Jita Park Speakers Corner

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[CSM8] Ripard Teg for CSM8

First post First post
Author
Shadow Cartel
#61 - 2013-02-19 02:26:26 UTC
I received the following list of questions in both an e-mail and a blog post from EVE player Harkconnan. Rather than answering directly, since I find a lot of the questions are probably ones that other people might ask, I'll answer them here. WARNING: lots of questions ahead.

Quote:
#1: Can you list, in order of importance the key pillars on which you platform stands?

#2: You are pretty outspoken on the lack of movement regarding Super Capitals and clearly this will be a big part of your platform. How will you deal with the possibility of being outnumbered by "Pro-Super Capital" members of the CSM?
#1: These are listed above, in the first post in this thread.

#2: Well just to be clear: we don't know who is going to be on the CSM yet. There's no telling how many "pro-super" CSM members there are going to be. That said, CCP Fozzie has made it ridiculously clear (in the December CSM Summit minutes, among other places) that he considers this a lower priority item than the other ship-balancing questions in front of the balance team. I personally think that this is a cop-out, but unfortunately for now it's a hard-to-argue-with cop-out.

One thing I'm definitely going to do, though, is push CCP hard to publish the numbers of supers being built periodically.

Aside from this, I may have to bide my time on this particular issue. Because unfortunately, there are bigger issues facing the game: sovereignty, drawing in new players, and POSes, for three. But yes, super proliferation is going to be one of those issues that will get me speaking up when it comes up. They're still an I-win button and there still is no counter to them, which are both bad things. It's ridiculous to me how few supers died in Asakai.

Quote:
#3: As a prominent blogger in the eve community you have always been very outspoken and perhaps even confrontational on your views of certain subjects, often despite popular census. How will you gauge your opinions vs. the opinion of the masses? Further more how will you manage a situation where you realise you opinion does not match that of the majority of players?
#3: My default will be to present the opinion of the players. If that's not immediately possible, on contentious issues, I'll pull in player opinion through surveys, EVE-O forum posts, blog posts, and other means. After that though, for a spur-of-the-moment decision where CCP demands an answer immediately, I'll give the answer that I believe is the correct one based on my own beliefs and the opinions of players that share them with me.

That's why players should be voting for CSM members that more or less fall in with how they feel about the game. Unlike a lot of other CSM candidates, the things I think are out there in public for anyone to read.

Quote:
#4: Having followed your blog for a long while, I am aware that you have experience in several aspects of eve online. Do you intend to stand as a candidate for the whole community, or is there a sub-section of the community you intend to stand for in particular?

#5: If you intend to stand for all, do you worry this might cause conflicts of interest where different groups of electorates desire different outcomes from a discussion? If you have a particular sub group, can you tell me why you feel you represent them more than others?
#4: This one is again answered in the top post in this thread. That said, if I have a bias, it's going to be toward smaller alliances since those are the groups that have sheltered me my entire EVE career.

#5: Where there is conflict, I'm going to go with the side that I think is best for the game. See above.

Quote:
#6: If you could, right now, pick a single change which CCP would guarantee to work on during your potential term, what would it be? And can you defend why the change you have chosen is more important than others you base your candidacy on?

#7: Previously you have been accused of not communicating very well with the large eve community. Specifically not interacting with twitter or the forums. However recently you have changed this and become much more visible (especially on twitter). Considering that the CSM to player communications should be a two way channel, how can you assure us that this will continue?

#8: Without going into specifics, what do you think is the best method to ensure CCP tackles an issue which is important for the community?
#6: Sovereignty by occupation. How it's implemented, I'd leave to CCP, but if I could push the game's development in a single direction, that'd be it. Sov and the things that happen in null-sec are what drew the vast majority of us into this game, and has the power to draw tens of thousands more. Quite literally "putting your name on the map" is EVE's competitive advantage.

#7: It will be my job for it to continue.

#8: Getting the players involved in that issue.

Quote:
#9: A lot of people have discussed the concept of top down or bottom up economy within alliances. What is your opinion on this, and how (if at all) would you like CCP to change this?
#9: I've blogged extensively on this issue, most recently in this post. tl;dr version: I think virtually everything in EVE should be built from the bottom up.

CONTINUED IN PART TWO, BELOW.

aka Jester, who apparently was once Deemed Worthy To Wield The Banhammer to good effect.

