These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
Wild Geese.
#341 - 2012-02-14 16:27:04 UTC
IbanezLaney wrote:
+1 You have my vote.

The PDF must be down atm - I can not open it so sorry if my next question is already covered somewhere.

What is your position on low sec gates and stations shooting their own militias?


I'll look into the PDF link...thanks for the heads up!

To answer your question, I think its fine for stations to shoot their own militias, if you’re committing a truly criminal act worthy of a GCC flag. What is NOT fine, is being able to hang out on the undock of an enemy station, and be ignored by station fire. Implementing station fire for opposing militias is a no-brainer FW upgrade in my book, because it adds a tangible and meaningful consequence to system occupancy without requiring fancy new shinies to be developed by the programmers. It can be done right away, and gives militia pilots and incentive to defend and seize territory in a way they sorely lack today.

On the subject of gate guns in low sec in general – I am an outspoken proponent of the Jack Dant “what happens in lowsec stays in lowsec ” proposal, which would waive GCC timers for negative security status pilots shooting each other in lowsec, and reduce the ability of outlaw attacks to lower security status to a cap of -2.0, should the attacks occur in low sec. This would attract more “weekend warriors” and the casual PvP crowd, which might otherwise be adverse to PvP in lowsec if it means not being about to return to the trade hubs. Players could enjoy PvP on gates and stations in low sec more freely, without being forced into “time out” situations between what are essentially voluntary fights.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary

Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
Wild Geese.
#342 - 2012-02-14 16:38:19 UTC
Mystical Might wrote:
What's your view on ECM, and the mechanics behind it?
Would you suggest changes, and if so, how would you change ECM to bring it more in line with other forms of E-WAR?


For those of us that fight in low sec, ECM is pretty powerful. We know that it only takes one Falcon to tie up as much as 4-5 ships, but at the same time Falcons continue to die plenty on the battlefield. Personally, I think that vulnerability and “the primary factor” are still pretty fair counters to the inherent strength of ECM. Especially when Caldari are still considered one of the “weaker” races in terms of overall balancing, I’m cautious (but certainly not opposed) to swinging a nerf bat at one of their strongest racial traits.

That being said, I have heard one proposal in particular I find to be pretty sensible. It pertains to the ability of ECM to “perma-jam” their targets, and would reduce the length of time on a jam based on the ratio of jam strength to sensor strength. In other words, if the jammer strength was 7, and the target’s strength was 14, than the length of the jam cycle would be shortened by 7/14 ( or ½). Against very strong targets, ECM would serve more as a lock-breaker, rather than being able to jam a large target for long periods of time.

Such an adjustment would preserve the value of sensor strength, and have the added benefit of making Information Warfare link platforms like the Eos a more attractive addition to fleets. This is the best compromise I’ve seen at reforming ECM, and stays true to the existing mechanics closely enough I think it has the least likely chance of breaking small-gang warfare by making a gamble with a more radical overhaul. This adjustment would scale to ECM drones as well, which wouldn’t be able to jam a target nearly as long, but could still do the job of occasional lock-breaking for escape purposes or cap chain interference.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary

Di Mulle
#343 - 2012-02-14 16:53:20 UTC
Damn.

After reading the manifesto and this thread I realize I need more votes, as Hanz certainly deserves it.
<<Insert some waste of screen space here>>
The Babyface
Angels of Apathy
The League of Svelte Men
#344 - 2012-02-14 18:34:29 UTC

+1.

Hans Jagerblitzen for CSM!!
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Khimi Harar
#345 - 2012-02-14 18:50:00 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
[..on ECM..

That actually is a very sensible concept ..
But #1:
You'd need to increase cycle time or else most BS would start out (before adding ECCM) near the half-time mark .. but that is a massive nerf to frigs/dessies and some cruisers who would be jammed 99% of the time unless they cram ECCM in 2-3 slots of which they tend to be short'ish (ie. Amarr Smile) plus it would favour midslot heavy ships to an extraordinary degree due to ECCM (mid) power vs. Arrays (low) (again hurting Amarr hulls).

