These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Jita Park Speakers Corner

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Hans Jagerblitzen for CSM7

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Indahmawar Fazmarai
#201 - 2012-02-10 10:11:09 UTC
Iam Widdershins wrote:
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Joyitii wrote:
Mining thoughts....


Checked out the thread. Textural mapping or spin rate variation to distinguish between asteroids that are named the same on overview, but contain varying amounts of ore is brilliant. It is perhaps the most beautiful solution to the problem I've seen so far. And developmentally, this makes a lot of sense. We've just overhauled planets, nebulas, warp tunnels, and now the ships themselves.....leaving asteroid belts as sadly one of the most graphically outdated features in the game. It makes absolute sense to me to build a "captcha" into the markings of the asteroids, their shape, or their motion, and solve the botting issue without even having to do much more work than they should be doing anyways to keep up with their artwork schedule. DEATH TO ALL BOTS.

I favor solutions that elevate mining as a profession. I also believe in addressing problems at their root. Currently mining is not a well-respected profession, despite it being such a critical part of the EvE economy. One of the root causes of this is that the game mechanics are so simplistic that artificial intelligence can substitute for human intuition. This is not the fault of the players. The resulting arguments over who is botting and who isn't absolute tear the EvE community to shreds year after year. It fuels griefing, it causes massive distrust amongst all sorts of player entities, even reaching the CSM itself. This is in no way the kind of "good conflict" that drives game activity and keeps things fun. It's quite the opposite. If we can convince CCP there's an accessible solution to the bot problem, that they can even sell well as part of an expansion (customers love new shineys!) I think its a win-win-win for the entire EvE community. Consider this a solution I can push to the developers if elected, until someone shows me something better. (...)


My apologies if i am being thick, but, that change would then mean that survey scanners would be gone?

Not only that, but he is completely ignoring the fact that a majority of the minerals harvested in the game DON'T come from mining; they come from mission and drone loot, reprocessed into raw minerals. There are issues of supply that need to be solved before we need to go into some kind of Turing-test campaign for mining in belts.


The OP already adressed that, not very brightly, by calling to remove alloy drops from drones and replace BPC drops for the module drops from NPCs. Frankly I don't buy the missions part, BPC are the most useless thing for a mission runner (we blow stuff, don't build it!).

Anyway, upon further thinking about the visual captcha, i just found it to be born dead. Why? Because a bot has got all the time in the world to waste hitting empty asteroids until meeting the one-in-ten. Even worst, it would be simple as hell to teach the bot to unlock and remove from list any asteroid that wouldn't yield mineral after a cycle.

As long as a bot can fly to a bookmark and eventually hit gold, it's gonna be enough to justifiy the use of such bot.

But then, expecting noobs to find gravimetrics on their own before as much as mining could be a return to the "learning cliff".

Rendering miner bots obsolete is gonna be a tough thing to do. Ugh
Joyitii
Red.Line
#202 - 2012-02-10 10:29:22 UTC
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:
Iam Widdershins wrote:
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Joyitii wrote:
Mining thoughts....


Checked out the thread. Textural mapping or spin rate variation to distinguish between asteroids that are named the same on overview, but contain varying amounts of ore is brilliant. It is perhaps the most beautiful solution to the problem I've seen so far. And developmentally, this makes a lot of sense. We've just overhauled planets, nebulas, warp tunnels, and now the ships themselves.....leaving asteroid belts as sadly one of the most graphically outdated features in the game. It makes absolute sense to me to build a "captcha" into the markings of the asteroids, their shape, or their motion, and solve the botting issue without even having to do much more work than they should be doing anyways to keep up with their artwork schedule. DEATH TO ALL BOTS.