Shadow Cartel
#62 - 2013-02-19 02:29:43 UTC
Quote:
#10: What do you feel is that most important change made to eve in its recent history? accepting that 'recent' is very subjective.
#10: Tough one! After some thought, I decided on CCP's altering course to get more players more involved in their development direction that led to the Crucible expansion. Up to this point, CCP was developing the game in the direction that they wanted to without listening to players very much at all and instead just saying "trust us, you'll love it." Now, they're actually listening, which is a quite positive and important change.

Quote:
In a single sentence summarise you opinions on the following in terms of your candidacy?
#11: Safe high security space
#12: The blue doughnut
#13: Sov wars
#14: Low sec
#11: There should be no such animal, but both sides should have near-equal risk.

#12: I think this is the biggest danger facing EVE right now, and has the possibility of rendering the entire game boring and irrelevant once EVE has a competitor.

#13: What are these? Wait, that's a question, not a sentence. One sentence: I really miss true sov wars where both sides have an equal chance of winning and wish they would return to this game.

#14: I think low-sec is in a pretty good place right now, after years of neglect.

Quote:
#15: You have talked before on the subject of CCP's need to cement its position in the gaming market. Could you as a CSM member advocate a change to our game which did this, but was against the community's wishes?
#15: DUST 514.

Whew. That was a lot of questions. Blink I'd be interested to have you send this same list (with a couple of obvious exceptions) to the other people running. Have you?

aka Jester, who apparently was once Deemed Worthy To Wield The Banhammer to good effect.

Tom JBrokaw
#63 - 2013-02-19 02:36:49 UTC
Ripard Teg wrote:


#13: What are these? Wait, that's a question, not a sentence. One sentence: I really miss true sov wars where both sides have an equal chance of winning and wish they would return to this game.


would you care to clarify how you think two sides should be able to have an "equal chance" of winning? because two sides are never going to be equal and thus never going to have an equal chance of winning which makes this statement laughable at best.
Shadow Cartel
#64 - 2013-02-19 02:38:19 UTC
Andreas Fiore wrote:
I understand that you're not running for junior game developer position. Still, given your game experience and your excellent series of blog posts on the state of the game - from "Conflict of self-interest" to "Fractal," - I would be curious to know what changes to newbie game you'd support.
I added links to the relevant blog posts so that others can read them if they wish. Thank you for the kind words about those posts!

You've hit it on the head: the early game in EVE is still too damn hard and needs to be simplified without hurting the core mechanics. You're also right in that I'm not running for junior game designer, though. Still, I think there are basic things that could be done. How about removing attributes, for one? What are they adding to the game except unneeded complexity?

If elected to the CSM, every NPE session, I'm going to stress the need to simplify, simplify. This is a hard game and a hard game to learn. The NPE should recognize that and CCP should try to reduce factors that add complexity where they exist.

Yuri Wayfare wrote:
What is punishment for solo play? How do you avoid it? Is it reasonable to have activities which are off-limits to solo players altogether? You seem to suggest "no" but I'm not sure if that's what you really mean.
I don't think solo play should be punished, I think group play should be encouraged with higher rewards, higher likelihood of success, and reduced risk. It's a subtle distinction, but important.

Great questions so far, everyone! Thanks!

aka Jester, who apparently was once Deemed Worthy To Wield The Banhammer to good effect.

Shadow Cartel
#65 - 2013-02-19 02:40:32 UTC
Tom JBrokaw wrote:
Ripard Teg wrote:


#13: What are these? Wait, that's a question, not a sentence. One sentence: I really miss true sov wars where both sides have an equal chance of winning and wish they would return to this game.


would you care to clarify how you think two sides should be able to have an "equal chance" of winning? because two sides are never going to be equal and thus never going to have an equal chance of winning which makes this statement laughable at best.
Don't misunderstand me: I said I miss that kind of conflict, not that every war should be like this or the game should be engineered that way. It shouldn't.

Still, virtually every "sov war" in EVE these days is won long before the first shot is fired. That used to be the exception. Now it's the rule. Wouldn't it be nice to have wars again? Wars that didn't mostly involve structure grinds? Wars that you could actually remember with pride that you were part of?

aka Jester, who apparently was once Deemed Worthy To Wield The Banhammer to good effect.

Tom JBrokaw
#66 - 2013-02-19 02:45:00 UTC
pining for an age that supposedly once existed sounds like implying that you'd like to see that so its an understandable misunderstanding P thank you for the clarification thoguh.
Pandemic Horde
#67 - 2013-02-19 08:27:39 UTC
Ripard Teg wrote:


Whew. That was a lot of questions. Blink I'd be interested to have you send this same list (with a couple of obvious exceptions) to the other people running. Have you?


