High Sec Candidate

[Lorelei_Ierendi]

So I am kind of half back and awake, and trying to reply to posts.
If anything I write after this post is unclear (or psychotic) please excuse my lack of sleep and ask me about it… specifically.

This post contains multiple answers to multiple posts above. If you feel I ignored your post, or would like clarification about a specific issue, feel free to send me an EVE MAIL. Past experience has shown that I can concentrate on EVE mails better… when the white noise of the forums is shut out.
I will post the EVE mail and my response on the forums here.

@Scipio_Artelius

Based on the RNG CONCORD response time apprach that has been indicated

The RNG response time for CONCORD did not start out as a “get to 50% chance”… it started out as a way to make CONCORD seem more “realistic” (think police and donut shop), and to stop remove those lag inducing concord fleets on gates after freighter ganks. As a bonus for this method… the gankers would never have to worry about “pulling” concord… miners would not be able to “pull” concord into the belts to protect themselves… and cheap or strange gankers would be able to risk it for a biscuit… or at least take a chance of ganking something they ordinarily could not gank.

@Scipio_Artelius

This is the part that is difficult to reconcile.

@Lorelei_Ierendi

So what can happen to give someone a chance of Surviving when the gankers are so very prepared?

This is the point… and this is the point that has been discussed since CSM 10.

@Scipio_Artelius

That’s the issue I don’t agree with, as a non-ganker. We don’t need more safety.

It is also not (just) about more safety.

@darkestkhan_Eriker

Because you have not really answered anything. How do you give someone 50% chance of survival when faced with hundreds of alpha 'nadoes?

If you can’t give answer to this question then you have no solution.

It is not up to the CSM to give solutions to CCP, or tell them how to fix their game.
BUT… I have posted a lot about how the carebears could improve their chances… you just have not read it.

@darkestkhan_Eriker

Do you not understand that the gank started the moment ganker decided he can blow up your ship?

I do understand it.
But because you have not bothered to read the stuff that has already happened along this discussion… you obviously do not understand what I have been talking about.

But the fact that the gank is started… and already won… once the ganker has decided he can blow up your ship… that has factored in to the 50% thing that I have been talking about for 4 years.

@darkestkhan_Eriker

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.

OMG.

@darkestkhan_Eriker

I don’t want to go through dozens of pages

And I dont want to repeat the stuff that has been posted in the dozens of pages. If you cannot be bothered to read it… then I cannot really be bothered to talk to you.

@darkestkhan_Eriker

And your second post is already incorrect - shooting yourself with alt to spawn concord in belt is not bannable offense.

People have been warned because of it. But then I also learned that it was not illegal… that was also covered in the thread and the posts that you cannot be bothered to read… it was an interesting discussion.

@darkestkhan_Eriker

And your second post is already incorrect

But you have not commeneted on the discussion that came out of it.

Why are you butting in in the middle of a multi-year discussion and expecting me to take you seriously or answer your questions… just go and vote for someone else!

@Scipio_Artelius

She wants to introduce randomness and get to a point of a 50% chance of survivng a gank.

you just linked threads and did not read them. For Shame!

@Scipio_Artelius

There may be merit in some of it, but not the way it’s currently proposed, and since this is a CSM candidate thread, we have every right to ask questions, just as you do.

Of course, everyone has a right to ask questions…
But just as we expect the carebears to do their homework, join intel channels and scout routes… bring a webber alt… well we expect people to do their homework before plunging into the thread and starting everything from scratch again?

@Scipio_Artelius

No one here is taking anything out of context

Talking without understanding the background… what has gone before? Sounds like taking out of context to me!

@Scipio_Artelius

She wants to introduce randomness and get to a point of a 50% chance of survivng a gank.

No. That is not true.

And there is already randomness involved in ganks.

@Scipio_Artelius

The quotes are all there.

I don’t think she’s ridiculous at all. She’s entitled to her view, as we all are.

As a CSM candidate that would champion such a major shift in the game, I’m just trying to understand it more, because I don’t think what she’s writtten is really what she means, but I can only go off the words on the page.

(I just quoted this post because someone flagged it… and I found it quite good. I liked it)

@Scipio_Artelius

but I can only go off the words on the page.

Or you could, you know, read the other words out there that have already been linked.

@darkestkhan_Eriker

No ■■■■ sherlock. So all the ganks currently performed in 0.5 would after such a change be performed as if it was 0.6… and we are back to 100% success of ganks.

The point of the CONCORD change (originally) was not to improve the survivability of carebears. It was more to get rid of the ridiculous CONCORD manipulation… making CONCORD more “realistic” (according to my tastes), To benefit gankers by having them not having to pre-spawn, and maybe giving them a fighting chance to get something bigger (lots of gankers are not multi-boxers or huge fleets) and at the same time reduce the lag when flying into a system with 50 Concord squads sitting on gate because someone found it funny to gank a freighter with a venture fleet…

The 50% chance part of the thread also contains stuff like “new player experience/ tutorial” and is a lot more expansive than the people here are trying to claim.

Knowledgeminer indicated above that he does not care any more… so I am not going to be replying or responding to his posts. I would, of course, be grateful if the people reading this thread would not try and draw in the people that have already given up here.

[darkestkhan_Eriker]

@Lorelei_Ierendi

And I dont want to repeat the stuff that has been posted in the dozens of pages. If you cannot be bothered to read it… then I cannot really be bothered to talk to you.

Why can’t you just make a FAQ ?

You have been campaigning for a while now. You get similar questions each time… you should be prepared by now to answer them.

Let me ask you this way: how can developers take any of your inputs if you can’t answer the question w/o sending them to some long discussions, with answer buried somewhere there?

[Siegfried_Tahl]

I think OP confused CONCORD to space police and thinks they are there to save the victim. But even according to lore they are there only to punish criminals. Or rather to stop large scale conflicts in high sec.

They dont care about you being bumped or robbed. They will punish a criminal after he killed you, thats it, that is their declared mission.

You keep saying you dont want to make it safer for carebears, yet you want 50% of carebears that would otherwise die to highsec gank to live. Do you not see contradiction?

You never doubt if you are the baddie? Its always them, gankers, griefers, trolls, they are not people, they are pests, right? They dont deserve an answer. They are not worthy talking to.

I play MMOs solo, and I accept the risk player interaction implies, in fact it is the best part. Even unpleasent in short term, like being ganked. But you dont seem to want to be interfered with. Its your asteroids, your cargo. I hate that argument but in your case you really seem to think you are playing a single player game.

[Lorelei_Ierendi]

@darkestkhan_Eriker

Let me ask you this way: how can developers take any of your inputs if you can’t answer the question w/o sending them to some long discussions, with answer buried somewhere there?

I am not communicating with developers in this thread.

[Lorelei_Ierendi]

@Siegfried_Tahl

I think OP confused CONCORD to space police and thinks they are there to save the victim.

No I am not.

@Siegfried_Tahl

You keep saying you dont want to make it safer for carebears, yet you want 50% of carebears that would otherwise die to highsec gank to live. Do you not see contradiction?

I am not saying that I want 50% of carebears that would otherwise die to highsec gank to live.
That is what other people are saying that I am saying.

@Siegfried_Tahl

But you dont seem to want to be interfered with. Its your asteroids, your cargo. I hate that argument but in your case you really seem to think you are playing a single player game.

I don’t mind being interfered with. I would just like to be able to do something about it.

@darkestkhan_Eriker

You have been campaigning for a while now. You get similar questions each time… you should be prepared by now to answer them.

I answer them.
But the ganker fans that come here and do the same procedure as every year… well…

If some ganker intending to talk in this thread cannot be bothered to do a bit of homework… why should anyone expect a miner to do a bit of homework and be fitting his ship properly?

Edit: time for bed… maybe tonight I can sleep. Be back tomorrow!

[Knowledgeminer]

@Dracvlad

[Wall of completely off-topic, made up, uncalled for garbage, including a sentence saying “I put forward a view that you looked to be meta gaming the AG chat channel.”]