I favor solutions that elevate mining as a profession. I also believe in addressing problems at their root. Currently mining is not a well-respected profession, despite it being such a critical part of the EvE economy. One of the root causes of this is that the game mechanics are so simplistic that artificial intelligence can substitute for human intuition. This is not the fault of the players. The resulting arguments over who is botting and who isn't absolute tear the EvE community to shreds year after year. It fuels griefing, it causes massive distrust amongst all sorts of player entities, even reaching the CSM itself. This is in no way the kind of "good conflict" that drives game activity and keeps things fun. It's quite the opposite. If we can convince CCP there's an accessible solution to the bot problem, that they can even sell well as part of an expansion (customers love new shineys!) I think its a win-win-win for the entire EvE community. Consider this a solution I can push to the developers if elected, until someone shows me something better. (...)


My apologies if i am being thick, but, that change would then mean that survey scanners would be gone?

Not only that, but he is completely ignoring the fact that a majority of the minerals harvested in the game DON'T come from mining; they come from mission and drone loot, reprocessed into raw minerals. There are issues of supply that need to be solved before we need to go into some kind of Turing-test campaign for mining in belts.


The OP already adressed that, not very brightly, by calling to remove alloy drops from drones and replace BPC drops for the module drops from NPCs. Frankly I don't buy the missions part, BPC are the most useless thing for a mission runner (we blow stuff, don't build it!).

Anyway, upon further thinking about the visual captcha, i just found it to be born dead. Why? Because a bot has got all the time in the world to waste hitting empty asteroids until meeting the one-in-ten. Even worst, it would be simple as hell to teach the bot to unlock and remove from list any asteroid that wouldn't yield mineral after a cycle.

As long as a bot can fly to a bookmark and eventually hit gold, it's gonna be enough to justifiy the use of such bot.

But then, expecting noobs to find gravimetrics on their own before as much as mining could be a return to the "learning cliff".

Rendering miner bots obsolete is gonna be a tough thing to do. Ugh

I'm just going to say this. You haven't read the whole thread. It's quite a read I admit but what you're talking about is addressed and honestly this isn't the tread that it really needs to be discussed on.
Iam Widdershins
Project Nemesis
#203 - 2012-02-10 11:30:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Iam Widdershins
Joyitii wrote:
Iam Widdershins wrote:
I hate to say it (lol) but I have one more question.

Your character's security status is -4.8.

How are you representing the players of hisec, and the people who seek entry-level PVP there?

In his giant 20 page pdf file he mentions that he wants locked low-sec status decreases to end at 2.0 since it doesn't stop going down if you keep shooting people there. It doesn't mean that he was shooting people in highsec.

Yes, I know. He can't shoot people in hisec, because he'd get killed by police just being there. How can he represent a demographic he is not a part of?

I also support this -2.0 proposal (originally by Jack Dant, found here), but I don't feel like he's able to effectively represent the demographic of people who will make their living on war declarations, past or future.



Joyitii wrote:
I'm just going to say this. You haven't read the whole thread. It's quite a read I admit but what you're talking about is addressed and honestly this isn't the tread that it really needs to be discussed on.

I've been reading the whole thread, and I'm thinking more and more that he is not a very good option. Unless he can answer some of my pointed questions, completely turn things around all of a sudden, and show that he can competently represent the people he claims to be representing...

Lobbying for your right to delete your signature
Tsubutai
Perkone
Caldari State
#204 - 2012-02-10 11:45:32 UTC
Iam Widdershins wrote:
I've been reading the whole thread, and I'm thinking more and more that he is not a very good option.

Candidate A claiming people shouldn't vote for candidate B? Well I never!
Joyitii
Red.Line
#205 - 2012-02-10 12:03:15 UTC
Tsubutai wrote:
Iam Widdershins wrote:
I've been reading the whole thread, and I'm thinking more and more that he is not a very good option.

Candidate A claiming people shouldn't vote for candidate B? Well I never!

I was wondering why he was being so critical over something so trivial. vOv
Iam Widdershins
Project Nemesis
#206 - 2012-02-10 12:27:56 UTC
Joyitii wrote:
Tsubutai wrote:
Iam Widdershins wrote:
I've been reading the whole thread, and I'm thinking more and more that he is not a very good option.

Candidate A claiming people shouldn't vote for candidate B? Well I never!

I was wondering why he was being so critical over something so trivial. vOv

If you think that candidates swearing up and down to be something they are not and demonstrating a solid lack of understanding in issues of important mechanics is trivial, then I guess this is your candidate.

