CSM Campaigns

Lets look at the mechanics then in general - which are seriously broken and everyone is aware of that:

War declarations: The only place in eve where that matters is high sec. It prevents Concorde from getting involved in those infights. Who declares war on whom? Since you love numbers - the number of serious war declarations between 2 opposing corporations or alliances is minimal. In most cases we deal with a well-prepared high sec war monger against a lesser prepared entity ( be it because of lack of knowledge or ignorance or simply the fact that they mainly consist of 'peaceful' players).
Wars have not been declared for years between any serious Eve entities as they reside in null sec or low sec where there is no Concorde intervention to begin with. This mechanic has been broken for years and that has basically not changed despite some adjustments to it.

Suspect flag: Most 'carebears' have never once changed their safety settings as they never had need for it. Those who have this flag deserve of course to be a common target. But interesting enough no one cares about blinky pilots in combat ships - everyone chickens out or tolerates them to begin with. So that argument is a pretty lame one to begin with and you know that. Almost every suspect did his action deliberately and most of them know exactly what to do to become one or what to avoid. Others - especially newer players occasionally get tricked into actions to become suspect - this has been a common practice since Eve exists. The number of suspect-flagged freighter pilots per day wouldnt even need the fingers of a single hand to count them.

Since you change tone you might be careful who you accuse of what here. You dont know me nor have you any idea about my stance towards certain elements and how i deal with them. Eve has more than enough systems to express ones will for violence and pew. Whining about 'nerfs' in a policed and regulated area that was never meant to be the central place for violence is just what i expected from you. Eve has always and will always have to deal with common demographics of players. That includes builders, caretakers, haulers and pew orientated people. Eve consist of a full sized environment that was meant to be played by all these different groups - not just the last stated pew group.

On top of that people tend to split into 2 major factions - the forum warriors and the people who simply want to enjoy a game for whatever time they can afford for it. The latter group does not necessarily voice themselves as heavily in forums as the more outgoing aggressive players - its simply not part of their nature to begin with.

Over the years Eve has seen different groups who tried to 'take ownership' of how Eve should be played or what it should be - and it has led to an awful collection of errors and failed tweeks. Phoebe started to get rid of some of them already and brings a lot of the original Eve back - which has nothing to do with 'nerfing'. Its always a give and take and the original problem has never been solved since many years back - the mechanics in high sec dont really reflect a policed and regulated area at all. The mechanics are still mainly used by a minority in that area to satisfy their bloodlust which could easily be satisfied in more than 3000 other system that are designed for exactly that.

You are right that here is the core of the problem but it is in your expectation that is the problem, not the game mechanics. Eve is not a simulation of a space utopia where everyone gets along - it is a dark, gritty, unsafe universe where many of the game mechanics are explicitly design to induce player vs. player conflict. I have already linked CCP Falcon's recent comments confirming that this is the design of the game and it is still the devloper's intentions to keep all of New Eden, including highsec, and unsafe place. Highsec criminals are suppose to exist. Wars between highsec entitites are suppose to exist. Suicide ganking is suppose to exist. All of these are clearly coded into the the game and not by mistake.

Eve is fundamentally risk vs. reward, and without at least some risk everywhere, or at least everywhere that can influence the greater game world and economy, the game pretty much breaks, or at least the sandbox part of it does. Now if you, or perhaps more appriopriately the CSM candidate whose thread this is, can give me specific issues where haulers are at an unfair disadvantage, or there are some quality of life issues that could be addressed by a CSM representative I am eager to hear it. If you both are just complaining that haulers can die when then don't use the myriad of tools to protect themself (as I outlined in my original post), I fail to see the point of electing a representative whose sole campaign plank is "CCP Falcon is wrong - highsec should be totally safe".

I apologize you felt that link is trolling - that was not my intention. CCP Falcon's responses are scattered all through that thread so in the interest of making my point concisely, I used the most condensed version I know of. I could spend the time to go through and link them all again directly in this post, but I am not sure that would add anything to the discussion since the accuracy of Falcon's words are not in dispute. The point is that CCP Falcon was clear about how the game is designed, how it is intended to work, and that design includes haulers being destroyed in highsec.

Further, I don't see how using the words of a lead CCP developer who clearly states that highsec is a dangerous place where you are responsible for your safety to back up my view that hauler violence in highsec is working as intended is "another low". I am just pointing out that this is how the game is designed. Haulers are suppose to be at risk in highsec - I am not sure how many times I need to repeat this.