Thanks Ripard, we were aiming for something a little hardball for you to chew on. I have not yet posted anything to other candidates, simply because I have not yet found someone who I think might represents my opinions. My hunt is not yet over, and I will let you know if I do send anything similar to anyone else. For note, I agree with pretty much everything you say except your points on Sov by Occupation, my opinions on which my co-incidence I posted on the blog today (the short version is: I worry if it will generate enough fights, and think its a small part of a bigger solution).


I will be putting your responses on the blog for prosperity sake.

Thanks for taking the time to reply to us.
Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
#68 - 2013-02-19 10:50:11 UTC
Ripard Teg wrote:
Yuri Wayfare wrote:
What is punishment for solo play? How do you avoid it? Is it reasonable to have activities which are off-limits to solo players altogether? You seem to suggest "no" but I'm not sure if that's what you really mean.
I don't think solo play should be punished, I think group play should be encouraged with higher rewards, higher likelihood of success, and reduced risk. It's a subtle distinction, but important.

Maybe I'm phrasing my question wrong P I understand what you mean by encouraging group play. I'm trying to get you to (roughly) define "punishment". Do you have a concrete example of play which is being punished right now if you do it solo instead of in a group?

"Suddenly, trash pickers! HUNDREDS of winos going through your recyclables." -Piugattuk

Be careful what you wish for.

#69 - 2013-02-19 13:01:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Fawn Tailor
I just listened to the crossing zebras interview, I'm astonished that someone with your experience is so ignorant of the current state of the game. These quotes are taken directly from that interview.

Quote:
These guys who are doing these freighter ganks and mining barge ganks, they're not doing it with 3 or 4 million skill points...

Wrong. I am.

Quote:
... they're doing it with 20, 30, 40, 50 million even a hundred million...

Wrong. Both of the alts I use for ganking (scout\warpin and dps) combined don't even come close to that.

I'm a new player, you don't stand for players like me, you stand for the whiners. I won't vote for someone who doesn't take the time to do their research before making a decision on what this game needs.

Quote:
When I'm wrong I will admit that I'm wrong and I will change my position...

Good. Do it.

Highsec Mining Permits - Ask me How! Salvaging Permits also available! www.minerbumping.com

The Initiative.
#70 - 2013-02-19 14:40:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Malcanis
Ripard Teg wrote:


Aside from this, I may have to bide my time on this particular issue. Because unfortunately, there are bigger issues facing the game: sovereignty, drawing in new players, and POSes, for three. But yes, super proliferation is going to be one of those issues that will get me speaking up when it comes up. They're still an I-win button and there still is no counter to them, which are both bad things. It's ridiculous to me how few supers died in Asakai


I just wanted to make a couple of comments on this.

First, it's worth distinguishing between supercarriers and Titans.

Supercarriers: there absolutely are counters to these ships, and they die fairly frequently to subcap groups. Once you've 'defanged' them by killing their fighters/FBs, they're nothing but an EHP sponge who can't do anything but hope you'll run out of dictor bubbles, and yell for help. They're powerful, but by no means gamebreaking these days, and I'm actually - well happy would be too strong a word - let's say that I'm not too concerned about them.

Titans: These got a massive tracking nerf, and tbh they're not remotely the threat to subcaps that they used to be. Titans these days are mostly used to bridge hotdrops and to deter other groups deploying their capitals and supercapitals. It's still very difficult to counter massed Titans in 0.0, but it's difficult to counter massed Maelstroms too. The problem comes because they're so expensive, and the pilots are risk averse, that they're only deliberately deployed in 1-sided fights. The problem here isn't so much lack of balance as that it's booooorrrrrriiiinnnggg. Titans need to tell their boss to go to hell, update their CV, maybe do an evening class and find a new damb job.


Both types of supercapital are used 50x more to grind through the dreary millions of EHP that sov structures have than they are to shoot at ships. Titans particularly need a whole new role other than "double dreadnaught", but please bear in mind if you're looking to heavily nerf supers, then you're condemning subcap pilots to spending even more time shooting structures, which will make people even more reluctant that they already are to do ~war stuff~. 400 billion EHP is a lot to grind through with Oracles...

Finally: Supercap losses in Asakai were as low as they were because it's in low-sec, therefore (1) doomsdays don't work, greatly hampering the ability of the titans to knock out enemy supers, and (2) dictor bubbles don't work. HICs aren't used much in fleets these days, and because this wasn't a planned op, the CFC didn't have HICs ready. Thus the HBC forces were easily able to extract supers in trouble. The CFC weren't and lost 13 supercapitals, which seems quite a lot to me...

