These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
May Ava
The reality disfunction
#281 - 2012-02-12 12:30:02 UTC
Nice post matey

Not really been into all this stuff about voting and stuff as it all seems like ego stuff. Hopwever you make some good points and i like the fact you are looking out for other guys and girls who just dont want to or cant afford the time to mess about in 0.0

We need people to look after the other interest groups like Faction Warfare and missioneers so I think i might just get up off my arse and vote for you .....if i find out when and how

Good luke matey
Joyitii
Red.Line
#282 - 2012-02-12 14:17:02 UTC
May Ava wrote:
Nice post matey

Not really been into all this stuff about voting and stuff as it all seems like ego stuff. Hopwever you make some good points and i like the fact you are looking out for other guys and girls who just dont want to or cant afford the time to mess about in 0.0

We need people to look after the other interest groups like Faction Warfare and missioneers so I think i might just get up off my arse and vote for you .....if i find out when and how

Good luke matey


CCP was talking of making it easier to vote in elections. People have wanted an in game voting system put in place.
Joyitii
Red.Line
#283 - 2012-02-12 14:19:51 UTC
Kaver Linkovir wrote:
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.

I lost my first Retriever because of the interdiction. Funniest thing ever considering I had the freaking post open and was just about to read that they had expanded to the Caldari systems as well. I didn't have a chance at that point. xD
Cheezy Armpit
Absolute Order XVIII
Absolute Will
#284 - 2012-02-12 15:35:58 UTC
Kaver Linkovir wrote:

[Moar werds were ere]

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.


That's a dangerous way to put accross your idiotic point of view. Make the game safer for idiots for commercial reasons.
Doctor Eezee
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#285 - 2012-02-12 15:44:22 UTC
Joyitii wrote:
May Ava wrote:
Nice post matey

Not really been into all this stuff about voting and stuff as it all seems like ego stuff. Hopwever you make some good points and i like the fact you are looking out for other guys and girls who just dont want to or cant afford the time to mess about in 0.0

We need people to look after the other interest groups like Faction Warfare and missioneers so I think i might just get up off my arse and vote for you .....if i find out when and how

Good luke matey


CCP was talking of making it easier to vote in elections. People have wanted an in game voting system put in place.


How is that a good idea? That would just lead to idiots voting randomly instead of making an informed decision. I'm all for more advertising of the voting process, but don't let people vote that won't even go to the forums to read about the candidates.

"My rule is: If you meet the weakest vessel, attack; if it is a vessel equal to yours, attack; and if it is stronger than yours, also attack..." - Admiral Stepan O. Makarov
Joyitii
Red.Line
#286 - 2012-02-12 16:08:46 UTC
Doctor Eezee wrote:
Joyitii wrote:
May Ava wrote:
Nice post matey

Not really been into all this stuff about voting and stuff as it all seems like ego stuff. Hopwever you make some good points and i like the fact you are looking out for other guys and girls who just dont want to or cant afford the time to mess about in 0.0

We need people to look after the other interest groups like Faction Warfare and missioneers so I think i might just get up off my arse and vote for you .....if i find out when and how

Good luke matey


CCP was talking of making it easier to vote in elections. People have wanted an in game voting system put in place.


How is that a good idea? That would just lead to idiots voting randomly instead of making an informed decision. I'm all for more advertising of the voting process, but don't let people vote that won't even go to the forums to read about the candidates.

Be that as it may there have been a fair amount of people complaining on the forums about how confusing it is to figure out where to vote for someone. I never said it was a good idea however if everything was more localized in the game then there would end up being more voters overall. Not sure how that's a bad thing.
testobjekt
Goonswarm Federation Human Resources
#287 - 2012-02-12 16:23:46 UTC
Do most posts equal most votes? if so haaaaaans has a seat secure :D
doombreed52
TunDraGon
Goonswarm Federation
#288 - 2012-02-12 16:53:49 UTC
you say that you are outnumbered..... erm you do know that 60% of players live in highsec right?
Kaver Linkovir
Hoplite Brigade
Ushra'Khan
#289 - 2012-02-12 20:06:46 UTC
Cheezy Armpit wrote:
That's a dangerous way to put accross your idiotic point of view. Make the game safer for idiots for commercial reasons.


I was not talking about making the game safer for idiots. I do however adore idiots since they make excelent marks.

I am saying that the "griefing" Iam Widdershins would like to expand on is detrimental to the growth of the EVE playerbase. He represents a really small minority of highsec wardeccing corps that pile wardec after wardec on singular corporations in a coördinated fashion. The target corporations are thus faced with near continual wardecs, especially if they show the balls to fight, and either come out too hard to wardec again or wither away under this forced style of play (causing subscription loss among their members).

