These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

CSM Campaigns

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Radu Lupescu for CSM10

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Karl Hobb
Imperial Margarine
#61 - 2014-11-30 19:14:12 UTC
Radu Lupescu wrote:
> Regarding the tired straw man claim that "ganking is too prevalent" please read post #58. Although the rest of this thread should prove informative for you as well.

#58 is nothing more than you going over semantics and what CCP actually intends by the words "high security" (in other words, hot air). Presumably if CCP changed the name of High-Sec to "Probably Medium Security But Call It Whatever You Want" you'd have no problem with the state of it? Is the definition that important to you or would you prefer to see some mechanics changes either way? What if CCP intended "High-Security" to be in relation to the other areas of space rather than in relation to a real-world definition? Would you agree that High-Sec is, indeed, higher in security than Low-Sec space?

Regarding ganking, since you seem to have trouble giving a straight answer, I will assume you think it is still too prevalent even after all of the nerfs to make it less attractive.

Radu Lupescu wrote:
I was referring to both missioning and contracts created by players. One can be adjusted by CCP and the other can be adjusted by something that I would like to see come alive in New Eden... H.U.N.E

Hauling missions run virtually no risk whatsoever, why should they pay more? As far as your union, good on you, I hope it works and that you're prepared to strong-arm undercutters.

A professional astro-bastard was not available so they sent me.
Radu Lupescu
Push Industries
Push Interstellar Network
#62 - 2014-11-30 20:21:50 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
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.


Thank you Mr. Pedro,

I'm sorry that you did not find my replies informative enough but I am glad that you feel you have an informed opinion regarding my candidacy and are ready to make a decision based off of this.

Regarding CCP Falcon's comments: I have seen his name used a good bit by you and others as reference for CCP's official stance. This is problematic though given that he and a seemingly strong contingent within CCP have Null Sec based history as their reference. Although CCP Falcon has made statements about this I would be curious to see if everyone else at CCP (especially those that have been working there longer) feel the same. It's fine that he feels that way and it makes sense, but a small inquiry simply to see if it's a unanimous statement is called for, I believe.

Supposing they all feel the same, after said inquiry, then I would do my best to help provide opinions on what can be done to still close loopholes and adjust the balance between defensibility and offensibility in High Security Space. And also, pending that they admit it is a misnomer, would be happy to help by providing opinions regarding placing solid definitions that make it very clear as to what is the desired environment of that space (thereby needing adjustments throughout the rest of New Eden as well). Mind you this renaming is still something that opposes the historical context of High Sec.

Supposing it is not unanimous then a redefining, potentially more content creation, and what I've talked about before should be examined as well. Again, I would like to be apart of that process too.

Best of luck to you Mr. Pedro and thank you for your questions.

~ RL
Radu Lupescu
Push Industries
Push Interstellar Network
#63 - 2014-11-30 20:56:20 UTC
Karl Hobb wrote:
#58 is nothing more than you going over semantics and what CCP actually intends by the words "high security" (in other words, hot air). Presumably if CCP changed the name of High-Sec to "Probably Medium Security But Call It Whatever You Want" you'd have no problem with the state of it? Is the definition that important to you or would you prefer to see some mechanics changes either way? What if CCP intended "High-Security" to be in relation to the other areas of space rather than in relation to a real-world definition? Would you agree that High-Sec is, indeed, higher in security than Low-Sec space?

Regarding ganking, since you seem to have trouble giving a straight answer, I will assume you think it is still too prevalent even after all of the nerfs to make it less attractive.

...

Hauling missions run virtually no risk whatsoever, why should they pay more? As far as your union, good on you, I hope it works and that you're prepared to strong-arm undercutters.


Mr. Hobb,

I'm afraid you are neglecting the first portion of post #58. I suspect it is simply because you like your stance and wish to ardently maintain it rather than have open minded and intelligent discourse (as other members of your community have had on this thread). Please read post #58 in its entirety and reconsider what you have just typed.