Could be alleviated by tweaking BS sensor numbers to avoid having to increase cycle and introducing mods/rigs that add a static value to sensors rather than a +% which would be much more valuable for the low sensor hulls (cruiser down). The only way there currently is to harden a frig/dessie is to implant 350-600M (LG/HG FW sets) which is insane .. smaller hulls need more/affordable counters.

But #2:
The mechanic would still require people to watch an Eve slide-show at regular intervals whenever targeted by ECM (this is my main problem with current ECM system).
Di Mulle wrote:
Damn.

After reading the manifesto and this thread I realize I need more votes, as Hanz certainly deserves it.

That is what corpies, alliance mates and friends in general are for .. spread the word Big smile
Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
Wild Geese.
#346 - 2012-02-14 19:13:31 UTC
Well yes. Every proposal is subject to its drawbacks and flaws, whether we're talking about ECM or the details of a war dec system. You bring up some excellent points that would certainly be part of that conversation if and when it comes.

Thanks again for all the love here everyone!! And please, tell your friends about this thread!

Anyone who'd like to be on our mailing list so you can receive and forward important announcements to your corp/alliance/community when the time comes to get out the vote, please get in touch with me ASAP.... Volunteer contacts from each corp are needed, mail me and I'll give you the details.

We're continuing to actively build our network - member by member, day by day!


CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary

MacaMan
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#347 - 2012-02-14 19:30:21 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:


Faction Warfare as a feature has suffered from years of neglect.....



Not so true Lol

According2 ccp : "Alliances can now sign up for Factional Warfare" Roll
Deen Wispa
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#348 - 2012-02-14 19:42:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Deen Wispa
MacaMan wrote:
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:


Faction Warfare as a feature has suffered from years of neglect.....



Not so true Lol

According2 ccp : "Alliances can now sign up for Factional Warfare" Roll


No. True. The alliance feature is marginal and isn't what I consider a game changer. It helps but certainly doesn't fix the years of neglect of an area of the sandbox that can truly improve CCP's bottom line as well as bring more enjoyment for the pilots of New Eden

All the alliances that have joined FW are either current FW corps creating an alliance or RP alliances.

So the neglect continues....

EDIT: For those curious as to who the current FW alliances are. Off the top of my head;


  • Villore Accords (existing Gallente FW corps forming this alliance)
  • Drunk and Disorderly (same as above)
  • Caldari State Capturing (existing Caldari corps forming )
  • Late Night Alliance (existing Minnie FW corps)
  • Electus Matari (RP Minnie alliance)
  • Galllente Federal Concensus Outreach (RP Gallente alliance)

High Five. Yeah! C'est La Eve .

Vordak Kallager
This Game Is Terrible
HYDRA RELOADED
#349 - 2012-02-14 19:45:39 UTC
Deen Wispa wrote:
MacaMan wrote:
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:


Faction Warfare as a feature has suffered from years of neglect.....



Not so true Lol

According2 ccp : "Alliances can now sign up for Factional Warfare" Roll


No. True. The alliance feature is marginal and isn't what I consider a game changer.

All the alliances that have joined FW are either current FW corps creating an alliance or RP alliances.

So the neglect continues....

EDIT: For those curious as to who the current FW alliances are. Off the top of my head;


  • Villore Accords (existing Gallente FW corps forming this alliance)
  • Drunk and Disorderly (same as above)
  • Caldari State Capturing (existing Caldari corps forming )
  • Late Night Alliance (existing Minnie FW corps)
  • Electus Matari (RP Minnie alliance)
  • Galllente Federal Concensus Outreach (RP Gallente alliance)



Also, Iron Oxide. which is the EUTZ Minmatar Corps' alliance.

Sa souvraya niende misain ye.

Renkari
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#350 - 2012-02-14 20:05:08 UTC
I was hoping there will be some people like you running for CSM7.

  • I like that you tap on the community ideas instead of pursuing your own agenda.
  • It's nice to see you're acknowledging people you borrow ideas from.
  • I like how concrete your program is as opposed to a lot of general words.
  • I like how you steer away from either extreme in regards to high-sec, and the gradient of rewards vs risk.
  • Good to see you're not commenting on the areas of the game you have no idea about.
  • I like how you factor in the amount of work needed to implement each feature.
  • I'm delighted you prefer elegant simple solutions to large overhauls and can recognize one (as far as my own knowledge goes).

