I’ve advertised my Campaigns in the Anti-Ganking channel since the CSM XI campaign… partly to try and raise awareness about the CSM at all… and partly because for the CSM X election, people in the anti-ganking channel that cared about such things chose to endorse my candidacy.
In my CSMX thread I did a lot of talking about the 50% thing.
And this particular point has been discussed a lot. And what you have been saying makes (in the light of the discussion that has been going on) not really that much sense to me. It’s ok. We carebears still need to stick together anyway!
Sorry, but I’m not going to explain what’s wrong with a CSM candidate wanting something that’s bad for the game. If you can figure it yourself, fine. If you don’t, I don’t care…
You have not explained, in the light of my expositions about the 50% thing, why it is bad for the game. You just jumped right off of one sentence, and went your own way.
If gankers bring enough DPS within the mechanics to kill a target, to have a 50% chance of survival means that 50% of ganks need to fail, even if fully prepared and with enough to kill the ships.
Nowhere else in the game (not since the removal of the loot spew mechanic in exploration was removed at least), do we have a situation where even fully prepared, you still fail.
It’s a totally game changing situation.
Based on the RNG CONCORD response time apprach that has been indicated, even if every gank fleet calculated on the shortest possible CONCORD response time, and still bought enough DPS to grid, a 50% chance doesn’t make sense, or the changes to maintain a 50% chance don’t make sense.
Be careful, if you start thinking logically, he’ll just point you to some mysterious post that he wrote several years ago that’ll answer all of your questions, but he’ll never tell you how to find it.
And the other things, apart from the RNG Concord response time?
A 50% chance of escaping fleets of Alpha Tornados whilst they are with you on grid was never part of this idea. Some people just started assuming it was.
So there is no chance of escaping from alpha thrashers as well. Great. No matter what you do there is always possibility of ganking with alpha thrashers… they do have about 2K alpha while being under 2M isk each after all.
Do you not understand that the gank started the moment ganker decided he can blow up your ship? And how did he decide that? By experience he knows how much tank you will have (barring extra odd situations like high grade slaves on armor procurer, no idea how good or bad that would be) and brings enough dps to kill you… how do you change this? Variable concord times? Then gankers bring enough dps so that you die with minimal concord timer… if it is instant then it means alpha strike doctrine. So again we have near 100% chance of successful gank.
Just remember that knowledgeminer does not speak for AG, a fair number have him blocked in any case. And before he gets all shirty I don’t speak for AG either. It is fascinating that he decided to attack you like this after you advertised in AG, you obviously hurt his feelings and how dare you advertise and ask for discussion in his chat channel.
And he replied to you on that out of context 50% chance on exactly the same basis as gankers did. Taking it out of context and suggesting that the only way you could do that is putting a chance based mechanism on it.
Remember that it is you who suggested it not the CSM candidate, you decided that it meant what you said.
As a ganker aligned player is what I would define you as, and I know you have ganked as well at times.
To all impartial players:
When you get gankers and ganker aligned players in your thread, and knowledgeminer is ganker aligned IMO at this point, they will find something, take it out of context, and then attack you for what they have said.
This thread is full of it
They do it to me when I discuss bumping.
Me: Bumping is a poor mechanic, no consequence point for hours, blah blah blah.
Them: So you want 100% safety and to end ganking.
Real answer: People don’t use bumping to gank most things!!! And freighters can be ganked without bumping, it just needs them to be ready and actively playing.
What they did here:
CSM Candidate: I want a 50% chance of surviving
Them: You want a chance based mechanic that is wrong.
If you want the forums and the game to be better, vote against such people and support this candidate. It is time for the CSM to have a hisec candidate that wants ganking to have a better balance.
What is there? I don’t want to go through dozens of pages of you not understanding what changes you would want to introduce. I read first post and there was nothing interesting in it - outside of wardec changes. And your second post is already incorrect - shooting yourself with alt to spawn concord in belt is not bannable offense.
That is not relevant to what the candidate stated.
She said that in her own experience gankers had a 100% success rate and that she wanted it to be a 50% chance of surviving. This basically means looking at the overall balance and making adjustments, be it to tank, warping, bumping, loot destruction etc. That you want to pigeon hole this on one example to suggest that they want a chance based or magical formula to do this is nonsense.