I have given many answers regarding a complicated matter. I'm sorry that "yes or no" is the extent of your inquiry into something that can't be answered that way. I am not concerned with the prevalence of ganking. I am concerned with balance. Provided there is equal ability for balance and things get tightened (loopholes) and the mater is settled mechanically and dogmatically, then the game is running fine. Until that time though, it is clearly not. The posts by Mr. Lowery clearly point out current flaws. The posts by Dwissi show the dogmatic discrepancies. The posts by Mr. Amatin show the nature of the ganking situation from the inside. The posts by Admiral Root raised decent talking points. The posts by Mr. Pedro offer decent cross examination. And the posts by me have offered logical and reasonable conclusions.

Had you read then you'd see why your statements are uninformed. I have given you all of the resources available so that you could ask questions that haven't already been answered. I am more than welcoming of fresh questions (to your credit you did ask one) and fresh topics. But if you ask or say another uniformed or out of context thing I will consider you a troll and leave it at that.

Good day to you Mr. Hobb,

~ RL

-----

Anyone wishing to ask questions based off of previously made conclusions or introduce new topics are more than welcome to do so.

Thank you for reading over this thread and thereby having an informed opinion.

o7
Dersen Lowery
The Scope
#64 - 2014-12-02 01:45:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Dersen Lowery
A few things to chew on. I'm not going to pretend to offer answers, frankly; these are the sort of questions I'm happy to throw at space politicians. tl;dr: the problem isn't that there is risk--without risk, there is hardly any gameplay at all to logistics, it's just overhead--but that the gameplay options created by the current risks are lacking.

That fearsome blaster Catalyst is useless in any kind of engagement with a PVP fleet. It's a highly specialized fit with myopic guns (blasters), no prop and no tank, which is where it reliably gets ~600 DPS--essentially, it's the shooty analog of the all-cargo-expanded industrial. If you see a PVP Catalyst in, say, FW lowsec, the odds are that it will have rail guns, a prop mod, and at the very least a damage control. The reason this fit is at all attractive is the same reason the all-Expanded-Cargohold-II Nereus is attractive: the odds that anyone will shoot at you before your ship has done its job are essentially nil. Tanking a ship that you intend to lose to CONCORD is, obviously, stupid. But it's possible to fit a ship that way because it's not at all easy to engage one of those ships before it's pumping Antimatter Charge S into a freighter that's been bumped 250km off gate. One reason? If you shoot the Cat before it shoots anything, CONCORD comes for you.

The other big problem with logistics is that the reason most freighter pilots AFK their ships is not only safety, but... well... any... person... who's... ATK... piloted... ZZZZ... a... freigajgdklakfafasdm

Where was I? Oh, right. BORING. Not only that, but if you're caught, you're helpless--I think that, as much as any real or perceived risk, is what generates so much rage. If you jump through a gate and land on grid with a bumping Mach... oh, well. You're not burning back to gate. You're not MJDing away. You're not pulsing your MWD to evade the bump. You're just sitting there, indulging in what amounts to AFK gameplay: watching as control of your billion-ISK box is taken away from you, just like that.

The generally proffered solution--alts--are a) something of a plague already; b) only substituted by real people at a much higher scheduling difficulty and risk; c) about to become more of a hassle with freighter pilots having to duel-request their webbing alts. (I wonder which will be the first ganker to duel-request an obvious webbing pilot at just the right time to trick them into accepting the wrong duel? Can you even be in two duels at once?)

Now, I have heard of alert freighter pilots realizing that they were incidentally aligning with a celestial, and insta-warping away. It is possible for a freighter to get away from a bumper, if the bumper accidentally points the freighter at a celestial or a safe and the pilot reacts in time. But this is a bit like winning the lottery.

(Incidentally, it's possible to AFK bump: turn on shiny MWD; select freighter; Approach. This does not produce anything like the results of an experienced ATK bumper, but it is possible, especially once you have the freighter off grid from the gate and pointed far off the ecliptic.)

Outside of high sec, bumping usually precedes O HAI PANDEMIC LEGION, freighters are even more hapless at gates when they're bubbled (so, AFAIK, they're bridged? Only slowboated through maximally locked-down space? I don't know sov nullsec so well), and of course the idea of a convoy defending a freighter, like so many other great ideas, dies ignominiously in the face of fleet alpha and the lack of any line-of-sight mechanics. And outside of high sec, you can bring much more expensive alpha if you choose to.

Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.

I voted in CSM X!
Lanctharus Onzo
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#65 - 2014-12-02 04:45:25 UTC
Well hello there!

My name is Lanctharus Onzo and I an one of the co-host and writers of the Cap Stable Podcast.

In early 2014 our podcast interviewed a great majority of the candidates for CSM9 and we will be doing the same for CSM10.

Here is our announcement: http://capstable.net/2014/12/01/council-of-stellar-management-x-call-for-candidate-interviews/

As we stated in the announcement, you can contact us to schedule your one on one interview via any of the following methods:

Email: podcast@capstable.net
Twitter: @CapStable
Or via our contact form

We look forward to speaking to you about your particular skill set and expertise in EVE Online and we hope you success in your candidacy.

Sincerely,

Lanctharus Onzo
Co-host & Writer of the Cap Stable Podcast
Military Director, Alea Iacta Est Universal

Executive Editor, CSM Watch || Writer, Co-host of the Cap Stable Podcast || Twitter: @Lanctharus
Abla Tive
#66 - 2014-12-04 06:16:46 UTC
As mentioned earlier in this thread, the ganker game has become highly organized activity where a group of predators select their hauler prey and then executes it swiftly and without remorse. Often the chosen victim is taken unawares.

A main avenue of defense is for haulers to attempt to look less appealing in the hopes that some other victim will be chosen.
Things like increasing tank and decreasing cargo value are the primary mechanisms used.

However, the information flow tends to be one way from victim to ganker.

Would you support changes to give the hauler some control over information flow that potentially could make a prey look more appealing than it is.

For example, perhaps have a 'fake' plex item that on a passive cargo scan looks exactly like a real plex (but on an active scan it shows as being a fake). This could complicate the ganker decision process (and also, alas, give scammers a boost where they have contracts selling 'fake' plexes for the price of real plex.)

Alternatively, create a variation of reinforced bulkheads that gives slightly less tank, but reports itself as an expanded cargohold on a passive scan.

These changes could make the 'head game' a bit more complicated (and perhaps more fun)
Radu Lupescu
Push Industries
Push Interstellar Network
#67 - 2014-12-06 17:11:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Radu Lupescu
Abla Tive wrote:
As mentioned earlier in this thread, the ganker game has become highly organized activity where a group of predators select their hauler prey and then executes it swiftly and without remorse. Often the chosen victim is taken unawares.

A main avenue of defense is for haulers to attempt to look less appealing in the hopes that some other victim will be chosen.
Things like increasing tank and decreasing cargo value are the primary mechanisms used.

However, the information flow tends to be one way from victim to ganker.

Would you support changes to give the hauler some control over information flow that potentially could make a prey look more appealing than it is.

For example, perhaps have a 'fake' plex item that on a passive cargo scan looks exactly like a real plex (but on an active scan it shows as being a fake). This could complicate the ganker decision process (and also, alas, give scammers a boost where they have contracts selling 'fake' plexes for the price of real plex.)

Alternatively, create a variation of reinforced bulkheads that gives slightly less tank, but reports itself as an expanded cargohold on a passive scan.

These changes could make the 'head game' a bit more complicated (and perhaps more fun)


Hello Tive,

And welcome to the discussion.

That's an interesting question. The fake PLEX, though I see where you're coming from, is not something I would endorse. I imagine more scamming and things of that nature coming out of it. Mind you I'm not opposed to people trying their luck at scamming, and such, I just don't believe a fake PLEX would help. On the other hand I do like that mod idea. In a broader sense the idea of there being more decoys, or electronics trickery, so that information isn't so easy to rely on would be a nice element to further develop in Eve. This is also an angle that could not only help carebear vs fighter but potentially fighter vs fighter as well. Naturally I'll let someone from the PvP community tell me if they'd have utility for decoys between each other but I'd imagine they would.

More to the point though, I'd be fine with a mod that presents itself as a cargo expander but in reality is a lesser form of a bulkhead.

Kudos on the idea,

~RL
Skandel
Doomheim
#68 - 2014-12-08 01:05:09 UTC
I like you. I am going to vote for you. Do you like me?
Radu Lupescu
Push Industries
Push Interstellar Network
#69 - 2014-12-08 01:15:47 UTC
Skandel wrote:
I like you. I am going to vote for you. Do you like me?



