These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Seleene
Body Count Inc.
Mercenary Coalition
#501 - 2012-03-01 17:11:15 UTC
Celgar Thurn wrote:
I haven't read your 'mission statement' but I would say that I firmly believe mining is not broken and does not need fixing. If you don't like mining or find it boring please go and choose another profession. Leave mining to those who like to mine. Smile

I am looking to vote for someone to vote for who is not not focused just on nul sec - indeed someone who is maybe slightly biased in favour of low & high sec to 'even the odds' - but I will avoid voting for anyone who is going to propose 'fixing' mining.


The problem with this stance is that you seem to be arguing for a mechanic that has stayed completely static for over nine years to not be evolved or iterated upon. That's just not very realistic, m8. At some point in the near future, once all of the sov mechanics and FW stuff has been given a good booosh, there is an industrial revolution coming in EVE. There are too many people that want to see positive changes and interesting game play applied to that part of EVE. Smile

And now I've bumped Hans' thread, as if he needed it. P

2004-2008: Mercenary Coalition Boss

2007-2010: CCP Game Designer | 2011-2013: CSM6 Delegate & CSM7 Chairman

2011-2015: Pandemic Legionnaire

2015- : Mercenary Coalition Boss

Follow Seleene on Twitter!

Andrea Roche
State War Academy
Caldari State
#502 - 2012-03-01 18:45:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Andrea Roche
without a question, industry has not changed for far too long. The only changes since then was the introduction of the rorqual + noctis + rorqual + orca. But this are indirect changes. The ganking in high sec for these are too easy and to no cost to the ganker compared to a cost of a hulk. I dont mean that it should not be allowed BUT the cost of doing this should be much more closer. At present you can do this with a destroyer. Destroyr fully fitted only cost like 8m and a hulk fully fitted cost 130m+. Its too easy to get away ith murder. I think the cost should be at least 40% vs 60% So far its no way near. This is grave issue.
Delici Feelgood
Doomheim
#503 - 2012-03-01 19:02:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Delici Feelgood
Andrea Roche wrote:
Seleene wrote:
Celgar Thurn wrote:
I haven't read your 'mission statement' but I would say that I firmly believe mining is not broken and does not need fixing. If you don't like mining or find it boring please go and choose another profession. Leave mining to those who like to mine. Smile

I am looking to vote for someone to vote for who is not not focused just on nul sec - indeed someone who is maybe slightly biased in favour of low & high sec to 'even the odds' - but I will avoid voting for anyone who is going to propose 'fixing' mining.


The problem with this stance is that you seem to be arguing for a mechanic that has stayed completely static for over nine years to not be evolved or iterated upon. That's just not very realistic, m8. At some point in the near future, once all of the sov mechanics and FW stuff has been given a good booosh, there is an industrial revolution coming in EVE. There are too many people that want to see positive changes and interesting game play applied to that part of EVE. Smile

And now I've bumped Hans' thread, as if he needed it. P


without a question, industry has not changed for far too long. The only changes since then was the introduction of the rorqual + noctis + rorqual + orca. But this are indirect changes. The ganking in high sec for these are too easy and to no cost to the ganker compared to a cost of a hulk. I dont mean that it should not be allowed BUT the cost of doing this should be much more closer. At present you can do this with a destroyer. Destroyer fully fitted only cost like 8m and a hulk fully fitted cost 130m+. Its too easy to get away with murder. I think the cost should be at least 40 percent vs 60 percent So far its no way near. This is grave issue.


EvE BBCode sometimes doesnt like parsing the percentage symbol Andrea.
Vordak Kallager
This Game Is Terrible
Warlords of the Deep
#504 - 2012-03-01 19:59:16 UTC
Seleene wrote:
Celgar Thurn wrote:
I haven't read your 'mission statement' but I would say that I firmly believe mining is not broken and does not need fixing. If you don't like mining or find it boring please go and choose another profession. Leave mining to those who like to mine. Smile

I am looking to vote for someone to vote for who is not not focused just on nul sec - indeed someone who is maybe slightly biased in favour of low & high sec to 'even the odds' - but I will avoid voting for anyone who is going to propose 'fixing' mining.