An entity comprised of about 500 to a 1000 individual toons that corp hop continually (to escape any meaningfull revenge) raining wardecs on all fledgeling corporations that have the balls to fight and call getting blueballed a win is not something I see as contructive for EVE. But that is the way Iam Widdershins operates.

His advocated agenda would mean less targets for you since the potential future targets get smuthered in their first three cruisers.
Aedin Dallocort
Doomheim
#290 - 2012-02-12 21:22:19 UTC
Nice to see The Mittani's endorsement here, though honestly I think his support is irrelevant. Take his chair, Hans! Good luck with your campaign.

Oh ... I almost forgot....Do you have any insights about the Incursion community? You mentioned them briefly in your manifesto, but I think there are a lot of folks in the Incursion channels who would be interested in what you have to say on the topic.

Shameless blog endorsement: obfuscatedreality.blogspot.com
Miso Souped
Doomheim
#291 - 2012-02-12 21:27:49 UTC
doombreed52 wrote:
you say that you are outnumbered..... erm you do know that 60% of players live in highsec right?



Surely you had the attention span to read past the first sentence??


Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:

The perennial question surfaces every CSM election – how will the interests of those outside of the nullsec power blocs remain protected, when we are always outnumbered?

The answer is simple. We aren't outnumbered. The reality is that despite the overwhelming vote count that enabled The Mittani to seize the chairman seat in 2011, that figure is vastly exceeded by the majority of EvE players who have different values, different reasons for playing the game, and different ways we feel it should be played.


So yeah, i'd say he's pretty keenly aware of the election situation. Reading helps with that.
Iam Widdershins
Project Nemesis
#292 - 2012-02-12 22:38:12 UTC
Kaver Linkovir wrote:
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 (sic) 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 (sic) 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 (sic) 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.

For one: Being a 'grief' PVPer, I have had over five times as many people thank me than I've seen people actually quit the game. And yes, I've checked back on people, a lot. The people who actually quit the game, to a man, were mind-blowingly incompetent to begin with, and they were blaming all their problems on us and not their own carelessness the way you seem to want to.

You are making unsubstantiated and untrue claims that the people who create hardship in the game are driving people out of it. You are also misrepresenting the state and the common usage patterns of war declarations, which are a valid and intended game mechanic. It is cumbersome, ineffective, and generally a huge waste of time to grief someone out of the game even if you want to. If someone actually bothers to target you with continued wardecs, it's because you're actively making it worth their while with your endless wellspring of terribleness.

You say that it might be darwinism, but that people want to enjoy the game too. Well, people play EVE because the enjoyment comes from succeeding at a game which is hard. For a pretty significant subset of its players, we are the people that make that game hard, and if you took that away it's just mining and missions. Very few people would actually want that, despite what they say.


Kaver Linkovir wrote:
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.

Well then, you're in luck. One of my most iterated points in my argument is that the game should not allow people to be repeatedly griefed with nothing for them to do about it. If a game mechanic allows a loophole for people to do this, it needs to be closed. Forcing people out of the game is a bad plan for all its players and for CCP, and I do not endorse it in any way. If you happen to be the one that kills someone and it's the final straw for them to quit, 999 times out of a thousand that person was already on their way out. People will blame their quitting on anything as an alternative to admitting that they were stupidly betting their entire fortune on one weak and undefended ship.

Kaver Linkovir wrote:
On a side note: loved the Gallente ice interdiction.

You keep using this "hypocrisy" word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

Lobbying for your right to delete your signature
Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#293 - 2012-02-12 23:24:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Hans Jagerblitzen
Iam Widdershins wrote:
For a pretty significant subset of its players, we are the people that make that game hard, and if you took that away it's just mining and missions. Very few people would actually want that, despite what they say.


I hope you are not seriously taking away from my writings and commentary that you think I have some hidden agenda to wipe high-sec war from the map. I thought I've been quite clear that I think the war dec shield is a silly practice, and that players should make a choice about whether war is something they are prepared for, and consider that choice when deciding whether to leave an NPC corp. I've offered suggestions regarding ways to protect smaller corps from prolonged "griefing" type wars, some with more merit than others. I've also said from the beginning that the potential for harm should always be considered with any change, and you have brought up some valid concerns regarding a couple of the proposals I have discussed.

While I've explicitly said these things before, I realize at this point we are talking dozens of pages of manifestos and threads for readers to get through, and that's a bit unfair. I have had a large amount of questions regarding high security space, not just from yourself but from many others.