Hello Skandel,

lol, yes, I like you too. Thank you for your support Smile

~ RL
Lanctharus Onzo
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#70 - 2014-12-09 03:25:34 UTC
Well hello there!

My name is Lanctharus Onzo and I am one of the co-host and writers of the Cap Stable Podcast.

In early 2014 our podcast interviewed a great majority of the candidates for CSM9 and we will be doing the same for CSM10.

Here is our announcement: http://capstable.net/2014/12/01/council-of-stellar-management-x-call-for-candidate-interviews/

As we stated in the announcement, you can contact us to schedule your one on one interview via any of the following methods:

Email: podcast@capstable.net
Twitter: @CapStable
Or via our contact form

We look forward to speaking to you about your particular skill set and expertise in EVE Online and we hope you success in your candidacy.

Sincerely,

Lanctharus Onzo
Co-host & Writer of the Cap Stable Podcast
Military Director, Alea Iacta Est Universal

Executive Editor, CSM Watch || Writer, Co-host of the Cap Stable Podcast || Twitter: @Lanctharus
Kaea Astridsson
Hoplite Brigade
Ushra'Khan
#71 - 2014-12-09 12:38:24 UTC
God lord the walls of text one had to plow through...

Just wanted to point out the misconception that while gankers could gank again 15min later a hauler would have to spend hours upon hours getting the minerals for a new hull. That's bullshit. After a hauler is ganked that pilot could technically sit in a new freigher the moment he docked... if he was prepared, otherwise downtime would be the travelling time to closest station with one available.

Gankers can only be up and ready for another run in 15 min if they have a cache of ships and a target available. Or are we gonna take into account the time they would have to spend mining in order to build their precious hulls?

Get on Comms, or die typing.
Sunrise Aigele
Pemberley Enterprises
#72 - 2014-12-11 15:25:10 UTC
I am interested to see that you have experience managing corporations. I assume that you have a great deal of input to provide CCP about the interface?

You say that you are a voice for the voiceless. It is true that there has not been a hauler on CSM in my term as a player. What do you feel is not being heard? What should CCP hear about hauling? Is there some way in which it is inadequate, or do the haulers simply feel buffeted by changes? Are you a reformer, or an advocate, or both?
Radu Lupescu
Push Industries
Push Interstellar Network
#73 - 2014-12-11 17:58:49 UTC
Sunrise Aigele wrote:
I am interested to see that you have experience managing corporations. I assume that you have a great deal of input to provide CCP about the interface?

You say that you are a voice for the voiceless. It is true that there has not been a hauler on CSM in my term as a player. What do you feel is not being heard? What should CCP hear about hauling? Is there some way in which it is inadequate, or do the haulers simply feel buffeted by changes? Are you a reformer, or an advocate, or both?


Hello Aigele.

The corporation interface has a major learning curve. The reason this is the case though is because it grants the director/ceo the ability to control, in intricate detail, every single move that takes place between a member and his/her corporation. This level of ability is obviously a good thing and the array of option that upper management has truly is remarkable and realistically necessary. The complexity of this though is what often leaves most choosing to go with very basic set-ups and then having to micro manage member to member roles as they come. And I've seen the complaints by some about this. Ultimately though, it's entirely up to a member of upper management whether they wish to utilize the full capabilities of the controls (going through all the ranks, for all the "based at"s, for all the take/query, and hundreds of boxes to click, etc) or if they wish to white wash their set-up, and this is not the fault of CCP. The only thing that I could see being of more help with this then is if there were some kind of tutorial (in game) explaining all of the options and what they mean. The huge learning curve in Eve, from which the expression "You lose your noob-card after playing Eve for 2 years.", is a part of what makes it such a great game. So my suggesting a tutorial for this keeps the richness of options while also giving the player a better chance at understanding what s/he is looking at.

I believe each of the industrial professions and gunship play-styles should have representation. I also believe that the 4 spaces should have representation as well. One of the industrial professions, hauling, has not had its own personal representative. And at base root, given the powerful necessity of logistics, I believe these players simply deserve a representative. That's the foundation of my campaign and why I decided to run for CSM 10. Beyond that there are a number of things that need to be reexamined. So yes, you could label me as an advocate and reformer. On the reforming side there has been quite a lot said towards that end. Obviously there's a lot of information on this thread so I'll point you to 2 examples that stand out as examples of reform: post #22 & post #32. I also have another point of reform besides those two posts, quoted here:

Radu Lupescu wrote:
- I have already addressed what changes need to occur to the freighter in a previous post. The nature of Blockade Runners and Deep Space Transports has been touched upon by CCP already and those ships are in fine shape. The Bowhead is a great addition to the field of hauling and its ramifications are linked to my freighter changes post. Besides this, the Orca was not designed as a professional hauling ship and therefore it does not count as a middle step between industrial ships and freighters. This means that the creation of a mid-way ship should be considered as there is currently a defect in the industrial to freighter progression line.


So the combination of these potential reforms and the large industry of hauling needing its own representative are the essentially the summation of my platform. I am very interested in helping Eve overall though and offering my perspective on other issues that will appear as well. I hope this satisfactorily answers your questions, Aigele Smile. And thank you for choosing to participate in this thread with them.

~ RL
Abla Tive
#74 - 2014-12-19 05:41:39 UTC
Now that the Eve universe is a lot bigger than it was a few weeks ago, how has the hauling experience changed?

What things are better?
What things are worse?

What are other haulers telling you?
Jenshae Chiroptera
#75 - 2015-02-08 02:25:37 UTC
Radu Lupescu wrote:
admiral root wrote:
Radu Lupescu wrote:
I also wish to review what can be done to even the scale between haulers and gankers.


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?


Hello Admiral Root,

Pleased to meet you. You say, "... speaking up for us...", and as such I take it you are therefore a member of the ganking culture? Besides industrialists and societal elites I always enjoy my talks with gankers too because they seem to have a unique perspective. So I'm very thankful for your post.

But let's get to the crux of what you said, shall we? If the balance is uneven, one way or another, I believe there should some form of fair equilibrium. So let us look at this more carefully while maintaining an academic objectivity:

"Given that ganking has received a string of nerfs over the years without ever receiving a buff..." you said. I'm somewhat puzzled by this statement. Would you please list what nerfs have effected gankers and how? Given I'm not aware of them, as I've paid heavy attention to the mechanics that victims have to deal with more, I yield to your knowledge of the nerfs and hope to see how they have slowed down the ganking culture. From there, if possible, I'm sure a somewhat definitive conclusion may be drawn.

This is a very important point that you bring up so I hope to address this with you first, Admiral Root, before discussing further the second half of your statement, "... tools available to...".

Looking forward to your reply, & cheers,

~ Radu Lupescu
To give you a leading question:
Is not the thing that rubs industrial pilots up the wrong way the inability to turn the gank around?
As it stands, they either have enough DPS to blow the ship away too fast for the escort to do anything or they do not.

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.
Marketman
Jita Market Traders Club
Jita Market Traders Alliance
#76 - 2015-02-18 21:59:03 UTC
Why Radu is getting my vote, Eve is a game where scamming and trolling is an art that is encouraged, one thing not found a lot in Eve is integrity- however that is the one thing that is needed more than anything in a CSM member,

I have read the whole thread, the detail of the arguments are not as important to me as the responses., and Radu has responded at all times in a manner that shows his integrity. If he doesn't know or is unsure he will put his hands up and say so, not try to politician bluff his way through- if he does know , he will put his point across, but will listen and respond to the arguments not blindly push a line- he come across as someone that if a compelling enough argument is put forward he will change his views. He does this at al times in a polite and civil manner.
That again is what I am looking for from a CSM member.. the willingness to listen to an argument, take on the views and adjust an outlook accordingly.
Lastly Radu is a director of a well respected corps, one that sticks by it values.

My only concerns and I hope that Radu can address this with his thoughts, is he doesn't seem to be that interested in the NUll sec sov issue. I would like to hear any thoughts he has on how small amd medium size can hope to attain sov in decent null sec without renting of one of the majors and how them small/medium size alliances can impact more effectively on the huge power blocs sov.