LOL. You cannot refrain from posting all this crap here yet once more, not immediately before, not long after having asked your other thread to be closed saying this:

@Dracvlad

I will deal with it there focussing on what the CSM candidate actually said rather than my opinion of this player and his meta gaming.

And you have the bollocks to say it’s me who is trolling the thread…

What a tool. What. A. Total. Lack. Of. Self-Awareness.

ROFLMAO.

PS: Oh, wait, he’s replying already…

[Dracvlad]

I added ‘more’ to that comment as you were making such a thing about it, as I said you are concentrating as painting me as mad while I think you are meta gaming and are posting like a ganker player. You are damaging yourself with this type of posting and proving yourself more and more likely to be what I said you are. Keep posting mate it is hilarious. Every time you post like this it adds to the feeling that you are nothing more than a meta gamer.

@Knowledgeminer

And you have the bollocks to say it’s me who is trolling the thread…

A number of people have asked you to desist, but you cannot help yourself can you.

But at least you have stopped being such a twit in the AG channel, quite noticeably so, which I take as a win .

@Knowledgeminer

ROFLMAO.

PS: Oh, wait, he’s replying already…

This is rather amusing, quoting so people can see the level of your posting.

PS I see you typing a reply, should I get all emotional about it like you did? And on that amused note I am off to bed.

[Scipio_Artelius]

@Lorelei_Ierendi

Or you could, you know, read the other words out there that have already been linked.

I read all the words.

@Lorelei_Ierendi

No. That is not true.

It’s what you’ve written over and over and over, through many threads.

If you don’t want “at least a 50% chance” of survival through “more random in CONCORD times”, then what do you want?

[Knowledgeminer]

@Scipio_Artelius

@Lorelei_Ierendi

No. That is not true.

It’s what you’ve written over and over and over, through many threads.

If you don’t want “at least a 50% chance” of survival through “more random in CONCORD times”, then what do you want?

Oh, she’s right here, you’ve also got lost in the mess into which Dracvlad has turned this thread, LOL. But don’t worry, I may answer those questions if you don’t want to have to wait until she does (if she does) tomorrow.

What she says is not true is what you said here:

@Scipio_Artelius

She wants to introduce randomness and get to a point of a 50% chance of survivng a gank.

As I explain in the walkthrough post (still in progress, but significantly expanded and improved), what she said she wants is both variable CONCORD response times and 50% chance of survival, but contrary to what Dracvlad pretends to make everybody believe, she already made it clear that the former is not what she means by or how she expects to accomplish the latter:

@Lorelei_Ierendi

I would like to state again, that I would like to have a 50% chance of getting away from a gank.

@Lorelei_Ierendi

I would like to state again, that the CONCORD changes I was proposing are not part of a plan to bring the chances of surviving a gank to 50%

So to sum it up:

1. She does want variable CONCORD response times
2. She does want at least 50% chance of survival
3. She does not want to introduce chance based suicide ganking mechanics
4. #1 is not what she means by or how she intends to accomplish #2, they’re independent proposals

Now, you and me, and everybody that (unlike Dracvlad, LOL) understands this stuff, know that this is simply impossible. There is absolutely no way a 50% (or any other) survival rate can be achieved without introducing chance based suicide ganking mechanics (regardless of whether variable CONCORD times are part of the plan or not), but the key here is that Lorelei either doesn’t understand or doesn’t care that what she says she wants is simply impossible.

Incidentally, the case of Dracvlad is even worse, because he totally doesn’t get it and keeps repeating again and again that variable CONCORD response times is all that Lorelei is asking for when she says she wants 50% chance of survival.

Now, you would think that carefully explaining this to Lorelei would be enough for her to understand, but then you’d be mistaken again, because when she says she wants a 50% survival rate, she’s expressing a desire not based on any rational analysis. She sees no problem in saying she wants something that’s simply impossible to accomplish without introducing changes she says she doesn’t want to introduce, and that’s why, no matter how hard you try to make her understand, you won’t get anywhere.

