These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#261 - 2012-02-12 00:51:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Hans Jagerblitzen
Seleene wrote:

Anyway, I'm just a visitor in your thread and like talking about this stuff. Smile


No no, I'm totally glad you stopped by, this is great for the voters to hear. Ask me anything you'd like!

I hope I never implied I wanted to limit the potential for all that Faction Warfare can be, I'm merely trying to be sensitive to the order in which these things are done. I've been honking the "rank is meaningless" horn for a long time myself, so we both envision a lot more for the feature than exists.

My primary concern has always been with the decreased activity levels the warzone as scene year after year. I think all the bells and whistles should come, but they should come once the core motivational concerns are addressed and enough player interest exists to justify adding a lot more development into the future. That was my objection to the "remove all high sec navy" idea tossed out by Soundwave, because I feel you need to drive activity level first, than expand FW's overall scope. Otherwise, you risk stretching an already-strained player community even thinner.

It sounds kind of counterintuitive, but I think right now should be about making FW a bit smaller, rather than larger. Hats are great, but the pilots I know want the fights more than the hats. I think that even if changes like moving LP rewards to plexing victory shrinks the battlefield somewhat (because players make their money and fight each other using the same activity), you actually benefit the community by making the PvP more fun and accessible. Getting people moving again, than taking the time to spread them back out, is really important to most of us who engage in Faction Warfare under current conditions.

Thanks again for the good conversation! I hope the voters find it valuable as well.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary
Capitol One
Blue Canary
Watch This
#262 - 2012-02-12 00:58:24 UTC
You have my support :)
Vordak Kallager
Wilderness
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
#263 - 2012-02-12 01:04:34 UTC
Seleene wrote:
:words:words:words:


Seleene is a smart guy, and if I wasn't voting for Hans, I'd be voting for him again. Big smile

Sa souvraya niende misain ye.
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#264 - 2012-02-12 01:36:56 UTC
Would you consider a way for people to drop in and out of faction warfare easily?

For those more casual PvPers.

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
Kaver Linkovir
Hoplite Brigade
Ushra'Khan
#265 - 2012-02-12 01:40:35 UTC
Steve Ronuken wrote:
Would you consider a way for people to drop in and out of faction warfare easily?

For those more casual PvPers.


It already works like that, especially if all you do is PvP. The real standing hits are related to Faction Warfare missioning, shooting "the enemy" only hurts standing much if they are red crosses (NPC), not if they are orange stars (FW enemy).
Mystical Might
Eclipse Pulsar
Fraternity.
#266 - 2012-02-12 01:40:36 UTC
Steve Ronuken wrote:
Would you consider a way for people to drop in and out of faction warfare easily?

For those more casual PvPers.


It's easy to drop in and out of faction warfare, provided you have .5 standing.
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#267 - 2012-02-12 02:24:01 UTC
Harrigan VonStudly wrote:
I try to hold out as long as possible (that's what she said) when it comes to political rhetoric and campaigning. I have learned that throwing your support towards someone publicly too early can and often times lead to a misstep. You think the candidate "is" what you are looking for then things develop and change.

I blogged about my willingness to support someone who was willing to work on behalf of the low sec community and continue to stand behind that. While I am a nobody in the game I stand by my convictions, my interest in this game, and those who have the same views as myself. While I agree there is much to be improved and explored in all facets of Eve I want to keep my support close to home.

I will continue to monitor all channels of communication regarding the CSM candidates but at this time I am heavily leaning towards supporting Hans with every vote I have personally as well as every vote I can garner to pull his way.



Sensible view that you have.

I would also encourage you to look at what the candidates have done before "campaign time" as well. I actually wonder if some of the candidates knew were these boards were before a week ago - but whatever.

With respect to hans you may want to take a look at the faction war thread he started in eve general as sort of a case in point of how he works. Faction war has always been a hotbed of argument and bitter disagreement when it comes to how it should be adjusted. Over the years, untold number of fw threads have ended with warring parties shouting accusations at eachother with no real progress made.

I think you will see that Hans really worked to keep players focused on what they want and what can help faction war.