This is not about any other candidates - I am seriously interested in what Radu has to say. I even bet there might be an issue or two facing haulers, highsec or otherwise, that are worthy of attention. Or perhaps he has some ideas on other issues like wardecs which I have been asking other candidates about. But I am not at all convinced that the ganking of highsec haulers is an issue in light of the design of the game - which is suppose to include the ganking of highsec haulers.

But I await Radu's reply. Perhaps he has something to add that I have not considered.

Good morning Gentlemen,

Quite a few things were said here throughout yesterday. As I said, I was away due to the American holiday of Thanksgiving but am replying today as promised.

This post is a placeholder for the post to come. I just wish to express that I hope the conversation may pause while I draft a formal reply in the interim. It will be an edited post of this one. Thank you for understanding and please check back periodically for my actual reply.

Regards,

~ RL

---

Hello all,

Regarding ganking please see what I have quoted above. It is the TL;DR of the entire thread. In short that post, #32, covers all the basic ground work of what it is you wish to know. It also points you to post #27 which adds to it. But I would very much prefer you read the entire thread.

Your entire discussion, from posts #'s 35-50 could have gone an entirely different direction had you simply read posts 1 through 35 and in their entirety. Therein you would have realized that the points you bring up have already been talked about and logical and fair conclusions drawn.

What I have noticed here are two sides that represent their social spheres rather well. But there was very little constructive communication going on because one side was proceeding without the information from the previous posts while the other side assumed those were already read, though Dwissi showed signs of realizing you had actually not read. So... before we proceed in constructive discussion please take some time to digest the entirety of this thread and then go on. Otherwise this thread will simply become rehash statements, straw man arguments, and become a complete waste of people's times... including those who post willingly uniformed.

My next post will be regarding actual subject matter rather than the nature of the 15 post debate, which has just been described.

Regards,

~ Radu Lupescu

PS - There's a history lesson post that explaining why I sign or initial my posts. As you read you'll come across it.

In this long thread much has been written but frankly I still don't have a concrete idea of what ideas you want to bring to the CSM. I have a sense of how you and Dwissi view the game, and that you think there is too much ganking in highsec but not much else.

Being a CSM member is not a ceremonial position - they are they to provide specific feedback and ideas on the development of the game from the players, not just "represent" a player type. Therefore, I would kindly ask you consisely and directly answer the following questions so we as voters, know what issues you will prioritize and bring to the attention of the CSM and CCP during your first summit if elected:

1) What are the top three issues facing haulers today in Eve? Are there any quality-of-life issues facing them, or is there a need for new ship types or tweaks to make their game play more engaging? Are there issues for new players getting into the career?

2) In your OP, you say that your "number one goal" is to give a voice to the "gank targeted minority". From the rest of the thread it is clear you think ganking is too prevelent:
a) In your view what is the "proper" amount of ganking in highsec? You can answer in any metric you want (e.g. 10% of what it is now, 1/1000 chance of gank per undock, none at all, etc.) but I am trying to get a sense of when and in what situations you think a player should be gankable.
b) What specific changes in game mechanics would you recommend to the CSM/CCP to make highsec haulers more safe?

3) Do you agree that Eve as a game is designed to balance risk vs. reward? If so, from your point of view which activities are most out of balance in the game today - that is pay too much reward for too little risk, or are far too risky for a small amount of reward?

I would appreciate as direct answers as possible similar to the ones you would give to CCP at your first CSM summit.

This was not even an argument at all, strawman or otherwise. I am just asking for clarification on your view of how the mechanics of highsec ganking should work. When and where should it be possible, and how common do you think it should be?

If you do not think that "ganking is too prevalent", I apologize for putting words in your mouth but that was my interpretation of statements like yours from the original post:



and from Dwissi:


If you do not think that "ganking is too prevalent", then I am even more curious what your views on highsec ganking are.

I am not trying to engage you in a discussion. I am asking a clear and specific question about your views on how highsec should work. If you do not think "ganking is too prevalent", then what exactly are your thoughts on highsec ganking and the game mechanics that regulate it, and more importantly, what should be changed to make the game better?

Mr. Pedro,

Now we are closer to being on the same page.

Alright, so... you are actually touching on two separate subjects here: Equilibrium between a capital ship and non-capitals (quite a notion that) and the nature of High Security Space, Low Security Space, and Null Security Space.