You’ll only get confused about what it is that she really wants because it totally doesn’t make sense from a rational point of view. Only she’s not expressing a rational opinion, but rather an irrational desire without a leg to stand upon… And then she wonders why all this happened… Which is one of the reasons I gave up trying to explain anything to her already…

EDIT:

@Dracvlad

PS I see you typing a reply, should I get all emotional about it like you did?

Oh look, Dracvlad thought I was replying to him when I was typing this…

[darkestkhan_Eriker]

@Lorelei_Ierendi

I am not communicating with developers in this thread.

Sure. But you can’t even tell us, players, what it is that you want. If you get elected you get to interact with developers. And then what? Send them to long winged discussions? If you want devs to take you seriously you should (at least) be able to answer some questions. All you do is send anyone who asks them to some of your posts in the discussions that came up while you were in the middle of campaign to one of previous csms.

Why should anyone vote for you when you won’t even be taken seriously?

(paranoia-mode on)
Unless you are just a null shill to make hisec dwellers look silly.
(paranoia-mode off)

[Dracvlad]

@Knowledgeminer

She does not want to introduce chance based suicide ganking mechanics

Well you got there after all this time.

@Knowledgeminer

Incidentally, the case of Dracvlad is even worse, because he totally doesn’t get it and keeps repeating again and again that variable CONCORD response times is all that Lorelei is asking for when she says she wants 50% chance of survival.

It is one of a number of adjustments like giving freighters a BS MWD fitting option that tilts the balance away from the current stale and imbalanced gameplay we have now. And that is what the CSM candidate is suggesting imo no matter how you try to phrase it.

After all the trolling you have done in this thread you finally backed away from this incorrect statement, though you do seem to be tinkering around the edges of it along with ineffective and quite laughable insults at me for the crime of pointing it out. Another win for me in the march towards honesty and common sense.

In terms of your activities in AG why don’t you create a proper off-shoot of AG specialised in what you do which I suggested you do when in your channel rather than trying and ineffectually policing the AG chat channel of those that have not yet blocked you?

@Knowledgeminer

EDIT: Oh look, Dracvlad thought I was replying to him when I was typing this…

No, I replied to point out you had finally got there, though your butthurt is very real. You replied directly to Scipio. Trying too hard again… You look like Dum Dum more and more and with that done and dusted you are now blocked on the forums and in game.

[Knowledgeminer]

@Dracvlad

Well you got there after all this time.

LOL. You cannot understand a thing you read. Nowhere did I say she wanted to introduce chance based suicide ganking mechanics. This is simply yet another lie of yours.

What I’ve always said, and I just said again in the very post you replied to, but you’re unable to understand, is that it’s impossible to achieve the 50% survival rate she wants without introducing such chance based mechanics, CONCORD variable response times or not.

Got it now? Or not yet?

@Dracvlad

Another win for me in the march towards honesty and common sense.

ROFLMAO.

[Runa_Yamaguchi]

@Lorelei_Ierendi

I would like at least a 50% chance of walking away from a gank. At the moment this is not the case.

Total BS…

[Lorelei_Ierendi]

@Scipio_Artelius

If you don’t want “at least a 50% chance” of survival through “more random in CONCORD times”, then what do you want?

So, things are too busy here for me to be able to spend enough time to craft response to all the posts at the moment… either I will come back later or tomorrow and spend more time on it. I would hate to have to try and throw out a hastily thought out response.

I want more random in Concord times… I want Concord to not sit around and wait until downtime after a gank before disappearing. I believe I said that I thought that would be a good idea.

And now to the 50% thing. Again.
Giving people a 50% chance of surviving being ganked includes stuff like improving the New Player Experience, so people get a chance to learn how to do EVE properly… and a whole bunch of stuff that gives people better chances.

It is not and has never been “oh gankers are on grid and locking me, I want a 50% chance to survive their attack.” That is just what some people are taking it to be about.

[Lorelei_Ierendi]

@darkestkhan_Eriker

Why should anyone vote for you when you won’t even be taken seriously?

