Thursday, March 7, 2013

A Jester of All Trades, Part 1

I have occasionally voiced my disapproval of CSM candidate and "Jester's Trek" author Ripard Teg. The problem with Ripard as a potential CSM member is pretty simple: He has repeatedly expressed the opinion that aggression should be nerfed to make highsec less risky. Pretty much every honest observer in EVE knows that risk/reward is out of balance, and that there's too much reward for too little risk in highsec. Reasonable people can disagree on how best to reduce highsec rewards and increase highsec risk. But reasonable people cannot be in favor of doing the opposite. That would be like a surgeon who recommends more blood loss for a patient dying of blood loss. Such a doctor does not belong in the operating room, not even for the purpose of adding diversity of opinion. In the same way, people who advocate increasing rewards or decreasing risk in highsec simply do not belong on the CSM.

Ripard recently wrote a lengthy response to my CSM platform. Not surprisingly, he strongly disagrees with most of it, and I strongly disagree with his disagreement. The purpose of today's post is to take a stroll through Ripard's post and see what we can learn from it. Spoiler alert: I'm going to conclude that Ripard is wrong. But the way in which people are wrong can occasionally be enlightening.

Off we go!
For this reason alone, I am against most of James's proposals: they are too radical and are likely to be game- and company-breaking. Even more than that, though, I am against most of them for a more fundamental reason. EVE is a sandbox, and that means that EVE is a sandbox for everyone. I value every type of EVE player. I'm all for making some parts of the sandbox "better" than others, but not at the expense of destroying other parts. There should be room enough in New Eden for every type of EVE player.
Ripard is concerned that my proposals are too radical, which sounds innocent enough. CCP has radically changed highsec risk/reward to boost highsec rewards and decrease its risk, but they didn't do it all in one fell swoop; it was done incrementally. As I said, reasonable people can disagree on how best to fix this problem. But if the problem is that my proposals are too radical, we should see people like Ripard Teg explaining how they would, in a more cautious manner, accomplish my goal of restoring highsec risk/reward. We shouldn't see them doing the opposite--by supporting nerfs to suicide ganking, for example.

Someone who agrees with the direction of my ideas but thinks they're too radical should also strongly oppose the radical efforts of others to reduce highsec risk. Take CSM member and candidate Trebor Daehdoow, another common target of my criticism. During the Winter Summit, he advocated the removal of all non-consensual wardecs. In his subsequent Crossing Zebras interview, Trebor doubled-down on his position. Starting from the 21:10 mark, Trebor goes on at some length about the need to make highsec safer, to accommodate the people who think highsec is just too dangerous right now. (Who else but theme parkers believe this?) And he explains in detail his efforts to convince CCP to remove wardecs. Trebor's agenda would send EVE further in the wrong direction, and in a radical way.

So what does Ripard think of a radical like Trebor? He wholeheartedly embraces him. Ripard has often showed Trebor with praise, supports his reelection, and has even gone so far as to say he will cast all of his own votes for himself, except for one vote, which will go to Trebor.

Now let's consider the rest of the quoted section, where Ripard talks about the sandbox and making room for "every type of EVE player". Anyone who's followed this debate for any length of time knows that it's not possible to accommodate everyone. You can't please both the EVE player who just wants to be left alone in the ice field, and also please the EVE player who wants to suicide gank or wardec the industrialists. The latter says "let me shoot spaceships", and the former says "don't let them kill me". Both sides say they're for the sandbox, but enabling either side always comes at a cost. On the one hand, you have people like Trebor who favor removing features like wardecs. On the other hand, the people who want to engage in non-consensual PvP necessarily make it impossible to play EVE as a peaceful, single-player game.

I support the spaceship-shooters because I believe that at its core, EVE is a game about shooting spaceships. Yes, people mine, manufacture, trade, etc., but they do so to facilitate the building of spaceships that can then shoot at each other. EVE players don't create civilian goods, they create PvP equipment. The consequential, non-consensual PvP of EVE is unique, and is really the only thing it has going for it (people don't play EVE for "spreadsheets in space"). Trebor supports the carebears because he believes it's better for CCP's subscription revenue to follow the theme park model. So which side is Ripard on? Hint: Probably the guy he's endorsing, not the one he's criticizing.