The problem with this stance is that you seem to be arguing for a mechanic that has stayed completely static for over nine years to not be evolved or iterated upon. That's just not very realistic, m8. At some point in the near future, once all of the sov mechanics and FW stuff has been given a good booosh, there is an industrial revolution coming in EVE. There are too many people that want to see positive changes and interesting game play applied to that part of EVE. Smile

And now I've bumped Hans' thread, as if he needed it. P


The other problem with your stance, Celgar Thurn, is how you start off "I haven't read [his] mission statement" so how do you know what his mission is? What?

Sa souvraya niende misain ye.

Andrea Roche
State War Academy
Caldari State
#505 - 2012-03-01 20:16:36 UTC
Delici Feelgood wrote:
Andrea Roche wrote:
Seleene wrote:
Celgar Thurn wrote:
I haven't read your 'mission statement' but I would say that I firmly believe mining is not broken and does not need fixing. If you don't like mining or find it boring please go and choose another profession. Leave mining to those who like to mine. Smile

I am looking to vote for someone to vote for who is not not focused just on nul sec - indeed someone who is maybe slightly biased in favour of low & high sec to 'even the odds' - but I will avoid voting for anyone who is going to propose 'fixing' mining.


The problem with this stance is that you seem to be arguing for a mechanic that has stayed completely static for over nine years to not be evolved or iterated upon. That's just not very realistic, m8. At some point in the near future, once all of the sov mechanics and FW stuff has been given a good booosh, there is an industrial revolution coming in EVE. There are too many people that want to see positive changes and interesting game play applied to that part of EVE. Smile

And now I've bumped Hans' thread, as if he needed it. P


without a question, industry has not changed for far too long. The only changes since then was the introduction of the rorqual + noctis + rorqual + orca. But this are indirect changes. The ganking in high sec for these are too easy and to no cost to the ganker compared to a cost of a hulk. I dont mean that it should not be allowed BUT the cost of doing this should be much more closer. At present you can do this with a destroyer. Destroyer fully fitted only cost like 8m and a hulk fully fitted cost 130m+. Its too easy to get away with murder. I think the cost should be at least 40 percent vs 60 percent So far its no way near. This is grave issue.


EvE BBCode sometimes doesnt like parsing the percentage symbol Andrea.

lol interesting, cheers
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#506 - 2012-03-01 20:42:52 UTC
Seleene wrote:
Celgar Thurn wrote:
I haven't read your 'mission statement' but I would say that I firmly believe mining is not broken and does not need fixing. If you don't like mining or find it boring please go and choose another profession. Leave mining to those who like to mine. Smile

I am looking to vote for someone to vote for who is not not focused just on nul sec - indeed someone who is maybe slightly biased in favour of low & high sec to 'even the odds' - but I will avoid voting for anyone who is going to propose 'fixing' mining.


The problem with this stance is that you seem to be arguing for a mechanic that has stayed completely static for over nine years to not be evolved or iterated upon. That's just not very realistic, m8. At some point in the near future, once all of the sov mechanics and FW stuff has been given a good booosh, there is an industrial revolution coming in EVE. There are too many people that want to see positive changes and interesting game play applied to that part of EVE. Smile

And now I've bumped Hans' thread, as if he needed it. P


That will be a long, long overdue expansion, and I will be delighted to see it.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Silath Slyver Silverpine
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#507 - 2012-03-01 20:50:54 UTC
I read every candidate's positions (Those that bothered to write one, anyway)

Hans' is by far, in my opinion, the most level-headed and realistic candidate. A few others had valid points, but in my opinion are simply to stubborn or hard headed to get things done. I think the candidates personality is equally as important as their views.