As long as they vote for someone, then I am happy.

@darkestkhan_Eriker

(paranoia-mode on)
Unless you are just a null shill to make hisec dwellers look silly.
(paranoia-mode off)

Haven’t really been back to null since the stations got replaced by citadels.

[Lorelei_Ierendi]

@Knowledgeminer

There is absolutely no way a 50% (or any other) survival rate can be achieved without introducing chance based suicide ganking mechanics

It is not and has never been about having a numerical exact 50% chance of surviving once the gankers are on grid and locking the target.

[Scipio_Artelius]

@Lorelei_Ierendi

And now to the 50% thing. Again.
Giving people a 50% chance of surviving being ganked includes stuff like improving the New Player Experience, so people get a chance to learn how to do EVE properly… and a whole bunch of stuff that gives people better chances.

It is not and has never been “oh gankers are on grid and locking me, I want a 50% chance to survive their attack.” That is just what some people are taking it to be about.

A 50% chance only exists if 50% of ships survive gank attempts.

Anything else and it isn’t a 50% chance.

In every 100 gank attempts, 50 ships on average need to survive for there to be a 50% chance of survival, no matter how prepared the gankers are.

If changes are implemented and gankers adjust and still in every 100 gank attempts, only 10 survive on average, then that isn’t a 50% chance of surviving a gank.

This is the issue with the way you are currently framing what you want. You want a 50% chance of survival, independent of how the gankers adjust, or how prepared they are.

The 50% makes no sense.

As for improving the NPE and learning how to play EVE properly, how is that related to ganking at all?

[Runa_Yamaguchi]

@Lorelei_Ierendi

includes stuff like improving the New Player Experience

…because only greedy miners and haulers are new players? WHAT! You are tugging at heartstrings in in order to get votes…“Wont somebody think of those new players!”

Gross…

And if you TRULY want to help then survive gankers then how about you actually push to include training in PROPER…
…fitting of ships
…ship selection vs environment
…motioning of local (aka situational awareness)
…preparedness for a gank (alignment, positioning, movement, etc)

That alone will give you WAY WAY more than 50%…

…the politician is platforming on a big simple button…again, gross.

[Avaelica_Kuershin]

@Lorelei_Ierendi

And now to the 50% thing. Again.
Giving people a 50% chance of surviving being ganked includes stuff like improving the New Player Experience, so people get a chance to learn how to do EVE properly… and a whole bunch of stuff that gives people better chances.

If people ‘do’ EvE properly they should have a far better than 50% chance of not being ganked but it is certainly true that the NPE did (and still does?) teach bad habits in the use of autopilot.
But even if CCP was to give new players all the useful Eve-Uni links, how many would read and comprehend?

@Lorelei_Ierendi

It is not and has never been “oh gankers are on grid and locking me, I want a 50% chance to survive their attack.” That is just what some people are taking it to be about.

Unfortunately, that is exactly how it read to many of us, and indeed there was discussion on how the careful pilot will almost never be put in the position of being ganked.

An NPE that teaches new players about the dangers from other players, and how to manage risk, could be very useful. Is that what you want to see?

[Knowledgeminer]

Just in case any of you wants to try to make sense of this, as appears to be the case, let me leave this here before someone starts moving goal posts (not that it would matter if they remained still after being moved, mind you). Note the emphasised parts in the cases where emphasis has been added:

@Lorelei_Ierendi

I would like at least a 50% chance of walking away from a gank

@Lorelei_Ierendi

So my personal experiences: Ganking 100% success.
Being ganked: 100% death.
[…]
Why is this so?
[…]
Of course, I would like to have more than a 50% chance of winning… because… who doesn’t want to win!?

@Lorelei_Ierendi

I mean, at the moment, there is no way to save myself once the gankers are coming for me.
[…]
But all things being equal I do not stand a chance.

If the gankers are lazy and/or overconfident, then of course they will fail. But what can I do against the ones (or one…) that is not lazy or overconfident? What possibilities do I have?
[…]
what can I do when they appear?