To help clarify my vision for high sec I have begun work on my next blog post, which will focus specifically on providing a stand-alone summary of where I stand on the various high sec-specific issues that have been brought up so far. I want the voters to have a clear idea of the activities I believe should thrive in high sec, the nature of how safety should be provided, and the type of war that should and should not be encouraged by the mechanics. I appreciate your patience with this, look forward to its publish in the next few days.

Here is the link to my blog where you all can follow and keep in touch.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary
Iam Widdershins
Project Nemesis
#294 - 2012-02-12 23:39:30 UTC
Kaver Linkovir wrote:
An entity comprised of about 500 to a 1000 individual toons that corp hop continually (to escape any meaningfull revenge) raining wardecs on all fledgeling corporations that have the balls to fight and call getting blueballed a win is not something I see as contructive for EVE. But that is the way Iam Widdershins operates.

This is, in a word, bull+++t. Through and through.

Since I began PVPing, the only organization I have been a part of that had more than 100 members at any given time was The 0rphanage, and they were terrible. Moar Tears currently has less than 100 members, most of whom have roles preventing them from leaving corp -- and everyone freaks the hell out when someone leaves for a couple days to help out a friend. There is no shadow-clan of hundreds of members who are constantly moving and constantly oppressing your pilots; if there were, and that's what I did, I'm sure I could get a seat on the CSM with very little effort.

PVP in these alliances gets boring pretty fast, and I encourage my own pilots (currently PRONS has only about a dozen active pilots) to get some small and interesting wars of their own going. They are free to move about as they wish, but I do not know of ANYONE who "corp hops continually to escape any meaningful revenge." If I saw someone doing that, I would boot them immediately. Meaningful revenge is what we're seeking out more than anything else. We want fights, wherever we can get them.

Getting blueballed is a win for nobody; that is the reason why we will move about often. There are a number of fights we are involved in at any given time, and we are looking to help out our own members. I am looking to eliminate corp hopping entirely, and if you claim otherwise in any way you are very poorly read. Please take your tinfoil conspiracies elsewhere and never return.

Lobbying for your right to delete your signature
None ofthe Above
#295 - 2012-02-12 23:46:24 UTC
Doctor Eezee wrote:
Joyitii wrote:
May Ava wrote:
Nice post matey

Not really been into all this stuff about voting and stuff as it all seems like ego stuff. Hopwever you make some good points and i like the fact you are looking out for other guys and girls who just dont want to or cant afford the time to mess about in 0.0

We need people to look after the other interest groups like Faction Warfare and missioneers so I think i might just get up off my arse and vote for you .....if i find out when and how

Good luke matey


CCP was talking of making it easier to vote in elections. People have wanted an in game voting system put in place.


How is that a good idea? That would just lead to idiots voting randomly instead of making an informed decision. I'm all for more advertising of the voting process, but don't let people vote that won't even go to the forums to read about the candidates.


Platforms could be made available in game as well. Many folk have a quite reasonable aversion to these forums. Hopefully forum bugs will get fixed.

I agree that forcing people to vote randomly for some one before they can play is a bad idea. Ability to put off till later (up till the election is over anyway) or to abstain, is a better move. IMHO.

Or of course they could vote None ofthe Above!

The only end-game content in EVE Online is the crap that makes you rage quit.
Rutherford B Hazed
Traphouse Eviction And Razing Services
#296 - 2012-02-13 01:16:52 UTC
Hanz


What is your position on the $99.00 dollar charge CCP want to charge 3rd party developers? Goodluck im watching your's . ELise and Seleene's campaign with great interest.
Wayne Xiro
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#297 - 2012-02-13 02:13:39 UTC
B-Team Approves. GO HANS
Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#298 - 2012-02-13 06:18:42 UTC
I was excited about your campaign, Hans. Then I learned that you have yet to submit the candidate application to CCP. Until you do, I have no choice but to consider this entire thread a complete waste of time.

Please get your application in. You have my two votes if you're on the ballot.
Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#299 - 2012-02-13 08:13:04 UTC
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
I was excited about your campaign, Hans. Then I learned that you have yet to submit the candidate application to CCP. Until you do, I have no choice but to consider this entire thread a complete waste of time.

Please get your application in. You have my two votes if you're on the ballot.


Fear not! I was simply awaiting confirmation from the passport office. I submitted my paperwork Saturday morning, it should be processed first thing tomorrow. Expect to see me on the list as soon as Turbefield gets to the office and sits down with the next batch of applications.

I assure you, I take this campaign quite seriously Blink. But by all means, wait till I'm official before pledging support. I completely understand.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary
Iam Widdershins
Project Nemesis
#300 - 2012-02-13 12:26:39 UTC
Surprise! I haven't forgotten. Time for some answers man, if they're ever coming. You had all weekend. Otherwise, I've just gotta assume.

Lobbying for your right to delete your signature