The first has already been well covered, I want you to know that. But I will digress to recap the initial premises of the drawn conclusions:

Currently the Talos, Brutix, Catalyst, and others have received buffs that make them favored by gankers. This combined with loopholes in High Sec, and the issues with Concord/Police Forces, yield the balance in favor of gankers. The only nerf to ganking, in the classical meaning of the term, has been the Insurance Nerf. Regardless of what angle you look at this subject with, you will find that the balance, which I referred to in my campaign announcement post, is in favor of the ganker.

- Therefore when you read the conclusions drawn on this thread you will see how if they were implemented there would be greater equilibrium. It is not a question of "ganking being too prevalent", it is a question of balancing the offensive capabilities of ganker swarms and the defensive capabilities of the hauler.

-----

Now... first point is a separate entity from the second point and yet is a part of the second point. Mind you that this too has already been covered on this thread, however, the conclusions aren't as specific as for the first point. So talking about this isn't quite as rehash, albeit borderline:

What we have here is what Dwissi brought up in the quote you shared. But for all intents and purposes we must look at what distinguishes the 3 security spaces.

We have all heard it said at some point or another that "Null Sec is safer than High Sec". Ironically there is a lot of logic in that statement. But how is this possible? What is the difference? What we find is that there in no Concord or Police presence in Null Sec. We'll hold on that thought for just a moment as another question needs to be answered in conjunction to moving on.

What does "High Security Space" mean? The only parallel we can draw in order to reach what such a term means is to look at RL examples (given the term is based off of RL premises). So what are examples of High Security IRL?

High Security Access
High Security Camera(s)
High Security Fence(s)
High Security Job(s)
High Security Lock-down
High Security Prison(s)
High Security Residence(s)
High Security Storage(s)
High Security Trucking
High Security Vacation(s)
High Security Vehicle(s)
High Security Zone(s)

These are all easily recognizable RL examples of "High Security". So how does it work in conjunction with Eve? First and foremost we have 4 specific areas in New Eden controlled by 4 different NPC governments. 2 of these are dictatorial in nature: Caldari & Amarr. The other two are democratic in nature: Gallente and Minmatar. And there is a slue of Eve literature that stresses this. So the term "High Security" necessitates meaning different things (although similar as just pointed out) in the different spaces. In Caldari space, and this is simple philosophical postulation, one might image that it would be a very dictatorial place to live, perhaps similar to the former Soviet Union. In Amarr space one might imagine the stringent precepts of something like religious law. And therefore the term comes closer to what most of Western Culture is used to when imagining High Security in Gallente and Minmatar space (still something to be very mindful of but nowhere near as badly as in the other two). NPC runs HS, Players run NS, and there is supposed to be a happy medium in LS. And as Dwissi pointed out and alluded to before, this means that standings and security status should be on all High Security Space residents' minds first, then their professions.

The current state of affairs in High Sec does not represent any of this though. And given the amount of literature and terminology that has been crafted by and or endorsed by CCP, this means that High Security Space is far from what it was intended to be. And if CCP is satisfied with the way things are then the simpler solution would be to rename the three spaces and strongly consider doing away with standings and security statuses.

Players adapt to the environment you provide and having proper definitions is the only way to know what that environment is. That is how it works IRL and that is how a realistic and science based game needs to function as well.

So I am not against what CCP decides the definition of things should be. I am doing what should be expected of any any CSM candidate, examining what the content providers have created and waiting for them to solicit my opinion so that I may help them as best I can on behalf of the player body as a representative of that body.

I sincerely hope you see the logic and reasoning in all of this. And I hope you see how the combination of the two points you brought up mean something very different than the commonly thought of means for looking at them.

Regards,

~ RL

I think that sort of answers my question. If I understand you, you feel that the name "High Security Space" is a bit of a misnomer, and does not actually represent the level of protection offered by the current game mechanics.

Now for an actual argument: I would counter that CCP Falcon's comments suggest that High Security Space as it currently is, regardless of its name, is exactly what CCP intended it to be: a place where there is risk. I see no need for it, but I would not strenuously oppose a change of name to better reflect the level of protection that CCP has currently implemented for highsec if you think the name is misleading.

I now have enough information to make my decision on whether your views align with mine and whether to cast a vote for you. Thank you for your time, but I would encourage you to to try and be much more clear and succinct with your views if you want others to seriously consider your candidacy.