Officially, Ripard Teg is undecided. From an earlier post, where Ripard wrung his hands about unfair wardecs:
This sort of thing happens every single day in EVE and most of us have just come to accept it -- and the cost it wreaks in player unsubs -- as part of the game. The question that started the philosophical debate: should we? I still don't know.
According to his post, Ripard doesn't know whether or not CCP should allow wardecs--at least, wars in which strong corps attack weak ones--to continue. If true, Ripard may be the only player in EVE who doesn't know if CCP should get rid of wars or not, and a vote for Ripard is a roll of the dice. Then again, is it possible that Ripard isn't as conflicted as he says? He's already announced he's voting for the guy who wants to get rid of wardecs. To put it another way, how surprised are you going to be when Ripard takes a seat on the CSM and Trebor persuades him to support nerfing wardecs?

Among reasonable people, there's no need for this kind of inner conflict, feigned or not. It's not as if this is a difficult question, really. Of course wardecs should be accepted as part of the game. Wardecs should not be nerfed, and highsec does not need to be made safer than it already is. War should continue to be part of EVE, even if that means people who want a perfectly peaceful gaming experience won't play EVE or give CCP money. This is the kind of thing that no one should need to say, because it's so obvious. But we've come a long way, I'm afraid.

So that covers what I wanted to say about a paragraph from Ripard's post. In Part 2, I plan to cover the rest of his post.


  1. If both of you got on the CSM could you work together?

    1. I hope not...they don't have to work together, they have to argue and represent opposite opinions of very different electors. The mediating part is to be done with CCP, not between CSM members.

    2. Would a competent surgeon agree to work with a witch-doctor?

      315 4 CSM8

    3. Bad analogy is bad.

    4. Trask: In other words, a vote for James315 is a vote for in-fighting and/or non-cooperation and discussion within the CSM?

  2. 315 has my vote because he understand you can't please everyone in the sandbox.

    Also, these candidates that want to make high sec safer for the 'subscriptions and good of CCP' remind me of Bush going into Iraq because of WMDs. Sure, the official agenda is trying to 'do the right thing' but at the end of the day it's all about a personal agenda.

  3. Please, Ripard and Trebor...don't destroy EVE ok? A reasonable person will see what EVE is about, what is thag lures new players into it: emergent gameplay. The stuff that fills gaming news articles, what kept players in the game growing for more than any other MMORPG. EVE is not a themepark, and that's the reason why it succeeded till now.

    Trying to morph a successful sandbox into a theme park is beyond stupidity. Also, I;m tired of seeing the word "sandbox" used in a wrong way by people who want a safe highsec. A sandbox is not a place where everyone can do everything they want undisturbed. It's the exact opposite. It's a place where everyone can do what they want, including disrupting other players and being disrupted by them.

    It's simple: the more safety, the less sandbox.

  4. "but they do so to facilitate the building of spaceships that can then shoot at each other"

    And this is the part that most confounds me most about your platform James. Most of your platform you've laid out so far is to expand the career of people who only like to shoot at ships that don't shoot back, and not to facilitate spaceships that shoot at each other.

    What game mechanics are you supporting that allow the industrialist to counter the pirate without having to bring more players to the table than the pirates bring or stop playing the game until the pirates leave? All links in the PvP food chain need viable methods to interact with each other given equal resources, if the answer is more "dock up and stop playing" than we're already seeing in this game you're making things worse and not better.

    1. "What game mechanics are you supporting that allow the industrialist to counter the pirate without having to bring more players to the table than the pirates bring or stop playing the game until the pirates leave?"

      One mechanic, already in game, comes to mind: is called paying attention and escaping to somewhere else. It's already very easy to survive attacks in low sec, just by staying alert and aligned and warping out to a safe spot in case of need, or even going to an empty system and hiding when someone enters local. Really, if you can't shoot back, flee. It's the rule of every engagement in every "food chain" situation, virtual or real. Preys must run or be protected.

    2. The industrialist can already counter. It's called pay attention. Watch local. Tank your industrial.

      "but they do so to facilitate the building of spaceships that can then shoot at each other"

      I don't know exactly what you were trying to do by quoting this as it's correct. Everything in this game, in some way or form, comes back to PvP. Industry, Mining, Trading, PI, Mission Running and so on provides at the very least the revenue to support one's PvP. No, not everyone PvP's in Eve, however, Eve was created to be purely PvP based. Eve is PvP.

    3. Except the "tank your industrial" counter is patently nonviable because you just need to bring 3 or 5 or 10 more catalysts to gank it. You say constantly that the only tank that works is buying a permit.

    4. I'll let you in on a secret about suicide gankers, INCLUDING the New Order. Unless they have some extra reason (smack talk, tears, loot pinata, etc.), they'll choose the target which costs them 5 million to gank over the target that costs 20.

      You don't need to be able to outrun the bear, you just have to be able to outrun somebody else.

    5. Remember guys, I'm talking about a world where james's platform is a reality. Miners are in low sec, pirates don't have to work to find targets, concord's a joke that takes forever to respond, etc. etc. And I've never cared a wit about the afk miner, the problem is in this world that james is campaigning on the active miner has everything stacked against him.

      @Anonymous Running away is not a valid gameplay mechanic when the pirate can continue chasing you. Like I said, the interaction can not be "stop playing". The industrialist needs to be able to evade, neutralize, or do something where active play give the industrialist a chance to "win" the encounter with the pirate

      @Capt Starfox The reason I quoted that is to highlight the "shoot at each other" part. James's platform is all about promoting pirate -> industrial attacks. There's absolutely no shoot at each other going on in that interaction. A game requires two way interaction between players, or else the other side stop playing that part. If James wants to increase the amount of interactions between pirate and industrialist fine, more interaction is better. But it takes two to tango and if all the industrialist can do is walk off the dance floor then the game is broken, James needs to champion a mechanic where the industrialist can do something back.

      Both sides of the PvP chain need mechanics where when actively engaged allow for either side to "win" the interaction. People are not going to actively engage in a game to play the role of "prey". James wants to get the people who are not playing the game out of the game and I applaud him for that, but the problem is that his CSM platform has nothing to do with that. James's CSM platform is squarely targeted around this:

      1. Put industrials in places that pirates don't have to deal with concord
      2. Make it so that pirates don't have to put any effort into finding industrials to shoot at.
      3. Make it so that gankers can far more easily (and more importantly in solo fashion so they don't have to worry about organizational logistics) attack those industrialists that still choose to stay in high sec.

      So if I can sum it all up, James's CSM platform furthers imbalances (more like outrageously imbalances) the interaction between pirates and industrialists in low/null sec, and kills the awesome emergent gameplay which has created. Sounds like everyone loses.

    6. 1) "Running away is not a valid gameplay mechanic when the pirate can continue chasing you."

      Escaping is not stopping playing, it's playing the game escaping a threat. Evan chasing can get tiring, you assume the chaser will chase forever. I chased ships as a pirate very often when i was still playing, and I often gave up because I grew tired of not catching them. They won. Also, as I said, you can go to empty systems and not be bothered for most of your time. I think that playing solo in a MMORPG should be viable, but harder then playing in a gang. Want to be an unprotected solo industrial in a sandbox? Go for it, but be prepared to be more vulnerable that people with protection. I often played solo and I enjoyed it also because it was harder, as it should be.

      2) "industrial attacks. There's absolutely no shoot at each other going on in that interaction. A game requires two way interaction between players, or else the other side stop playing that part."

      If you read carefully, there's a lot of shooting each other going on there, for example between protectors and aggressors, or between solo pirates and pirate gangs or bounty hunters. Industry ships are not made to shoot, therefore they don't.

      3) " People are not going to actively engage in a game to play the role of "prey" "

      They don't play to be preys, but to be gatherers. Gatherers take resources in the open at the expanse of possibly being someone's prey, especially if unprotected. Also in MMORPG you're not restricted to a single activity. We all need ISK, especially PVPers. Pirates who need money will turn into preys when gathering. At the moment low and null sec players go to high sec to make money. That is a sign that something's wrong. In the new world, they would be preys when doing PVE.

    7. @anonymous

      "Escaping is not stopping playing, it's playing the game escaping a threat. Evan chasing can get tiring, you assume the chaser will chase forever."

      No of course not, you'd probably go chase someone else, but look at this from a macro sense. Industrialist play the game and have to stop playing whenever a pirate comes into system (pirate won't ever have to probe anymore in james's world) Meanwhile the pirate player can just move from industrialist to industrialist until he catches one. The industrialist's only game mechanic is to stop playing the game, while the pirate just moves from shooting gallery to shooting gallery at their leisure.

      "If you read carefully, there's a lot of shooting each other going on there, for example between protectors and aggressors, or between solo pirates and pirate gangs or bounty hunters. Industry ships are not made to shoot, therefore they don't."

      We're talking industrial <-> pirate interaction of the PVP food chain here, the industrialist could care less if the pirate was engaged by another gang a couple of gates back, all they know and care about is that they have to stop playing the game when someone else with equal resources comes around. The industrialist always has to bring an extra player to the equation then the pirates do to equal things out, that's the inequity that's going on. And not only that, those extra players that the industrialist brings are out there in a combat ship sitting there doing nothing waiting for the pirates to start the interaction at their whim? Who would want to ever do that? Everyone would much rather pick the pirate career.

      "Pirates who need money will turn into preys when gathering." But the whole point of James's platform is to make the pirating career excell in total, you know "we do not sow" and everything. Flying out there wherever the solar winds take you killing miners, freighters, etc. a plenty and making your isk off their booty. That's until everyone chooses to play the pirate since its the only logical choice....

    8. Bring enough friends of the 'we like to shoot stuff' variety that the pirates shoot someone else. Thing is, if the only thing stopping pirates shooting industrialists is other players, the pirates will need to protect their own industrialists if they want ships.

    9. Gallego, you need only read the posts on this blog to see how James would react even to "prey" being protected. James isn't campaigning to see a fair fight, and if a fair fight were to be present, he would simply warp in on top of the target.

      Let me elaborate in that, there neednt be fair fights. Ganking should be viable. But so should everything else.

      And I suppose your only real mistake is in responding in a serious fashion to a full on troll. There was a time when I almost felt that way too, but I thought better on it.

    10. No one talked about equity or fairness. If that's what you want, EVE is the wrong game. This is a cold and harsh competitive sandbox. If you want a fair fight you need something with 3v3 arena.

      But if you want to see the matter in a "fairness" point of view, if you're sitting in a belt mining doing nothing but piling up money, you should expect to have some consequence, and that's being exposed to the risk of being caught. Demanding for artificial protection as a reward for your reckless solo gathering in the open is stupid.

    11. "James isn't campaigning to see a fair fight"

      That sums up his CSM campaign beautifully. James is wanting to turn EvE into space invaders, only worse - with ships that don't fire back. James wants this:

      Login, shoot ships that don't fire back / aren't PvP ships, logout.

      This is not the EvE I love. James wants to ruin EvE.

    12. In Eve if you find yourself in a fair fight, you've done something wrong.

    13. Oh. My. God. I can't believe what you just wrote Danks. I think you'll find RvB is mostly about "fair fights" (though not always). I hadn't realised all of the RvB pilots plus many thousands of others were all "doing something wrong". You are more proof of what I think James would end up doing. Makes me sad.

    14. You must be new to Eve, that's one of the first things I was taught. RvB is all well and good but the rest of Eve doesn't live by those rules.
      Makes me sad people don't get that about Eve.

    15. *facepalm*
      Thankfully there are still people like me in the game who like to use skill, knowledge and reflexes to win fights where the initial odds aren't good. Unfortunately James wants to make EvE into one step above a themepark where people like you Danks, go around blobbing PVE'ers. I really hope CCP resists the urges of the unskilled blobbers like you & James and avoid dumbing the game down to PvP'ers vs PvE'ers.

    16. Wow way to guess way off the mark. Actually most of my pvp carear was small roaming corps that usually fought outnumbered. The quote came from my first FC in an alliance war back in 2004. When you actually wanted to win the war and not get 'goodfites' or whatever you kids are calling it.
      So yeah *facepalm* at what people are playing Eve this day. Also, way to make baseless assumptions. I would actually call myself more of an industrialist building stuff these days than a blobber. Keep on failing dude.

    17. Just gonna leave this here Dank. It's what you wrote...

      "In Eve if you find yourself in a fair fight, you've done something wrong."

  5. I support this message.

    @ Anonymous

    I believe the problem is Ripard and Trebor are playing on what both CCP and Extreme carebears what to hear; Revenue and Safer-highsec. This is unfortunately a good strategy, because they attract those on the other side of the fence. Those who would not vote for James will now vote for Ripard and/or Trebor and help continue to being this game further down the wrong path. What I say is this: CCP loves to flaunt Eve as this wonderful game that allows just about any kind of gameplay; anything can happen. If CCP decides to nerf non-consensual PvP again, then Eve becomes a game where anything cannot happen, only some stuff... the stuff that's pre-approved. Maybe we should all go out and hug each other, space ships hugs.

  6. My god, you weren't kidding that the CSM candidates spin everything as "if we nerf highsec then CCP will go bankrupt because the carebears will stop subscribing because they can't mine AFK every fucking day of their empty lives." The excerpt you posted from Ripard's blog was genuinely alarming.

    1. That's right! It's so alarming that someone might be considerate about how someone different from himself might want to play a game. *gasp!*

  7. Jesus. I'm SO tired of "subscription numbers" being cited as a reason for changing the game. Developers should be concerned with making a good, fun game (especially when they are filling a niche, like CCP is with EVE) and the subscriptions will come.