All in all even though I don't spend much time in either high-sec or low-sec, I think there should be more people from different walks of life in the new CSM and I like your program in particular. After all we may only have one year of CCP focus on FiS for all I know, and in this time we should bring as many problematic areas of the game to their attention as possible.
Ugleb
Jotunn Risi
#351 - 2012-02-14 22:54:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Ugleb
+1 for being a non-null sec candidate that does not appear to be frothing at the mouth over the null sec bloc domination.

Please continue to present your hi/low sec experience as your main asset, and not harp on on about those evil null sec ppl.

Oh btw, I suspect the bit in your manifesto about asteroids moving about and colliding might kill TQ when it tries to track all those extra objects moving around in the physics engine thingy. It would be like hundreds of drakes spamming missiles continuously, but happening in every system all at once. ;)

So maybe we shouldn't ask CCP to do that bit.

http://uglebsjournal.wordpress.com/

The Jotunn Risi are now recruiting, Brutor ancestry required in order to best represent the Brutor interest.  Join channel JORIS to learn more!

Vordak Kallager
This Game Is Terrible
HYDRA RELOADED
#352 - 2012-02-14 23:12:22 UTC
Ugleb wrote:
+1 for being a non-null sec candidate that does not appear to be frothing at the mouth over the null sec bloc domination.

Please continue to present your hi/low sec experience as your main asset, and not harp on on about those evil null sec ppl.

Oh btw, I suspect the bit in your manifesto about asteroids moving about and colliding might kill TQ when it tries to track all those extra objects moving around in the physics engine thingy. It would be like hundreds of drakes spamming missiles continuously, but happening in every system all at once. ;)

So maybe we shouldn't ask CCP to do that bit.


Hans has secret agenda to crash the CCP servers, once and for all! Twisted

Sa souvraya niende misain ye.

Mystical Might
Dead Game.
HYDRA RELOADED
#353 - 2012-02-14 23:27:37 UTC
Vordak Kallager wrote:
Ugleb wrote:
+1 for being a non-null sec candidate that does not appear to be frothing at the mouth over the null sec bloc domination.

Please continue to present your hi/low sec experience as your main asset, and not harp on on about those evil null sec ppl.

Oh btw, I suspect the bit in your manifesto about asteroids moving about and colliding might kill TQ when it tries to track all those extra objects moving around in the physics engine thingy. It would be like hundreds of drakes spamming missiles continuously, but happening in every system all at once. ;)

So maybe we shouldn't ask CCP to do that bit.


Hans has secret agenda to crash the CCP servers, once and for all! Twisted



Can I haz tinfoil hat too pl0x brosef? Smile
Seanigulous
Quantum Cats Syndicate
Dock Workers
#354 - 2012-02-15 05:24:15 UTC
+1 from me Hans, good work on the PDF!
Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
Wild Geese.
#355 - 2012-02-15 09:07:00 UTC
Malcanis wrote:

One possible addition that might prove useful to the wardec mechanism would be 'defensive treaties'. Industrial corp A makes a defensive treaty with Mercenary corp B in return for a regular weekly payment. So long as A maintain the payments, then any Wardec corp C which wardecs A will then also be automatically at war with B as well. But if A declares war on corp D, then B are not involved (of course they can still declare war in the normal way if A pay them).

Defensive treaties could be optionally private, meaning that declaring war would have some hidden risks, or public in which case they could act as either a deterrent or even an incentive, depending on the confidence of the wardeccers. Meanwhile, merc corps would be able to arrange a steady income for ongoing defensive contracts, placing a premium on reputation: a powerful merc corp should be able to sustain quite a few contracts, giving them a nice income for doing nothing.


Thanks for taking the time to stop by and join the discussion, Malcanis! This is precisely the sort of thing I envision when I discuss the need for a new "security economy" in high sec space. This would bring a much-needed element of risk into high sec war declarations, creating greater challenge for the aggressor and allowing greater degree of defensive flexibility for weaker corps.

