given all you said, besides adding an additional step in the ganking process I don't see it being slowed down or hindered in any sort of way. Rather I see logic and reason being implemented where a series of loopholes once existed. I'm curious as to how many more loopholes exist and if there are other system being abused gankers.

"I don't have a strong position either way--I have ganked (though not in high sec), but I wouldn't call myself a ganker; I have flown industrials, but I wouldn't call myself an industrial pilot--but that's a reasonable start on the state of things."

> Again, I'm very glad you gave a clearer "state of things". I can see a lot more productive conversation stemming from it.

Regards,

~ Radu Lupescu

First of all i'd like to congratulate Radu on stepping up and wish him all the best for his campaign.

I admit i was a bit surprised that the discussion went right into high-sec ganking as logistics is a topic that for once actually isn't exclusive for any particular security area in Eve. Its one of the major topics that intertwines so heavily with almost every other activitiy in Eve that it's good to see someone taking a step for more representation of it.

I am not following the statement of 'fanatics' when it comes to the big organized groups of gankers - all that is just the marketing aspect to sell it well enough to others. Every major ops in Eve has and will always be fuelled by economical ideas and profits. As long as a certain group will control the 'gank market' it will also control blue-fees and who passes through and who not. Face it - this is about large scale market influence and control - not about a philosophy how to play the game. The common pilot in that group might like to blow up things - but the minds behind the overall ops are interested in protecting their own market shares and income primarily.

I do agree a lot to the argument though that it has put a entire group of players out of business - the 'original' pirates who would pose a threat on a decent level that could be dealt with equally for both involved parties. And they made the game fun and interesting after all because you had at least 2 choices how to deal with them: Buckle up and arm yourself well enough or avoidance of them. The current state of ganking basically leaves only one option: avoidance.

So why this change? Its not the mechanics - they have not changed that heavily at all when we look honestly at it. Its the players level of knowledge that has changed, the acceptance for other player groups and the understanding (or the lack of it) of how much time goes into something. Hauling aka logistics is a time intensive process - as is mining and every other industry related activity. A gank just takes a few minutes especially when its setup around a major trade hub where refits are easily accessible - a standard hauling trip easily takes 30 minutes to an hour. So we are looking at a time used ratio of 1:3 here.

Why is this important as an argument? Because its player time - real world time used. Not some artificial currency but real value. As calculating isk per hour has become very popular and more and more dominant in players decision process what to choose as activity in Eve. The skill investment to fly those levels of industrials PLUS the time for each trip != the payment at all for a common hauler pilot in Eve. CCP has over the years introduced more and more content and abilities to play Eve solo - but that doesn't account for industrial pilots. Quite the contrary with the current state of ganking.

I have stated this in other threads as well - the current mechanics for high sec don't really reflect properly how the empires should react to those kinds of activities in their space. Concord right now only reacts - which is great and shouldn't change. But additional standing losses like podding and aggression in low sec should be seriously on the list for high-sec.

I do not want a 'safe' high sec - but i want a high sec that acts and performs like i would expect it to do when looking at lore and story. I expect to be evicted after several attempts of robbery , theft and aggression. I want corporations to hate me when i blow things up in their controlled systems - because i scare away their customers.

Hello all,

Very interesting last few points here. Nice to meet you, Dwissi. And thank you for joining.

Amyclas Amatin,

I must admit, the initial effects of your latest post were quite profound. It combines history, with logic, and addresses reasons. It also draws a natural conclusion. All in all it affirmed a past, current, and future state of things. But after reflecting on it further my mental faculties caught up with me and I realized why there is great fault in your conclusions. You see, IRL I'm currently pursuing a Masters Degree of Military History. So whenever I have the opportunity to reflect on history's teachings regarding military based matters, be they the "artificial" history of a video game or fiction - or be it RL history, I ask myself "what is the pattern?". So although your assessment of the past and current affairs are quite astute, there is flaw in the future you depict.

I'll start with a short digression here by saying something that I've wanted to say since the beginning, it is in accord with what you and Dwissi have said too. I feel incredibly bad for Pirates these days. Not that they'd want such sympathy . But I must agree, there was something honorable about piracy and you did have a more clearly defined choice with them, as Dwissi pointed out - not the one-sided-ness seen today. I wish to also add that CCP endorsed this class and clearly has a problem of keeping it alive in light of gankers. That is likely harder to resolve than balancing the scale between ganker and gank-victim. With that said, let's go on.

According a May 14th, 2013 Daily Nexus article [An online Newspaper by the University of California (Santa Barbara)] Eve Online saw a peek in subscriptions, that year, sitting at 500,000. You claim that the CFC has some 50,000 members. CODE has, according to its membership list of their in-game corporation attributes (8+88+1+164+1+2+24+1 equaling ->) 289 members. And both parties recognize that they are well allied with one another therefore the numbers are as well. None of this takes alts into account but for the sake of keeping the numbers clear we have to pretend they don't exist. This means that the current ruling HS body of gankers can be at its greatest... one tenth of the Eve Online membership.

I will also like to address that the 164 you see in the list above is the "New Order Logistics". Of course the CFC has quite a few haulers as well. All in this means that my wishing to represent haulers extends to the haulers in both entities as well *go haulers!*

Now where does history play into this?