I think you will also find that the vast majority of the people who were hung up on disagreements with others in that thread are here supporting hans. That speaks volumes for his inclination and ability to really get to the common things people want and express it.

But really see for yourself. See what the candidates actually have done to try to find out what players want and interact with them. Not just what they claim they will do come election month. The forums have allot of issues but one nice thing about them is you can see past posts from people.

Hans really worked with and listened to players and now has 20 pages of great ideas for low sec and high sec, that he can bring to ccp if he is elected.

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
Iam Widdershins
Project Nemesis
#268 - 2012-02-12 03:23:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Iam Widdershins
I'm going to come out here and say it: from my long, long experience with PVP and 'griefing' in high security space, I disagree outright with every single one of your points, and do not believe you have fully considered the ramifications of your suggestions.

Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
I should clarify that I have no qualms with PvP occuring in high sec space, disdain isn't an appropriate word to describe how I feel. EvE does involve war that touches every pilot, and that includes those that live in high sec. However, with two other regions primarily offering mechanics that allow for more PvP with less legal interference, I feel that pilots seeking abundant PvP should be seeking it in low and null sec, not in high sec. I envision the ideal role for High sec PvP focus on security, meaning retribution for criminal activity through transferrable kill rights and paid bounties, and dispute resolution between corps and alliances that live and work in the region. Low sec should be enhanced to house the bulk of PvP that exists for profit (piracy) or sport (Faction Warfare).

The entire intent of wars in hisec is to provide an envirionment of limited engagement scope. In nullsec, everything goes, and pilots can pile into fights by the hundreds regardless of their alignment. In lowsec, it's really no different. Only in hisec can you engage in a war and know for sure that there are a limited number of people, at any given time, who could come to kill you. I believe that clarifying these boundaries and giving more warning to who will be joining the fight and when (eliminating corp-hopping while preventing people from instantly ailing out of their besieged corporation) is the answer. You sound like you want to get rid of wars completely, you don't even mention them. This is a terrible idea.

Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Regarding orca swapping, I am firmly of the belief that assisting a flashy pilot in high security space through an orca swap should render the orca the same flashy status, plain and simple. Orcas should NOT be Brutix delivery services, they should not be a means to assist bait tactics, and they should vulnerable if the pilot they are allowing to swap ships is vulnerable. If a pilot commits to assisting a PvP player in any practical fashion, he is part of the PvP action and should be treated the same as the one engaged in PvP.

This is also a very bad idea. The reason that PlayerName and friends were able to destroy DOZENS OF BILLIONS OF ISK in a few short days in incursions is that tricking people into assisting you in a "fight" is very easy. this were to go through, people will develop a more and more paranoid atmosphere as more and more ganks occur. It's easy to swap out at someone's Orca without asking, it's easy to get into a fight while you're getting boosts from someone's leadership alt, and these would be some AMAZINGLY open choices for getting ganks. I know, because that's what I'd do. DO NOT DO THIS.

Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
When I suggested using monetary means to stave off war, conceptually what I support is that players that seek passive activities such as mining, industry, and trade, should have more tools at their disposal to use financial means to combat aggressive war decs. Yes, simply allowing a defensive corp to pay more to increase the cost to the declaring corp is a solution that favors wealthy corps, and would be insufficient on its own to defend smaller corps. I did not intend to suggest it as the sole solution to high sec war decs.

You seem unaware of the fact that people who engage in hisec PVP intentionally often have FAR stronger sources of income than their targets, which is what enables them to engage in the expensive activities of PVP in the first place. Plus, this means that larger corporations that would actually be able to defend themselves effectively if they tried can more easily afford to pay out of the problem -- meaning that only corporations who end up having wars of a length worth speaking of are the ones that are unable to defend themselves, turning wars in hisec into a farce of grief that drive people out of the game. This is a very bad mechanic.

I hope you will consider and understand what I am saying.