    Continuing to pander to the greatest (and whiniest) common denominator will culminate in "Farmville in Space".

    1. I agree. However - is it really the developers who talk about subscription numbers?

      So far I've only really heard carebears and Ripard talk about subscriptions as a justification to buff highsec.

      So.. is Ripard a financial analyst? Are the miners? Has CCP ever bitched about having to make highsec safe or go bankrupt?

    2. It already has.

      Gevlon has proven that the most lucrative play style involves playing station traders that never undock, and have inventory shipped to them.

      If you play manually, you can make tens of billions per month. And never risk being shot at.

      If DUST 514 can't be used to target players like that, then CCP is still doing it wrong.

    3. I'm getting this mental image now of DUST 514 missions where you've been paid to sabotage someone's warehouses, hangars, and storefronts on Jita 4-4, while battling the mercenaries he hired to protect his stuff. That would be amazing.

    4. I'd buy a sony console for that.

    5. Anon 11:04, maybe you could suggest that to CCP in the DUST Forum if you haven't already. Now that is an idea I would get behind.

      ---Alistair Drake

  8. Its quite interesting that Ripard's complete lack of knowledge regarding a suicide ganking tactic like the 'Boomerang' - does not prevent him from commenting on and taking a strong position against it.

    He completely confuses the old Tornado volley tactic with the simple act of 'moving' a Concord spawn. (My guess this is something else he would probably do away with - given half a chance. I'm sure ice miners would love to have 'perma-Concord' spawns protecting them all night.)

    This is exactly why I'm concerned about giving people like Ripard further insights about ganking in general - that knowledge will only be used to make 'insightful' suggestions on how to stop it.

  9. Ripard like to talk about subscriber numbers when he wants to make Eve more like WoW. But there is one thing I've observed over the past few years: Every MMO that has tried to take customers away from WoW has failed. WoW's existing userbase is too much of a hurdle for incremental change to overcome, especially when WoW copies any popular new features.

    The successful MMOs have been the ones who go after people who aren't the core WoW players. MMOs where the developers aren't trying for anything more than a niche market.

    Come to think of it, WoW isn't successful because it pulled players from previous MMOs. It's successful because it pulled in players who weren't playing MMOs.

    Eve will do worse than them. Carebears want PvE content. They will get better PvE elsewhere, probably from free to play MMOs. For Eve to keep profitable on a subscription model, it needs to keep doing something that other MMOs don't do. Which is PvP.

  10. When minerals acquired in null are easier to sell in empire than in null something bad has happened and it's happened a long time ago.

    Nerf empire boost null for the gatherers and the producers and see home defense fleets using the belts and anoms with miners to gain income redreduce boredom and be available to protect miners quicker.

    Good luck James you're going to need it.

  11. "I support the spaceship-shooters because I believe that at its core, EVE is a game about shooting spaceships."

    The glory of EVE is that it is not, in-fact, a game about just shooting spaceships. If it was, it would be a pretty awful game. There are much better spaceship shooters. It's a game about a lot of things. Shooting spaceships, mining minerals, setting up stations, market trading, manufacturing, research, and a million other things.

    While all of these things tie into "shooting spaceships," you could also say they all tie into mining, or research, or trading. So EVE Online is a game that, at its core, is about mining. Or trading. Or sov struggles. Or reputation grind. Or .

    I'm not very surprised that you say a sandbox game revolves entirely around combat, though. Your platform is built on combat, specifically beating up the weak for laffs.

    1. Killing miners, especially the rich whiny ones, is integral to the health of EVE's economy. Harden the fuck up.

    2. I'm not saying it isn't! Just that how you look at a sandbox is different according to the individual.

  12. To pro safety carebears:

    The first rule of EVE is not to not fly waht you can't afford to lose.

    It's CCP's EVE motto:


    Harden. The. Fuck. Up.

    You're supposed to get shot and destroyed in this game, it happens. Try to get over this terrible, terrible thing.

  13. Unfortunately Ripard is trying to be everything to everyone. I really am starting to wonder if even he knows why he wants to run for CSM. Yes he is parroting the usual lines about wanting great communication, protect highsec, etc, but we have heard this all before with earlier candidates.

    There is also this perception amongst the more vocal bloggers that James 315 will not garner enough votes. I beg to differ. If anything he will gain an incredibly large amount of votes from those who are engaged and active in EVE.

    Let me give everyone a hint - the votes won't come from the 50-70% that live in highsec. In fact HighSec will barely register in the tolling booth. As has been shown through New Order's enforcement of the CODE miners and HighSec residents are sadly complacent and do not engage with the wider EVE community.

    The votes will come from the most engaged in the EVE community - lowsec, nullsec, wormholes candidates, and the minority of HighSec players who are actually aware of their surroundings.

    On my travels through HighSec spreading the Message few if any HighSec residents are even aware of what the CSM is, why it exists, or why it was even created. It is through the tireless efforts of the New Order that increasing numbers of HighSec residents are starting to open their eyes to the big picture. That they do not operate in a bubble of PvE and yes there are other people out there that can and will affect their gameplay.

    This is why the platform James 315 stands for is a platform of positive change. Imagine a mining fleet with an active defense/offense squadron where people are fighting for their ore and pirates must fight for their kills. The start of something exciting in HighSec and ultimately bleeding into Lowsec. Imagine the possibilities. Imagine an EVE where there is no such space as HighSec but simply Space. Such an EVE would generate far more interest and attract large numbers of new players.

  14. Oooh James, you're going to have to do a lot better in part 2 of your "retort". This was terrible, low on facts and high on rhetorical fluff. Very disappointed in you James, my votes are wandering away from you atm.

    1. lettucebecereal

      Your votes were never his to begin with


    2. This is obviously miner rhetoric. Clearly your votes never were James' in the first place.

    3. a) How the fuck would you know?
      b) They were, but twats here are swaying me to vote elsewhere.
      c) You're a twat.

    4. Convincing argument there, with lots of extra potty-mouth. We don't want carebear votes, just tears.

      You can vote for Ripard if you want.

    5. As I commented here before: James315's followers do more damage to his campaign then his own positions.

    6. @Agent Trask: The carebear tears win you more votes anyway. I resubscribed to vote James 315 after reading the comments on this blog for awhile; the highsec miner tears are just too delicious.

    7. No you didn't resubscribe, you were already subbed. This is obviously ganker rhetoric.

    8. Okay, I posted the comment at 0431. I should speak up about my position here.

      I'm a dyed-in-the-wool carebear. I've done roaming PVP and didn't like it; I've done nullsec fleet ops and didn't like them. I've played EVE for awhile and found that I like the game best when I'm doing carebearish activities -- I sorta like mining; I somewhat like missioning if I'm doing it with a goal in mind other than more missioning; I really like manufacturing. In the past, I did quite a bit of nullsec mining -- in the days before the updated sovereignty system, mind you, so the only mining to be done was in asteroid belts. I couldn't mine AFK, because the territory was prone to invaders, and if a hostile showed up in local, he could always be counted on to head straight for the asteroid belts in search of miners and ratters. The moment an unknown appeared in local, I'd warp back to station, dock, and notify my alliance while hoping the invader wouldn't destroy my jetcans. It was tense; it was dangerous; it was fun.

      I also did some mining in highsec. Barges had smaller cargoholds back then, and of the exhumers, only Hulks could extract any reasonable amount of ore. Jetcan mining -- in which a miner jettisoned his ore for pickup by a corpmate or alt. Risks included suicide gankers (who, unlike the New Order, ganked miners exclusively for loot and tears) and can flippers, who often worked in teams to steal miners' ore. Orcas did not exist. Mining AFK for any period of time was not possible, unless you fitted a mining laser to an Iteron or something and stayed logged in all night. It was a tense job, requiring a lot of attention to the game, a lot of awareness of my surroundings -- and it was fun.

      I even set up a control tower, once I had the standings to do so. I did research and manufacturing in my cozy little highsec starbase, utilizing my considerable Industry skills to make T2 ammunition and equipment, and turned an impressive profit. But I knew that it wasn't risk-free: any day of the week, somebody could wardec me and begin sieging my factory starbase 24 hours later, seeking to prey on the expensive blueprints and supplies stored there. It was a fact of life. So I anchored my tower in a stationless highsec system, erected defenses (at the cost of some profitability), and checked up on my starbase at least once every 24 hours; I was perpetually ready to tear down my control tower and evacuate all my assets to the safety of a station. It was highly profitable and required somewhat less effort than other types of carebearing, but it was still risky -- and because of that, it was fun.

      (continued in next comment)

    9. I left EVE for awhile due to personal reasons. In early 2010, I returned, and the game had changed.

      I started flying to highsec moons, scouting a location for a control tower. They were all taken.

      I went to an asteroid belt to mine. It was empty. So was the next belt I visited.