Anyway, come March 7th you've got my vote Hans. Hope you get a seat.
Vaurion Infara
Doomheim
#508 - 2012-03-02 03:25:05 UTC
Hans, you're the man. +1

this is it

Zathryon
Amarr General Drilling and Construction
#509 - 2012-03-02 05:36:39 UTC
wow...the thought of having sweet grief tears in exchange for my hulk gank butthurt...so satisfying. I would be TOTALLY fine with losing a hulk if i knew it meant such sweet revenge soon.

my new main profession? ganking the gankers.

making.5 space kinda dangerous but worth it AND knowing anyone who F's with me has to deal with the size of my wallet when I drop a few bil on your head?

delicious

Hans, you just got +5

Jonathan Ferguson
JC Ferguson and Son Ltd
Ferguson Alliance
#510 - 2012-03-02 08:51:07 UTC
The message here is good. The messenger, not so much.

'99%ers I represent you!' is a good rallying cry, but back it up with past posts. Where were you during the summer of rage? What were you saying then? Do you really care about EVE or are you just hoping that enough people dislike Alex that you'll snag a free trip to Iceland?

If you're the next Mynxee or Teadaze, you should have plentiful old posts we can read to back up that assertion.
Temba Ronin
#511 - 2012-03-02 08:55:00 UTC
It affirms the power the Hans Jagerblitzen campaign is generating when current CSM6 members are commenting in this thread.

They seem to sense the change that is coming and are trying to align themselves with the future. Glad to see that Hans Jagerblitzen the candidate with serious ideas, is being taken seriously by the current members of the CSM that hope to be his peers after this election. Hans Jagerblitzen's campaign platform proves he is the best candidate for the majority of EVE players.

Power To The Players!

The Best Ship In EVE Online Is "Friendship", Power To The Players!

Rastrelli Strasov
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#512 - 2012-03-02 09:08:07 UTC
If i have read this correctly... the candidate is a "High/Low Sec" representative? Joy


plaswan

There are two rules for success:

  1. Never tell everything you know
Vordak Kallager
This Game Is Terrible
Warlords of the Deep
#513 - 2012-03-02 09:12:49 UTC
Jonathan Ferguson wrote:
The message here is good. The messenger, not so much.

'99%ers I represent you!' is a good rallying cry, but back it up with past posts. Where were you during the summer of rage? What were you saying then? Do you really care about EVE or are you just hoping that enough people dislike Alex that you'll snag a free trip to Iceland?

If you're the next Mynxee or Teadaze, you should have plentiful old posts we can read to back up that assertion.


He states himself that he hasn't been around for as long as a lot of the other candidates. However, for the past year and throughout CSM6 he has been rallying the FW community (which was one of the most fragmented communities in EVE) and collected, organized, compiled a list of common themes that all FW pilots agreed needed to be fixed and ideas on how to fix those problems. He coordinated with CSM6 (as many of them have testified throughout this thread/forum) to bring those issues to the CSM and CCP's attention.

We (the FW crowd) didn't get exactly what we were expecting despite Hans' work unifying our ideas and presenting them to CSM/CCP. We were listed as a "Little Thing" in the recent Minutes and there were comments that FW might be a great "test-bed for Null Sov mechanics. Therefore, Hans is running based on the need for a CSM member that is in-touch with the FW demographic seeing as the Inferno expansion is going to be focusing on FW and warfare mechanics.

If you've taken the time to read through this thread, read Hans' blog, see his comments in other threads on the forum, peruse his numerous FW-related threadnaughts he has managed in W&T and General Discussion, you will see that your idea that "The message here is good, but the messenger: not so much" is pretty silly! He has proven himself on the forums and off as a smart, down-to-earth guy.

More than any other candidate in the race for CSM7, I think Hans will follow through to the absolute best of his abilities to provide meaningful and desired change to all EVE demographics. He has noted that his "agenda" is simply the amalgamated desires of the FW demographic, and I am positive he would be as happy to work with the actual communities (pirate, high-sec, mercenaries, industrialists, etc) as opposed to merely pushing his own personal agenda (which, IMO, a lot of the other current and past candidates have been prone to do).

I'm obviously somewhat biased as I have known Hans for quite a while now. However, I think that if I was some total scrub who didn't know any of the CSM7 candidates/incumbents and their past exploits and judged them solely on their "platforms" and responses in their forum threads and their handling of themselves in interviews, Hans would come out miles before any other candidate as the most level-headed and professional.

Sa souvraya niende misain ye.