Lobbying for your right to delete your signature
Joyitii
Red.Line
#269 - 2012-02-12 04:57:24 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Seleene wrote:

Anyway, I'm just a visitor in your thread and like talking about this stuff. Smile


No no, I'm totally glad you stopped by, this is great for the voters to hear. Ask me anything you'd like!

I hope I never implied I wanted to limit the potential for all that Faction Warfare can be, I'm merely trying to be sensitive to the order in which these things are done. I've been honking the "rank is meaningless" horn for a long time myself, so we both envision a lot more for the feature than exists.

My primary concern has always been with the decreased activity levels the warzone as scene year after year. I think all the bells and whistles should come, but they should come once the core motivational concerns are addressed and enough player interest exists to justify adding a lot more development into the future. That was my objection to the "remove all high sec navy" idea tossed out by Soundwave, because I feel you need to drive activity level first, than expand FW's overall scope. Otherwise, you risk stretching an already-strained player community even thinner.

It sounds kind of counterintuitive, but I think right now should be about making FW a bit smaller, rather than larger. Hats are great, but the pilots I know want the fights more than the hats. I think that even if changes like moving LP rewards to plexing victory shrinks the battlefield somewhat (because players make their money and fight each other using the same activity), you actually benefit the community by making the PvP more fun and accessible. Getting people moving again, than taking the time to spread them back out, is really important to most of us who engage in Faction Warfare under current conditions.

Thanks again for the good conversation! I hope the voters find it valuable as well.

I did find it valuable and learned a few new things about how FW should be implemented. Thanks to both of you!
Joyitii
Red.Line
#270 - 2012-02-12 05:01:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Joyitii
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
When I suggested using monetary means to stave off war, conceptually what I support is that players that seek passive activities such as mining, industry, and trade, should have more tools at their disposal to use financial means to combat aggressive war decs. Yes, simply allowing a defensive corp to pay more to increase the cost to the declaring corp is a solution that favors wealthy corps, and would be insufficient on its own to defend smaller corps. I did not intend to suggest it as the sole solution to high sec war decs.

Iam Widdershins wrote:
You seem unaware of the fact that people who engage in hisec PVP intentionally often have FAR stronger sources of income than their targets, which is what enables them to engage in the expensive activities of PVP in the first place. Plus, this means that larger corporations that would actually be able to defend themselves effectively if they tried can more easily afford to pay out of the problem -- meaning that only corporations who end up having wars of a length worth speaking of are the ones that are unable to defend themselves, turning wars in hisec into a farce of grief that drive people out of the game. This is a very bad mechanic.

I hope you will consider and understand what I am saying.

I would just like to point out his last sentence in the paragraph that you quoted.
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
I did not intend to suggest it as the sole solution to high sec war decs.
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Khimi Harar
#271 - 2012-02-12 05:30:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Veshta Yoshida
Seleene wrote:
...Anyway, I'm just a visitor in your thread and like talking about this stuff. Smile

So say we all Smile
Joyitii wrote:
I did find it valuable and learned a few new things about how FW should be implemented. Thanks to both of you!

If you want more then there is 3 years worth of adult and often reasoned discussions in the various "Fix FW" threads .. ideas for fixes have been boiled down some, but they were as numerous as the stars to begin with Smile
Iam Widdershins
Project Nemesis
#272 - 2012-02-12 07:19:36 UTC
Joyitii wrote:
I would just like to point out his last sentence in the paragraph that you quoted.
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
I did not intend to suggest it as the sole solution to high sec war decs.

Yes, but he did suggest it as PART of a solution for hisec wardecs, when it would in fact only serve to exacerbate a problem that already concerns a lot of people.

If you want to pay your way out of a war, you should talk to the people you're fighting against.

For further explanation, I would like to point out some sentences of my own, if you are up for reading them this time:
Iam Widdershins wrote:
...larger corporations that would actually be able to defend themselves effectively if they tried can more easily afford to pay out of the problem -- meaning that only corporations who end up having wars of a length worth speaking of are the ones that are unable to defend themselves, turning wars in hisec into a farce of grief that drive people out of the game.