      Highsec had never had so many people in it. It wasn't quiet anymore. It wasn't cold anymore. It wasn't dark anymore. It didn't even feel dangerous anymore. Something had happened. Highsec had changed. People treated highsec as a place where they could live free of any risk at all. I couldn't handle it. If I wanted to carebear around in a game without the human element of risk weighing on me, I'd play a singleplayer game.

      Carebearing wasn't risky anymore. Carebearing wasn't fun anymore. My character had 36 million SP, a billion isk in the wallet and that much more in assets, and extremely high faction standings when I biomassed him.

      I've kept an eye on EVE ever since. I've always wondered if it'd become what it used to be -- an MMO where even the most risk-free activities were still not risk-free. I was not encouraged to return to EVE when I heard about the CONCORD and miner buffs; I was not encouraged to return to EVE when can flipping was driven into permanent extinction. But this blog, and James 315's campaign -- his effort to reform EVE in the face of an army of carebears who have grown even more disgusting and shrill since my departure from EVE -- convinced me that maybe, just maybe, there's a little bit of hope for carebears like me.

      If I just wanted to mine, manufacture, and grow fat without any risk, I'd play X3: Terran Conflict, abandoning the human element altogether. I want EVE to be something better. Having seen what James 315's accomplished in the past, I have hope for him.

  15. It'a a far better argument than those who simply *have* to pretend that anyone not voting for J315 is a high-sec miner. Kinda sad that most 315 supporters only have the ability to see things as black or white. Says something about their mental aptitude. FOAD!

  16. So many people complain about the terrible injustices James has done upon them, its really a sheer joy to read!
    All the people at their keyboards...not just miners, but everyone, voices ringing aloud with keystroked opinion. Somehow unaware that theyve already become the solution that James has made it his duty to solve!
    NOONE is in favor of bot use, for mining, for market advantage....any and all botting seems to be one issue that the complete eve base isnt fond of. So bot miners get blown up....GREAT! So people who can do math know exactly how many minutes after they press their mining button until they need to come back to the computer and fly to station for unloading. This is what is considered "bot aspirant". Theres no PLAYING involved...push a button and leave...give me a break.
    How would you consider that "PLAYING" this great game, full of so much human to human interaction possibilites?

    Now how is it that these same people cant understand how 10 million isk will prevent with nearly 100% certainty the loss of 100s of millions of isk in ship and pod loss?
    In the end, smart people act stupidly because they dont want someone else to tell them what to do. The same people who join a corp because they need someone with an orca to sit nearby and provide them with extra isk, free of charge through mining bonuses... "Pay to mine, or get blown up...Hell No i wont pay, come blow me up if you think you can" BOOM! that takes care of that.
    Quite a double standard the way i see it.

    I am, by definition, a carebear. I mish, i play on the market, i bump but have never ganked. Try to stay in highsec to keep my ass from getting shot off regularly!
    I try to make enough to buy a plex every 30 days. So dont think im some hardened vet, ready to pewpew at a moments notice with a hangar full of billion dollar ships, cause im not.
    When i found minerbumping, i thought it was great that someone would dedicate his time, not just killing indiscriminately, but to righting what he felt was a wrong.
    I dont care what claims are made about whos "behind" James, i stand BESIDE! him in his efforts!

    Hes got my CSM 8 vote!

  17. right now James's biggest problem is that he doesn't understand how the CSM position actually works.

  18. It says a lot for James 315 real influence that the candidate that he most opposed, Ripard Teg, and wrote several articles to undermine, topped the polls.

    In fact I am sure these articles boosted his support. Just as his support for Psychotic Monk was the kiss of death.

    Ironically Psychotic Monk was recommended by Jester's Trek as well as the null sec block vote. I can only speak personally and say that prior to Psychotic Monk joining minerbumping he would have been high on my list probably #3. Indeed he was even seen haranging New Order and stating he only did real pvp and didn't gank miners.

    Lesson here supporting minerbumping and getting their support can be seriously damaging to your objectives.

    1. Indeed. Whatever James 315 touches does seem to turn to shit. Trouble is, I've heard he likes to touch a lot of his followers in very strange ways. The poor shit bags.

    2. I highly doubt your conclusions. Without James 315 as a candidate, you can't really judge his popularity among EVE players. An endorsment is very different from a candidacy, and the name Psychotic Monk is far less recognizable.

      You seem to conclude that this blog negatively influenced the vote by looking at the results, but you can't ignore that even before Miner Bumping Ripard Teg was a very popular blogger and Psychotic Monk an independent with no backing. The result we got was exactly what you would have guessed without taking James 315 in consideration: many votes from Jester Trek fans, few votes for an independent player.