Lobbying for your right to delete your signature
Joyitii
Red.Line
#207 - 2012-02-10 12:49:18 UTC
So what do you want? For him to answer questions? If so grab a ticket and wait in line till he gets off work and has some actual free time. Honestly you're making more of a fuss here than any goon has...
Rel'k Bloodlor
Federation Front Line Report
Federation Front Line
#208 - 2012-02-10 12:53:44 UTC
Iam Widdershins wrote:
Joyitii wrote:
Tsubutai wrote:
Iam Widdershins wrote:
I've been reading the whole thread, and I'm thinking more and more that he is not a very good option.

Candidate A claiming people shouldn't vote for candidate B? Well I never!

I was wondering why he was being so critical over something so trivial. vOv

If you think that candidates swearing up and down to be something they are not and demonstrating a solid lack of understanding in issues of important mechanics is trivial, then I guess this is your candidate.


Did you miss the part were he talks of his multiple accounts? Or his Hi-sec mining and industry? Or yelding to thouse that know more?

Why have you wasted the last 5 hours of your life demanding to talk to some one that is obviously not at there comp for the time being?

I wanted to paint my space ship red, but I couldn't find enough goats. 
NetheranE
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#209 - 2012-02-10 13:06:01 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
War Kitten wrote:

When other members of CSM7 that play the game in discord with your world views on what is the right way to pvp disagree with your ideas about changes to high sec or lowsec rules and have alternate ideas, how will you react? And when it comes time to discuss sov warfare and super-cap re-balancing, will you have any more useful input than the naive "remove supers" response?


I don't think "PvP" is appropriate behavior for a CSM member to be engaging in with other council members. I agree with the decision made by the previous CSM members to cooperate and work as a team when serving as a voice for the players. In-fighting within the council does not send a message of strength and compromises the integrity of the council and the ability it has to protect the interests of the players.

*snip*


If you're stating that a ceasefire between all CSM members be called while they are on the board, you're potentially stepping into the way people play. These people have volunteered (you included) to represent the community, not to sacrifice your enjoyment of the game for it. If you begin to lose enjoyment for EVE while trying to represent the people in it, i'd like to stand up then and say something is wrong here and we need to make sure you enjoy the game. How can you fairly represent something you're not enjoying?

I think that these select few should be even more open to PvP, and especially with each other. You essentially have a small group that is constantly in communication with each other, who have been voted by a large number of the community to represent them and their concerns. That right there, THAT opportunity screams to me that you should almost seek to engage each other in PvP. You're essentially surrounded with what could potentially be labelled as the most experienced/preferred representative for a particular form of PvP (or PvE *cough*)! Why would you dare pass up that kind of chance to learn from them?

If "infighting" occurs over the due course of PvP, i would look to reconsider the rager's place on the CSM. Rage is a natural product of EVE PvP in a way, but if it starts causing rifts in our representatives because one of you popped/"jew'ed"/backstabbed the other? Get lost mate, I dont need to represent me in EVE (one of the most cutthroat MMOs out there) if you can't reconcile losing something to someone who could very easily be better than you in a vast majority of ways.

Not that I'm denying you may have a point. Yet, if you're point actually has application, i'd immediately question why that person found a place on CSM (unless they're a carebear rep and got blown up, then i'd harvest his tears joyfully).
NetheranE
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#210 - 2012-02-10 13:08:54 UTC
Tsubutai wrote:
Iam Widdershins wrote:
I've been reading the whole thread, and I'm thinking more and more that he is not a very good option.

Candidate A claiming people shouldn't vote for candidate B? Well I never!


WHAT!? NO! This is entirely out of the norm!

*cough* Whatever brah's
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
#211 - 2012-02-10 13:10:39 UTC
NetheranE wrote:
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
War Kitten wrote:

When other members of CSM7 that play the game in discord with your world views on what is the right way to pvp disagree with your ideas about changes to high sec or lowsec rules and have alternate ideas, how will you react? And when it comes time to discuss sov warfare and super-cap re-balancing, will you have any more useful input than the naive "remove supers" response?