Given the nature of ganking, as we both agree that it is a sport for extremists - be it religious, philosophical, or political, the "end game" is to have things their way. The only way that this can be done is by causing a surreptitious chaos and then, after a period of time, implementing their own form of government. Now there are two problems with this.

1) Eve's landscape will always change socially, politically, and economically
2) A government formed on open tyranny is always met with an ill end (TLDR as to why this is true)

Looking further, your use of Malcanis' Law also plays against your argument by overlooking the obvious. A small example will help illustrate the point. Recently I was recruiting for a corporation in which I am not a director and a Goon knocked on my door. It puzzled me because the context was that I was recruiting for a HS industrial corp. Like all of you, I had the thought of "Awoxer". But talking with the fellow revealed some interesting points. He had informed me that in order to make decent money in CFC NS it was necessary for one to have an initial investment with which to create a means of profitability. He pointed to the need of a POS for moongoo, a carrier for ratting, and so on. He further informed me that his wallet hadn't risen above 500mil for quite some time. Whether his story was true or not is besides the point. The point is that Malcanis' Law works for the elite of Eve Online, not the common man or woman. I am sure it is safe to assume that the majority of both ganking entities are common players. And when subscription payment becomes an issue... the common man walks away to go find money.

You also forget to take into account that the CFC can't last forever. And same with CODE. Today it is those entities but in the future it will be others. This is Eve, after all.

Then you have to remember that it is you who are making ganking a common theme that we are all learning from and slowly adapting to. Over time the new players of today will use your same weapons against you and the integrity of HS will consist of people running gankers out of town... sooner... or later.

Thereby when I say I wish to balance the scale I am looking both at the current situation and at the future as well. As a representative for my constituents I will seek to help nature take its course and whatever means necessary to tighten loopholes and balance the tide. ganking is a self generating fad and if you look at what I have said, carefully, you will see that everyone from CCP, to the CSM, to the player body will help it go back from whence it came and restore the balance and perspective of ganking being what it has always been... something that people gather for to do whenever they see an occasional - financial - opportunistic - victim. That is fair balance. And a couple years from now (maybe even tomorrow), whether I had a play in it or not, things will change and balance will be restored. Meanwhile all we can do is help it along.

Even though ganking is forcing change that weeds out its cause, the future of Eve Online is very bright. And I hope to represent my constituents while this happens... perhaps beyond as well, if both they and I see that to be necessary. From Null Sec to High Sec, I'm here to represent them all.

Regards,

~ Radu Lupescu

@Amyclas I was certainly not underestimating it - but i consider the 'chase' version more the exception than the rule of ganks.

Most of the ganks the majority is referring to happens around or in major hub areas - what you describe would be part of a small roaming gank as in 'original' pirates for me. Compare it to a small gang roam if you want that is looking for targets in low and null. Which i stated is perfectly fine and adorable as both involved parties are basically on equal foot here.

I do agree that those groups will not fall into the time ratio but most others do as they happen simply on the 'highways' of freighters and haulers or right in the hub systems themselves. To gank on that level doesnt require a lot of pre-planning nor does it involve very high 'punishment' besides a few ships being lost and not being able to dock for a while.

But as i stated - the major problem is not the gank mechanics itself but a lack of proper fitting into what should be set in an empire regulated and policed area. Players play a game - mostly to enjoy their spare time. So the time they use is probably the most valuable thing to every player. To keep and hold players in any game there has to be a balance of stress/competition and relaxation. We all probably have some opinion about afk gaming - but we shouldn't judge it in general to be a bad thing. As pvpers we want targets and some people enjoy activities that allow them to 'afk' a bit due to family and other real life constraints. To seek a competitive environment is excellent - but look at my wording here: seek it. By now the player has no choice anymore - he is forced into high competitive play style right from the beginning.

Eve has become very one-sided in that concern. Players used to be able to take courier contracts as young players to earn a bit of money - even if it wasn't the highest payment compared to usage of time. That part has basically completely died out by now. War deccing to be able to shoot at targets - great. Both parties know what they are facing then. But the 'ambush' and kill randomly politics we have currently in high sec is definitely unhealthy and only feeds those who are strong to begin with.

To add something i would generally like to see regarding logistics is an old request actually: Drones for industrials. It is beyond my personal comprehension that this has never been pushed for decently on a larger plane. Almost every ship in Eve has the ability to both be an active attacker and defender - just not industrials. Mining ships have a drone bay that allows them to protect themselves besides passive tanking - why not all the other industrials?

In a real world that would function like Eve that would definitely be the first thing to happen to a logistics hull - a drone bay. I have been a long time in the navy and the concept can be easily applied to Eve - at least when it comes to common usage of different ship models. Auxiliary ships are the procurer for minor vessels that dont have the storage capacity themselves. These type of ships are capable of defending themselves beyond just being fitted with thick armor plating. They are ill-equipped for a long term fight but can wield enough fire power to scare lesser attackers away.

In Eve that correlates to a drone bay basically. Instead of changing the hulls to provide more effective hitpoints only there should be a way to fit a industrial as flexible as a regular ship - including the ability for active defences like drones. This need applies to every security level in eve - for some areas more tank would be considered necessary where in other areas more active defense would be the thing to go for. A limitation of high slots and turret points would still make them industrials in their main role but would allow for more flexibility for solo players or smaller groups - thus balancing the need for group and solo play.