Zathryon
Amarr General Drilling and Construction
#514 - 2012-03-02 14:53:05 UTC
I will say that he was doing work trying to get things changed BEFORE he had any chance of getting a ticket to iceland. That makes me think its unlikely his reasoning is just to hop in, get his 5 minutes of fame, take a tour of Reykjavik and go home. He was trying to get people to listen to some good ideas before anyone had to listen to him, now he might actually get to talk (instead of handing a stack of good ideas to the CSM and hoping they do it). According to the past CSM that was helpful, so maybe with him on the CSM more good will come of it.
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#515 - 2012-03-02 16:43:05 UTC
Jonathan Ferguson wrote:
The message here is good. The messenger, not so much.

'99%ers I represent you!' is a good rallying cry, but back it up with past posts. Where were you during the summer of rage? What were you saying then? Do you really care about EVE or are you just hoping that enough people dislike Alex that you'll snag a free trip to Iceland?

If you're the next Mynxee or Teadaze, you should have plentiful old posts we can read to back up that assertion.



I think hans has been more engaged with the community than any csm candidate since Mynxee or Teadaze. Take a look at his posts in the faction war thread. Yes that is what he has focused on - it is a large part of the game and more importantly he worked with the players to come up with concrete ideas and more general ideas to offer ccp that will make it bigger better and overall a big boon to all of eve.

I don't think any csm candidate in the history of the game has created the sort of consensus of players for how to ccp should iterate on a large feature in eve.

Again I encourage you to read the thread where he started teasing out ideas about faction war from the players. Look at all the arguing and initial disparaty in that thread. Then look and see that even people who were basically just calling eachother names in that thread still are supporting Hans here because he pulling together the best ideas and capturing the spirit of what we want out of eve more than anyone else.

Hans can do that with many different parts of the game too. How do I know? Because these weren't his ideas he was pushing. He was listening to players asking questions about what they wanted, challenging them to think about other points of view, and trying to encapsulate the upshot of those discussions. That methodology can be used in any area of the game.

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815

Zimmy Zeta
Perkone
Caldari State
#516 - 2012-03-02 17:38:52 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Andrea Roche wrote:
Just been set to Neutral by Hans.....Are you planning to kill the people that vote for you? Big smile Or is it some kind of private agenda Twisted



Yes, of course I'm planning to keep on shooting some of my voters! Just because the militias have united behind me politically doesn't mean we aren't going to cross swords on Tranquility. Same with those flashy pirates :)

If I set everyone blue that voted for me I'd pretty much run myself out of reasons to play the game overnight. I'm pretty sure I'm the only candidate whose supporters include large amounts of enemies.

No one should read much into my contacts settings, I'm setting everyone I add to neutral here so it impacts gameplay the least. If you're friend or foe, there will be other indicators on my overview that end up determining that.

Good question though, glad you brought it up!



Oh..so that's why you added me as a contact.
I returned your kindness by setting you to blue. Don't feel safe though, I like blue tears the most Twisted

I'd like to apologize for the poor quality of the post above and sincerely hope you didn't waste your time reading it. Yes, I do feel bad about it.

Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
Wild Geese.
#517 - 2012-03-02 18:11:47 UTC
Rei Seiji wrote:
Outside of FW, however, what is your opinion regarding Wormholes? There's already a specific wormhole CSM that feels like it's his duty to defend the status quo, whereas the others, aligned more to nullsec activities, seem intent to turn the currently lawless j-space into a fancier version of 0.0, with blobs for everyone.


I believe we should elect a diverse enough leadership that the permanent residents of the various regions can make decisions regarding their own space. Two Step is the resident wormhole expert and candidate, whether he defends the status quo or not is a decision he should reach by working with wormhole citizens.

I do have some wormhole experience - dropping in and out of class 3’s to solo sleeper sites, and I’ve also led some week-long “camping trips” where we’ll post up a POS for the corp and let members mine, PI, and rat till we exhaust the spawn rates, look for an exit point, and break everything down. Wormholes are one of the last bastions of small-gang warfare (beside FW), so I’d hate to see this compromised by “wormhole stabilizers” or other nonsense that allow powerful null sec groups to storm the gates. My personal beliefs aside, I’ve been consistent in saying I would never try to override the proposals of candidates like Two Step if he can confirm that’s what wormhole citizens wanted.