I don't think "PvP" is appropriate behavior for a CSM member to be engaging in with other council members. I agree with the decision made by the previous CSM members to cooperate and work as a team when serving as a voice for the players. In-fighting within the council does not send a message of strength and compromises the integrity of the council and the ability it has to protect the interests of the players.

*snip*


If you're stating that a ceasefire between all CSM members be called while they are on the board, you're potentially stepping into the way people play. These people have volunteered (you included) to represent the community, not to sacrifice your enjoyment of the game for it. If you begin to lose enjoyment for EVE while trying to represent the people in it, i'd like to stand up then and say something is wrong here and we need to make sure you enjoy the game. How can you fairly represent something you're not enjoying?

I think that these select few should be even more open to PvP, and especially with each other. You essentially have a small group that is constantly in communication with each other, who have been voted by a large number of the community to represent them and their concerns. That right there, THAT opportunity screams to me that you should almost seek to engage each other in PvP. You're essentially surrounded with what could potentially be labelled as the most experienced/preferred representative for a particular form of PvP (or PvE *cough*)! Why would you dare pass up that kind of chance to learn from them?

If "infighting" occurs over the due course of PvP, i would look to reconsider the rager's place on the CSM. Rage is a natural product of EVE PvP in a way, but if it starts causing rifts in our representatives because one of you popped/"jew'ed"/backstabbed the other? Get lost mate, I dont need to represent me in EVE (one of the most cutthroat MMOs out there) if you can't reconcile losing something to someone who could very easily be better than you in a vast majority of ways.

Not that I'm denying you may have a point. Yet, if you're point actually has application, i'd immediately question why that person found a place on CSM (unless they're a carebear rep and got blown up, then i'd harvest his tears joyfully).


I think you misunderstood what he meant by "PVP" with the little quotes around it.

I took it to mean fighting amongst the CSM members on the council, not actual PvP, ship vs. ship, combat in the game.

Hans - thanks for your answers, I like what you had to say there and it alleviates my concerns.

I don't judge people by their race, religion, color, size, age, gender, or ethnicity. I judge them by their grammar, spelling, syntax, punctuation, clarity of expression, and logical consistency.
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
#212 - 2012-02-10 13:19:59 UTC
Iam Widdershins wrote:
I also support this -2.0 proposal (originally by Jack Dant, found here), but I don't feel like he's able to effectively represent the demographic of people who will make their living on war declarations, past or future.


Since you make your living off of hi-sec wardecs, doesn't that make your motivation just as suspect as the alleged motivations of nullsec representatives from big alliances with respect to nullsec changes?

TBH, from what I've read so far, I'd like to see both of you make it rather than fight each other for the same voter base.

Focus on positives guys!


I don't judge people by their race, religion, color, size, age, gender, or ethnicity. I judge them by their grammar, spelling, syntax, punctuation, clarity of expression, and logical consistency.
NetheranE
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#213 - 2012-02-10 13:20:12 UTC
War Kitten wrote:
NetheranE wrote:
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
War Kitten wrote:

When other members of CSM7 that play the game in discord with your world views on what is the right way to pvp disagree with your ideas about changes to high sec or lowsec rules and have alternate ideas, how will you react? And when it comes time to discuss sov warfare and super-cap re-balancing, will you have any more useful input than the naive "remove supers" response?


I don't think "PvP" is appropriate behavior for a CSM member to be engaging in with other council members. I agree with the decision made by the previous CSM members to cooperate and work as a team when serving as a voice for the players. In-fighting within the council does not send a message of strength and compromises the integrity of the council and the ability it has to protect the interests of the players.

*snip*


If you're stating that a ceasefire between all CSM members be called while they are on the board, you're potentially stepping into the way people play. These people have volunteered (you included) to represent the community, not to sacrifice your enjoyment of the game for it. If you begin to lose enjoyment for EVE while trying to represent the people in it, i'd like to stand up then and say something is wrong here and we need to make sure you enjoy the game. How can you fairly represent something you're not enjoying?