Lobbying for your right to delete your signature
MinutemanKirk
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#273 - 2012-02-12 07:49:08 UTC  |  Edited by: MinutemanKirk
Quote:
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Regarding orca swapping, I am firmly of the belief that assisting a flashy pilot in high security space through an orca swap should render the orca the same flashy status, plain and simple. Orcas should NOT be Brutix delivery services, they should not be a means to assist bait tactics, and they should vulnerable if the pilot they are allowing to swap ships is vulnerable. If a pilot commits to assisting a PvP player in any practical fashion, he is part of the PvP action and should be treated the same as the one engaged in PvP.

This is also a very bad idea. The reason that PlayerName and friends were able to destroy DOZENS OF BILLIONS OF ISK in a few short days in incursions is that tricking people into assisting you in a "fight" is very easy. this were to go through, people will develop a more and more paranoid atmosphere as more and more ganks occur. It's easy to swap out at someone's Orca without asking, it's easy to get into a fight while you're getting boosts from someone's leadership alt, and these would be some AMAZINGLY open choices for getting ganks. I know, because that's what I'd do. DO NOT DO THIS.

I find it terribly amusing that a self proclaimed "griefer" thinks it's a bad idea to make it (supposedly) easier to get ganks. :)

I don't think that he is talking about a neutral orca offering services to random nubs (or the reverse), I think he is talking more in line with a grief or PvP corp using said orca to base ships out of/repair/protect and use in their attack/gank/grief and be able to do so without penalty. You should know....
Quote:
"...because that's what I'd do."


You don't want a "paranoid atmosphere" because (I am assuming) that you think it will hurt gameplay? Get real, you need to find a different game then because from market and isk scams to "hey warp to me for a cool kill" tricks, if someone ISN'T paranoid to some extent in Eve they will lose something sooner or later. Maybe even enough to give them
Quote:
"a farce of grief that drive people out of the game."
Seems awfully hypocritical to be so "concerned" that grief might drive them out when you make your occupation by giving others grief. Roll
frankk1
Outfit 418
Blue Loot Not Included
#274 - 2012-02-12 08:01:27 UTC
good luck
Iam Widdershins
Project Nemesis
#275 - 2012-02-12 08:42:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Iam Widdershins
MinutemanKirk wrote:
I don't think that he is talking about a neutral orca offering services to random nubs (or the reverse), I think he is talking more in line with a grief or PvP corp using said orca to base ships out of/repair/protect and use in their attack/gank/grief and be able to do so without penalty. You should know....
Quote:
"...because that's what I'd do."

And you should know that those two things are one and the same. I'm not sure how you don't see it.

MinutemanKirk wrote:
I find it terribly amusing that a self proclaimed "griefer" thinks it's a bad idea to make it (supposedly) easier to get ganks. :)

Maybe you should find it more telling than amusing. If you stopped for a minute to think about what was being discussed you might have an understanding.

If you read anything that I wrote, you'd know that it is not my goal to kill as many things as possible without having to try too hard, but to make the game better. If you actually do think it is suspicious that I would want to fix broken mechanics that allow people to die with no warning, then I have no idea what the hell you're doing here.


MinutemanKirk wrote:
Seems awfully hypocritical to be so "concerned" that grief might drive them out when you make your occupation by giving others grief. Roll

If you stop for ten seconds to give it some actual thought, you may note that if nobody else plays the game any more, I don't have a game to come back to either.

Lobbying for your right to delete your signature
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Khimi Harar
#276 - 2012-02-12 09:23:22 UTC
Iam Widdershins wrote:
If you want to pay your way out of a war, you should talk to the people you're fighting against....

In other words: "Protection rackets".
Pay your way out of aggression from people with no interest beyond your wallet .. wonder if that could be incorporated into a revision of the high-sec wardec system where desired goals are stated up front (think contracts, killrights, bounties).
The people negatively affected have little/no interest in the politics or finer points of Eve (ie. casuals) and declarations against them will inevitably be construed as griefing .. allow for protection arrangements through use of in-game 'paperwork' and the griefer corps get to wage wars among themselves for access/control of the more lucrative systems (gang/turf wars).