Quote:
Secondly, I find your lack of spectacles to be rather disappointing. Regarding your grievous lack of eyewear, and seeing how it's only henchmen, and not sophisticated villains as yourself, that go without it, would you say that you're more of the glasses type, or a refined monocle wearer?


I’m high enough from the chemicals I’ve been exposed to after years of booster manufacturing that my “third eye” now allows me greater insight and vision than any piece of technology could offer. At least, that’s what the voices in my head tell me.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary

Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
Wild Geese.
#518 - 2012-03-02 18:28:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Hans Jagerblitzen
Temba Ronin wrote:
Hans do you think FW could allow many of the huge battle features CCP loves without the petty dictatorships of Null sec sov?


Absolutely. They were more frequent in the past, they *sometimes* happen in the present, and they should certainly happen more often in the future.

I’ve spoken a lot about protecting small gang warfare, but Faction Warfare should not be fought entirely in in 10-man thrasher teams. The plexing system offers “terrain” for fleets with ships of a variety of sizes, and this one of its best qualities.

When one of my earliest memories was flying a tackle rifter in a large battlefield fleet attacking a POS. I didn’t even know what a POS was (and was probably being annoying as hell asking about it over comms and interrupting the FC) all I knew was I had an afterburner and a scram, and my job was to keep the scram on the “primary”. I’ll never forget that fight, and I want Faction Warfare to be the kind of place a new player can have this experience without having to commit to a large null sec alliance.

Ideally Faction Warfare should encourage multiple fleets to operate throughout the war zone, rifter gangs all the way up to the big battleship fleets. Dreadnoughts, Carriers, and POS / POCO bashes will also be a part of Faction Warfare, and can lead to fun fights, but I don’t want to occupancy mechanics to ever require them.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary

Courthouse
Perkone
Caldari State
#519 - 2012-03-02 18:38:38 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Ideally Faction Warfare should encourage multiple fleets to operate throughout the war zone, rifter gangs all the way up to the big battleship fleets. Dreadnoughts, Carriers, and POS / POCO bashes will also be a part of Faction Warfare, and can lead to fun fights, but I don’t want to occupancy mechanics to ever require them.


You should be careful not to take too much of your own kool aid while your campaign has momentum. You're advocating for modules that people put down when they live in, or 'occupy' space to not be a part of an occupy mechanic. This is the exact opposite of what the null community has been asking for since Dominion: tie occupancy to a mechanic that reflects people actually living in, or occupying, the space.

You may not like to have FW mirror nullsec sov, and that's fine, functionally there should probably be some sort of overlap and perhaps differing capture mechanics, but taking a position that the measures one takes to occupy space such that it's livable not being a part of the mechanics of transferring occupancy from one group to another is an illogical platform.
Vaurion Infara
Doomheim
#520 - 2012-03-02 19:19:33 UTC
Courthouse wrote:
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Ideally Faction Warfare should encourage multiple fleets to operate throughout the war zone, rifter gangs all the way up to the big battleship fleets. Dreadnoughts, Carriers, and POS / POCO bashes will also be a part of Faction Warfare, and can lead to fun fights, but I don’t want to occupancy mechanics to ever require them.


You should be careful not to take too much of your own kool aid while your campaign has momentum. You're advocating for modules that people put down when they live in, or 'occupy' space to not be a part of an occupy mechanic. This is the exact opposite of what the null community has been asking for since Dominion: tie occupancy to a mechanic that reflects people actually living in, or occupying, the space.

You may not like to have FW mirror nullsec sov, and that's fine, functionally there should probably be some sort of overlap and perhaps differing capture mechanics, but taking a position that the measures one takes to occupy space such that it's livable not being a part of the mechanics of transferring occupancy from one group to another is an illogical platform.



You realize this is how lowsec works now, right? And that there's no sov in lowsec? And that pos bashes and cap fights happen in lowsec all the time? His 'illogical platform' is just stating the facts as they are, so I don't quite understand your comment.

this is it