      What you could say then is that Miner Bumping didn't influenced much the vote. You have no real data to state that endorsing it is damaging.

      If you want to judge James 315 and this blog objectively, you should do it with real data. How many visits the blog gets, how many comments, how many tears like the rude comment up here, how many players join or rejoin EVE just because finally they have something fun and emergent to do in game. In the comments you will find many new or almost new players that instead of quitting because of boredom, joined the New Order and found out what's so good about EVE: interaction and emergent gameplay.

      Judge James 315 and the New Order by what they're doing in game, and you will find that no honest EVE player can deny that this creation is an extraordinary thing made by extraordinary players, one of those things that you can tell to your friends to explain why EVE is so special and unique.

    3. *applauds Anon @ 4:05 PM"

      That was a work of art.

    4. Thank you Alana, I'm not native english and I'm sure there are mistakes here and there so I'm even more honoured by your appreciation. I'm not a member of the New Order as I'm not playing EVE but I'm following it with passion. I plan to get in game out of inspiration from the Order, I just need to get a decent internet connection and create an account (hopefully this month). Players like you are the best publicity this game could ever get.

    5. From empirical evidence, the protocol dictates that anyone in agreement with someone else must be accused of being the same person. So, without further a do...

      Alana, why are you conversing with yourself? Is it because no-one else listens to you? Don't worry sweety, I'm sure someone loves you.

    6. Anon @ 7:05 pm,

      Did you previously play EVE, or have you never played before? Your earlier comment/analysis suggests you've played in the past. I'm always curious how players who don't play EVE manage to stumble across

    7. Alana,

      yes i did play EVE in 2009 for a year (but i played just a few days per month). After making some ISK with missions I started doing what I originally intended to do, solo low sec piracy. I learned to fit a rifter, scan and ambush.

      I had one of the best MMO experiences I ever had when I for example managed to take down a couple brutix with my single rifter (not at the same time!), or when during a duel with another rifter the other guy called backup and i ended up being against two rifters. After popping the first one, i started orbiting the second without much hope (I was in low armour). But I realized I had a "secret weapon": i was in a passive armour fit, with a neut. I neuted him enough to deplete his cap, so his scrambler went off and i managed to warp away with my rifter with just some crumbles of hull left. I never had an adrenaline rush like that in a game, ever.

      But in the end, i quit. I was not satisfied with low sec: before joining I thought i could be a miner and transports ambushing pirate, extracting ransoms and living the "criminal" life. But i found out that low sec was very empty, and inhabited by pirates and ratters only. I had fun, but to get that fun i had to scan for hours, often with no result. It was also my fault though, as I wanted to be a solo hunter and I never joined a corp, but as I told you I had just a few days a month to play and I thought I didn't have time enough to commit to a corp, and low sec was a disappointment anyway.

      But I never lost contact with EVE: the idea behind it was simply the game of my dreams, even if in practice it doesn't always work like you would expect. In the following years I had various real life situations that prevented me to commit to a MMORPG anymore, but I periodically checked for updates and read the forums.

      And then, I read James' manifesto about highsec miners. It was the greatest EVE-related read I ever seen. Weel written, very long but not unnecessarily so, to the point and fearless. It made a lot of sense, and when I finished I officialy was a James 315 fan. If the game followed James 315' direction, it would be the game of my dreams, with the low sec I imagined I would have found when I first started reading about the game in 2009.

      So I kept checking the forums like always, following with particular interest James. I then read his post about bumping in Halaima and from there Miner Bumping. Since then, I check the blog daily: it's intelligent, engaging, informative, ironic and very fun, wirtten with knowledge and mastery. I desired to be a part of it. Therefore, I started to feel like playing EVE again. As i previously said, I don't have a decent internet connection at the moment and I have also little free time due to study, but I hope I will be able to join the game for a new beginning soon (I like to start from scratch when I re-join MMORPGs, It's irrational but that's what I like).

      So this is my story, I hope you enjoyed it. If you want to check the Brutixes, here's my killboard (check april and march):

    8. Actually EVEkill doesn't show the kills in a handy single list, so here's the Battleclinic link:

      Thanks for bringing me back to good memories!

  19. You can argue minerbumping had little influence if you like - to me the results speak for themselves.

    1. You're free to do believe what you want, but I pointed out with logic why the results don't tell what you want them to tell. I would appreciate If you could counter my points with logic if you believe they're wrong.


Note: If you are unable to post a comment, try enabling the "allow third-party cookies" option on your browser.