I think that these select few should be even more open to PvP, and especially with each other. You essentially have a small group that is constantly in communication with each other, who have been voted by a large number of the community to represent them and their concerns. That right there, THAT opportunity screams to me that you should almost seek to engage each other in PvP. You're essentially surrounded with what could potentially be labelled as the most experienced/preferred representative for a particular form of PvP (or PvE *cough*)! Why would you dare pass up that kind of chance to learn from them?

If "infighting" occurs over the due course of PvP, i would look to reconsider the rager's place on the CSM. Rage is a natural product of EVE PvP in a way, but if it starts causing rifts in our representatives because one of you popped/"jew'ed"/backstabbed the other? Get lost mate, I dont need to represent me in EVE (one of the most cutthroat MMOs out there) if you can't reconcile losing something to someone who could very easily be better than you in a vast majority of ways.

Not that I'm denying you may have a point. Yet, if you're point actually has application, i'd immediately question why that person found a place on CSM (unless they're a carebear rep and got blown up, then i'd harvest his tears joyfully).


I think you misunderstood what he meant by "PVP" with the little quotes around it.

I took it to mean fighting amongst the CSM members on the council, not actual PvP, ship vs. ship, combat in the game.

Hans - thanks for your answers, I like what you had to say there and it alleviates my concerns.



This I'd need clarified by the OP, as the message I got was something rather disturbing.

If he meant CSM members should put their differences aside, I'd ask why that wasnt a prerequisite to growing some balls and/or getting a spot on CSM.
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
#214 - 2012-02-10 13:39:44 UTC
NetheranE wrote:
War Kitten wrote:
I think you misunderstood what he meant by "PVP" with the little quotes around it.

I took it to mean fighting amongst the CSM members on the council, not actual PvP, ship vs. ship, combat in the game.

Hans - thanks for your answers, I like what you had to say there and it alleviates my concerns.



This I'd need clarified by the OP, as the message I got was something rather disturbing.

If he meant CSM members should put their differences aside, I'd ask why that wasnt a prerequisite to growing some balls and/or getting a spot on CSM.


Fair enough, it's his words to clarify.

I still think you mis-read the air-quotes and then read a WHOLE lot into that mistake though. His answer was perfectly in context with my questions, so it made sense to me.

I don't judge people by their race, religion, color, size, age, gender, or ethnicity. I judge them by their grammar, spelling, syntax, punctuation, clarity of expression, and logical consistency.
NetheranE
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#215 - 2012-02-10 14:03:06 UTC
War Kitten wrote:
NetheranE wrote:
War Kitten wrote:
I think you misunderstood what he meant by "PVP" with the little quotes around it.

I took it to mean fighting amongst the CSM members on the council, not actual PvP, ship vs. ship, combat in the game.

Hans - thanks for your answers, I like what you had to say there and it alleviates my concerns.



This I'd need clarified by the OP, as the message I got was something rather disturbing.

If he meant CSM members should put their differences aside, I'd ask why that wasnt a prerequisite to growing some balls and/or getting a spot on CSM.


Fair enough, it's his words to clarify.

I still think you mis-read the air-quotes and then read a WHOLE lot into that mistake though. His answer was perfectly in context with my questions, so it made sense to me.


Deciding I should read what I was looking at before posting, I also recognise I should probably keep my mouth shut at 6:00am...

I'll still stand by what I said at the end. If the answer to your question isnt obvious, then something is wrong.
Iam Widdershins
Project Nemesis
#216 - 2012-02-10 15:16:38 UTC
Joyitii, Rel'k Bloodlor: Calm your boiling wits. I'm not demanding that he answer me immediately, but I did ask a number of pointed and crucial questions that directly affect to those he claims to be his preferred constituency (hisec), whether or not they are interested in getting into PVP; he directly and indirectly completely evaded these questions. I put down multiple posts because I was responding to others' and had more questions, not because I'm impatient. I'm perfectly willing to give him another chance to answer. It's a Gorram forum, mate. Chill out.

Netheran, Hans, War Kitten: Obviously it is completely crucial to act as a rational adult and put aside your differences when working together on the CSM. What seems to be missing in your discussion is the fact that we are not yet CSM members, and CCP asks for a limited number of representatives for a reason. Some people are going to be more suitable and wiser than others, and there is absolutely no reason why they cannot argue amongst each other to clarify their ideals and weed out the trolls and the ones who are only there for a specific agenda.

In the eventuality that someone feels the need to withdraw from the race, it should be important that they know who to direct their voters to, that will be able to answer their concerns the most directly and be the most effective possible member of the group.

Lobbying for your right to delete your signature
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
#217 - 2012-02-10 15:17:02 UTC
NetheranE wrote:
I'll still stand by what I said at the end. If the answer to your question isnt obvious, then something is wrong.


I agree, the "correct" answer is obvious, and it would be nice if somehow it could be a prerequisite to CSM membership. But short of observing a candidate in such a situation, asking the question and seeing how they respond is the next best thing.

I wasn't seeking the right answer, I wanted to read Hans' answer and see how much thought he put into the response.

Think of it as analogous to when a teacher asks you to show your work in school. They know the answer, they want to see how *you* arrived at it.

I don't judge people by their race, religion, color, size, age, gender, or ethnicity. I judge them by their grammar, spelling, syntax, punctuation, clarity of expression, and logical consistency.
Iam Widdershins
Project Nemesis
#218 - 2012-02-10 15:31:44 UTC
War Kitten wrote:
NetheranE wrote:
I'll still stand by what I said at the end. If the answer to your question isnt obvious, then something is wrong.


I agree, the "correct" answer is obvious, and it would be nice if somehow it could be a prerequisite to CSM membership. But short of observing a candidate in such a situation, asking the question and seeing how they respond is the next best thing.

I wasn't seeking the right answer, I wanted to read Hans' answer and see how much thought he put into the response.

Think of it as analogous to when a teacher asks you to show your work in school. They know the answer, they want to see how *you* arrived at it.

This exactly, well put. I am looking to see how Hans thinks about and analyzes things, and so far I am not seeing much, and I'm having concerns with his knowledge of hisec mechanics -- the area of the game where there are more complications and caveats to the way things work than anywhere else, and where the significant majority of EVE's population resides.

I'm pretty sure I'd know these mechanics inside out at the bottom of a lake. Hans, the ball is in your court.

Lobbying for your right to delete your signature
Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#219 - 2012-02-10 15:45:47 UTC
War Kitten wrote:

I think you misunderstood what he meant by "PVP" with the little quotes around it.

I took it to mean fighting amongst the CSM members on the council, not actual PvP, ship vs. ship, combat in the game.


Real briefly while I have a break, this is correct. I think debate should certainly occur among council members, but when it comes to proposing an idea to CCP, the more unanimous the support of the council the more effective the proposal will be at convincing the developers it is for the good of the entire game. This is one of the founding principles of the CSM is that its members work for the good of all players, not for those that enjoy one activity in particular such as high sec PvP, Faction Warfare, or 0.0 sov takeovers. That doesn’t mean any of us shouldn’t have values we defend, but compromise and teamwork is essential to actually accomplishing anything as a council.

As for PvP on Tranquility among council members, I have no problem with that! It's one of the many activities I love, I think it’s completely possible to show respect to fellow council members and work cooperatively without it getting in the way of in-game pew pew. This is evidenced by the enormous voting support I have been receiving from the factions I continue to PvP against throughout the campaign.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary
The Mittani
State War Academy
Caldari State
#220 - 2012-02-10 16:05:42 UTC
In general, by virtue of sharing a chat channel 23/7 on Skype, even opposites such as Trebor and myself end up getting along. The shared misery of warring against ~virtual goods~ may have had something to do with it, but I suspect the Skype concept is one of the major reasons why CSM6 was relentlessly on-message and coordinated compared to past CSMs.

(you're welcome)

But it's election season, you're all supposed to be tearing each others throats out, compromising and being chill is something that happens after you win.

~hi~