What I don't see as being healthy for high sec space is a set of dec mechanics or aggression rules that specifically foster aggression for the sake of pure sport, or pure profit. High sec warfare offers combat pilots a safety provision you can't find anywhere else in the game - the ability to cherry pick who can fight you in return. Many complain that the laws surrounding high sec warfare are uncomfortable and restrictive, but I strongly believe that pilots seeking the lowest-risk form of PvP should also find it the least rewarding.

Worsening the situation is that long overdue economic balancing in low sec has pushed a lot of true piracy into high sec space, where blinged-out mission runners holding false expectations of security end up gutted for profit. A proper reward balance should entice the lucrative targets to venture into dangerous territory to increase their gains, so that the bulk of for-profit warfare occurs in the region it is supported best by the game mechanics.

I would love to see these problems approached systematically, tackling the underlying issues rather than spending an inordinate amount of time bickering about how to overhaul a complicated system (that, for the record, is already in the process of being overhauled). War dec reform is important, but "griefing" type predatory high sec PvP can be reduced the most by ensuring that highly attractive alternatives flourish next door in low sec space.



CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary

Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
Wild Geese.
#356 - 2012-02-15 09:47:29 UTC
Ugleb wrote:
+1 for being a non-null sec candidate that does not appear to be frothing at the mouth over the null sec bloc domination.

Please continue to present your hi/low sec experience as your main asset, and not harp on on about those evil null sec ppl.


Well, the null sec bloc domination is a serious issue, but I promise to keep my froth under control.

The issue isn't with "evil null sec ppl" anyways, I have no hard feelings against any of the players themselves. I also believe that most of the 0.0 alliance leaders elected to the CSM govern with the best intentions.

However, no council member is immune to their own bias, so we must also secure a voice on the council that will fight to protect the interests of empire citizens.

Quote:
Oh btw, I suspect the bit in your manifesto about asteroids moving about and colliding might kill TQ when it tries to track all those extra objects moving around in the physics engine thingy. It would be like hundreds of drakes spamming missiles continuously, but happening in every system all at once. ;)

So maybe we shouldn't ask CCP to do that bit.


There isn't any harm in asking, they can always have a laugh and say "No." Lol A new physics engine is, admittedly, not the most efficient way to improve mining, we can probably better tackle the boredom factor by addressing the mineral distribution within the asteroids, and better tackle the botting problem by implementing a visual texture-based solution.

The reason I discussed asteroid movement is because developmentally, mining remains in such an infant state that it invites much more imaginative changes than other features. I wanted readers to have a sense for how I personally envision a more thrilling mining environment, despite there being obvious technical considerations.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary

Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#357 - 2012-02-15 10:47:14 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Malcanis wrote:

One possible addition that might prove useful to the wardec mechanism would be 'defensive treaties'. Industrial corp A makes a defensive treaty with Mercenary corp B in return for a regular weekly payment. So long as A maintain the payments, then any Wardec corp C which wardecs A will then also be automatically at war with B as well. But if A declares war on corp D, then B are not involved (of course they can still declare war in the normal way if A pay them).

Defensive treaties could be optionally private, meaning that declaring war would have some hidden risks, or public in which case they could act as either a deterrent or even an incentive, depending on the confidence of the wardeccers. Meanwhile, merc corps would be able to arrange a steady income for ongoing defensive contracts, placing a premium on reputation: a powerful merc corp should be able to sustain quite a few contracts, giving them a nice income for doing nothing.


Thanks for taking the time to stop by and join the discussion, Malcanis! This is precisely the sort of thing I envision when I discuss the need for a new "security economy" in high sec space. This would bring a much-needed element of risk into high sec war declarations, creating greater challenge for the aggressor and allowing greater degree of defensive flexibility for weaker corps.

What I don't see as being healthy for high sec space is a set of dec mechanics or aggression rules that specifically foster aggression for the sake of pure sport, or pure profit. High sec warfare offers combat pilots a safety provision you can't find anywhere else in the game - the ability to cherry pick who can fight you in return. Many complain that the laws surrounding high sec warfare are uncomfortable and restrictive, but I strongly believe that pilots seeking the lowest-risk form of PvP should also find it the least rewarding.