As for the bazillion ISK destroyed by tricking random people in incursions .. PUG's (Pick Up Groups/Gangs) have been utter crap in all games, across all genres .. I would have been genuinely surprised if PUG's in Eve was any different.

The reason why I personally abhor the Orca-swap is that it goes against the design philosophy of Eve by providing rewards with no risk .. that sort of thing simply has no place in Eve if you ask me.

PS: Wasn't the Orca-swap patched out and/or declared an exploit some time ago or did CCP chicken out?
Joyitii
Red.Line
#277 - 2012-02-12 10:06:54 UTC
Iam Widdershins wrote:
Joyitii wrote:
I would just like to point out his last sentence in the paragraph that you quoted.
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
I did not intend to suggest it as the sole solution to high sec war decs.

Yes, but he did suggest it as PART of a solution for hisec wardecs, when it would in fact only serve to exacerbate a problem that already concerns a lot of people.

If you want to pay your way out of a war, you should talk to the people you're fighting against.

For further explanation, I would like to point out some sentences of my own, if you are up for reading them this time:
Iam Widdershins wrote:
...larger corporations that would actually be able to defend themselves effectively if they tried can more easily afford to pay out of the problem -- meaning that only corporations who end up having wars of a length worth speaking of are the ones that are unable to defend themselves, turning wars in hisec into a farce of grief that drive people out of the game.

So much venom in every single one of your posts. I'm not going to definitively say anything for him but what it seems like is that he supports this idea of people having another way to protect themselves against a wardec. He is using it as an example for something that he would support. He literally says that it is conceptually something that he supports, not necessarily that specific idea. The worst thing that I can see out of his example is less war targets for mercs/privateers to prey on. Mind you this is only in highsec you're still free to roam in low/nul and pew to your hearts content.
Indahmawar Fazmarai
#278 - 2012-02-12 10:38:07 UTC
Scalar Angulargf wrote:
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:
Addenda: WTF is "GCC"? Question ALWAYS DEFINE JARGON!! Idea


If GCC is still jargon to you after a year and a half in the game it is sad. You shouldn't be voting.


Interestingly enough, I always thought it was called the Global Criminal Flag & never had a reason to seriously care about it.

Also, it never hurts to define TLAs (Three Letter Acronyms) when they aren't standard... just in case.
Cesc Fabrigas
T.R.I.A.D
Ushra'Khan
#279 - 2012-02-12 12:07:27 UTC
Nice ballanced view with a mind for all areas of Eve community ....you get my vote Hans


CescCool
Kaver Linkovir
Hoplite Brigade
Ushra'Khan
#280 - 2012-02-12 12:15:02 UTC
Iam Widdershins wrote:
If you stop for ten seconds to give it some actual thought, you may note that if nobody else plays the game any more, I don't have a game to come back to either.


I am glad you brought this up. After noticing a pattern in highsec declaration of war I started a little mapping project. As far as I have been able to track it a marginal number of EVE players (500 to 1000 players) are responcible for over 90% of "griefer" declarations of war. Your Project Nemesis among them.

You and players advocating targeted "griefing" and "tear extraction" cost EVE players that might have flourished without your pressure. This is primairily tied to the targeted nature of a declaration of war. Anybody can shrug off a gank that results in concord retaliation, most can appreciate the skill in the assasination of a blinged out mission ship but the targeted and continued prosecution caused by griefers piling on the wardecs put a huge strain on all but the best managed corporations.

Sure, it's darwinism, but this is also a game people play for enjoyment. A minority prolongedly crushing enjoyment that might have been had by a majority warrents attention and thought.

In my opinion you and yours have cost CCP an enormous amount of subscriptions and have cost EVE a huge amount of players that might have furtherd EVE were they not smothered in their cribs. I would love data on the actual rate of increased subscription loss tied to prolonged and repeated "griefer" declarations of war.

I would hope that the "griefer" vote goes to more deserving and more well rounded candidates that don't advocate and champion an erosion of the EVE playerbase we all depend on.

On a side note: loved the Gallente ice interdiction.