EDIT: This sounds much more like I'm defending supers than I really am. I'm in favour of removing the warp disruption immunity for instance, and replacing it with a high but finite intrinsic warp strength in the 20-50 range. Also I think that the fuel costs for bridging and for moving supers should both be increased, and perhaps some other restrictions on bridging as well.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

WiNGSPAN Delivery Network
#71 - 2013-02-19 14:43:52 UTC
you got my support as well, good luck to smash ccp...
#72 - 2013-02-19 15:47:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Karl Hobb
Fawn Tailor wrote:
Ripard Teg wrote:
... they're doing it with 20, 30, 40, 50 million even a hundred million...

Wrong. Both of the alts I use for ganking (scout\warpin and dps) combined don't even come close to that.

I chuckled at that one too. It's a very naive outlook on ganking. Certainly you have older players doing it, but ganking doesn't require much in terms of SP because the profession is focused on one thing: Doing as much damage as possible in as short an amount of time as possible. It is very easy for younger players to do; all of the ganks I've done as this character were done with less than 15mil SP.

Furthermore, Ripard Teg's concept of "equal risk" for ganker and gankee essentially boils down to ISK-tanking, which heavily favors older players. I could never support a candidate who favored ISK-tanking. It is certain that CCP will give industrials the attention they need, but we don't need someone on the CSM itself crying for even less choice in this game ala the Barge buff. which just promotes stupidity as we can clearly see from our friend Fawn's KM above.

Lastly, I didn't say this before, but Ripard's explanation for using sexual assault as a metaphor for ganking was ****-poor and very dishonest. His hand-waving equated to "it's the internet" which is a deplorable excuse for allowing that sort of definition to continue to be used (or not even taking a stand against it), and blatant sensationalism isn't exactly an explanation either. Perhaps I'm a bit idealistic, or maybe touchy because I am a father of a very young girl, but his lack of a stance on (E: This is far less about a having a stance and more about usage of such terms and definitions, I'll leave the original statement intact), and his exploitation of, matters like this make him a very poor choice for the CSM.

A professional astro-bastard was not available so they sent me.

#73 - 2013-02-19 16:43:55 UTC
Karl Hobb wrote:
Fawn Tailor wrote:
Ripard Teg wrote:
... they're doing it with 20, 30, 40, 50 million even a hundred million...

Wrong. Both of the alts I use for ganking (scout\warpin and dps) combined don't even come close to that.

I chuckled at that one too...

It is funny, except that this candidate, in his ignorance, is advocating a course of action that isn't going to affect him but is going to affect new players, to their detriment. Ripard will be OK to go solo ganking if he wants to, with his perfect skills in this and that and what-not, but what about new players? Who is looking out for our interests?

Highsec Mining Permits - Ask me How! Salvaging Permits also available! www.minerbumping.com

Amarr Empire
#74 - 2013-02-19 18:19:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Kurt Gallenger
Fawn Tailor wrote:
Karl Hobb wrote:
Fawn Tailor wrote:
Ripard Teg wrote:
... they're doing it with 20, 30, 40, 50 million even a hundred million...

Wrong. Both of the alts I use for ganking (scout\warpin and dps) combined don't even come close to that.

I chuckled at that one too...

It is funny, except that this candidate, in his ignorance, is advocating a course of action that isn't going to affect him but is going to affect new players, to their detriment. Ripard will be OK to go solo ganking if he wants to, with his perfect skills in this and that and what-not, but what about new players? Who is looking out for our interests?



Jester is looking out for new people, just maybe not for people such as yourself. Or you could wait till he explains his ideas in a little more depth
Rote Kapelle
#75 - 2013-02-19 21:44:47 UTC
You have my vote.

Yes, "because Ripard is a corp mate". But not "just because" - In the time he's been with us in Rote and FOVRA I've gotten to know this man. He is a great person, a great communicator and a sharp mind with the right attitude and meticulous patience when it comes to problem solving or performing a task.

I wish you all the best of luck - it would be a good thing for CCP, EVE and it's players to have you on the CSM.

We're recruiting and stuff.

#76 - 2013-02-19 22:48:30 UTC
Given that you are so tragically out of touch with reality that you compared video game violence (in a game where violence is not permitted or accepted but widely celebrated) with vicious atacks on women IRL, how can anyone seriously believe that you'll be any closer to reality when dealing with CCP?

No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff

Caldari State
#77 - 2013-02-19 23:17:54 UTC
How do you square this

Ripard Teg wrote:
Every EVE play style is valuable! Whether you PvP, gank,..., your play style is valuable and should be represented.


with this

Ripard Teg wrote:
I'm currently rereading Alex Haley's Roots and was struck by several passages written from the perspective of white slave-holders whose characters argue slavery is both good for the slaves and a moral good in and of itself. The slaves have cause to disagree. The argument being made about "undocking equals consent" is rather similar...

http://jestertrek.blogspot.com/2013/01/cotw-ganking-isnt-pvp-and-never-was.html

To recap, you compared certain forms of PvP to slavery. Now it'd be preposterous to say that anything akin to slavery is valuable and needs representation, so are we to assume that you indeed do not think that all EVE playstyles are valuable and need representation?

The reason I ask Ripard is that politicians often play to a broader audience to get elected. Your original post is a wonderful example of the stereotypical "everyman" candidate. The problem is that with your past statements you have taken clear sides on certain issues, sides that make you favorite of one camp, and an opponent of the other. It seems surprising then to see you swinging for the center in your campaign post.

My concern with your candidacy is that I feel the Ripard the candidate and Ripard the blogger are two different personalities, and I'm not sure which one we'll be sending up to Reykjavik.
Minmatar Republic
#78 - 2013-02-20 00:21:58 UTC
Having listened to the Interview that Ripard Teg had with Xander Phoena of Crossing Zebras I come away very disturbed.

While the first seven+ minutes are Ripard talking about himself and his experiences followed by Ripard asking himself what his own platform is and then not answering his own question clearly is questionable but whatever, I can understand the why of it when the interview gets to the whole **** and ****** analogies that Ripard uses on his blog this is bad.

Basically, from what Ripard says in the Interview he has "no problem" with using **** and ****** comparisons / analogies if it gets people talking. Ripard has no problems with being inflammatory, derogatory, obnoxious, ignorant, ridiculous, and foul to "get people to talk."

He sees no issue with demonizing an issue and, at the same time, marginalizing the brutal impact of **** if it gets his point across. This is crass, callous, and inappropriate behaviour to be had by someone who would be representing the playerbase at the CSM. This is the kind of thing that The Mittani was removed from the CSM for and, yet, Jester is proudly trying to defend his use of such disgusting language by saying, of all things, that other people say it so it's okay.

Yeah, okay there, if other people are racist that makes it all okay does it? Oh yeah, "Garth" is allowed to make "colourful metaphors." No. It is never okay just because others do it. That's a lack of leadership and a lack of real life morality.

Up until that point I had been considering Jester for candidacy. While I don't agree with all of what he writes he sometimes makes good points and that's important. But... seriously? That's so over the top and reprehensible that there's no way that I can, in good consciousness, support someone like him.
Illusion of Solitude
#79 - 2013-02-20 01:24:41 UTC
Good luck, Jester, lets hope they let you keep your independence.

And yes, you have at least one of my votes. The second one - that depends on who best represents WH-residents....

#80 - 2013-02-20 07:14:08 UTC
Karl Hobb wrote:

Lastly, I didn't say this before, but Ripard's explanation for using sexual assault as a metaphor for ganking was ****-poor and very dishonest.

Funny that you should say that, because from what I see, Jester is the only one so far who had the honestly and the proverbial pair to call a spade a spade. The point of the analogies wasn't to equate ganking with sexual assault or slavery. The point - as I read it anyway - was to call attention to two things: extreme imbalance of power in the game and the propensity of those who have the power to blame their victims when bad things happen.

To illustrate: I've been bouncing in and out of EVE for about 2.5 years now. My accounts are at 12mil skill points combined, if that. Yet between those, accumulated ISK and a bit of experience, I have the power to completely ruin a newbie. It doesn't matter which way they align, what they fit or how they fly. I can hunt them down anyway and their precious $20/month tears won't even cost me 10% of my total assets. That's the truth. In turn, somebody higher up on the food chain can wipe out my little operation by barely lifting a finger, and somebody even higher up can do the same to them. Losses in a FFA game come with the territory, but is this extreme good for the game in the long run? On the other hand, would EVE still be EVE if it were trammeled? Can CCP stay afloat if they can't keep the new blood? What happens if they drive away those who enjoy the current game in attempt to capture the mainstream audience? If being deliberately provocative is what it takes to get over the usual HTFU chant and start seriously talking, well, I don't mind breaking a few eggs.
Forum Jump