Worsening the situation is that long overdue economic balancing in low sec has pushed a lot of true piracy into high sec space, where blinged-out mission runners holding false expectations of security end up gutted for profit. A proper reward balance should entice the lucrative targets to venture into dangerous territory to increase their gains, so that the bulk of for-profit warfare occurs in the region it is supported best by the game mechanics.

I would love to see these problems approached systematically, tackling the underlying issues rather than spending an inordinate amount of time bickering about how to overhaul a complicated system (that, for the record, is already in the process of being overhauled). War dec reform is important, but "griefing" type predatory high sec PvP can be reduced the most by ensuring that highly attractive alternatives flourish next door in low sec space.






One big buff for lo-sec that I have long been in favour of is to remove the sec increase gained from killing 0.0 rats. You can't lose sec in 0.0, there's no need to improve it in 0.0, it's not a stat that's relevent to 0.0. It makes no more sense for sec to be gained from killing nullsec rats than it would to require minmatar standings to get the best refine rates in a minmatar player outpost. But instead, nullsec is far and away the best place to regain sec.

If sec could only be regained by killing rats in empire space, where sec status is actually relevant, then there would actually be a reason for people to be in lo-sec belts: it would be the best place to regain sec (in fact the only place for those whose sec is below -5.0), and we'd once again see people actually belt ratting in low.

Of course, lo-sec belt ratting is more dangerous than nullsec ratting, so this idea is frequently opposed by players who believe they should be able to gank anyone in hi-sec, but they shouldn't in turn be exposed to risk in lo-sec. Genuine pirates are all in favour of it.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Indius Lux
Hoplite Brigade
Ushra'Khan
#358 - 2012-02-15 14:27:27 UTC
Belts should spawn, get mined out, and despawn.
Static belts that grow make no sense anyway.
There should be more reliance on the Survey Scanner, one way to do this is to have diminishing returns on yield.
Keep miners busy, require some intelligence to get a decent yield, and have something shooting at you all the time; asteroid belts should be a great place for criminals to hang out. They should have bars there.

PvE should have fewer ships that act more like real ships. There's no real scenario where you warp up to a bunch of ships and start shooting one of them and they don't all target you. CCP should quite literally fit these ships like real ones and use real established tactics to attack and defend, which in turn would require the player to use real PvP to oppose them.

And my personal pet peeve: industry requires too much math, paper, and spreadsheets, it's like a job for a computer... Allow players to easily calculate all the resources for a job without using the Manufacturing dialog, if you have no free slots you can't even see if you can build one print, let alone 10.

Oh, and Hans for CSM 7 - Read the manifesto!
Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
Wild Geese.
#359 - 2012-02-15 15:47:23 UTC
Malcanis wrote:

One big buff for lo-sec that I have long been in favour of is to remove the sec increase gained from killing 0.0 rats. You can't lose sec in 0.0, there's no need to improve it in 0.0, it's not a stat that's relevent to 0.0. It makes no more sense for sec to be gained from killing nullsec rats than it would to require minmatar standings to get the best refine rates in a minmatar player outpost. But instead, nullsec is far and away the best place to regain sec.


I agree, this is totally lame and senseless, which is why I included it in my platform. It's an easy fix and a great buff to empire space. I get tired of seeing Faction Warfare pilots take 0.0 trips to restore negative sec hits, instead of being able to do the same just as effectively in their own backyards (where CONCORD actually cares what goes on, unlike 0.0) This is a change you'll hear my pushing for should I be elected to CSM7.


CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary

Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
Wild Geese.
#360 - 2012-02-15 15:52:38 UTC
Indius Lux wrote:
Belts should spawn, get mined out, and despawn.
Static belts that grow make no sense anyway.
There should be more reliance on the Survey Scanner, one way to do this is to have diminishing returns on yield.
Keep miners busy, require some intelligence to get a decent yield, and have something shooting at you all the time; asteroid belts should be a great place for criminals to hang out. They should have bars there.


Agreed, though the "great place for criminals" should apply more to low sec than to high sec. I think high sec should offer normal yields and the least likelihood of a gank attack, while low sec should offer increased yields for mining operations but require more scouting or armed escort to pull off successfully.


Otherwise, the respawning of belts and dynamic distribution of mineral within the roids (navigable with the scanner) are pretty common sense mining improvements I hope CCP considers.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary