These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Marlakh
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#641 - 2012-03-08 05:11:17 UTC
+2 votes for a well thought-out campaign and a solid platform. Good luck!
Abyss Azizora
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#642 - 2012-03-08 12:38:50 UTC
Voted. Hope we actually get a CSM delegate that isn't a RMT lord this time.
Zodiac TheMarketRat
Misanthropic Anthropomorphic Anthropologists
#643 - 2012-03-08 15:08:28 UTC
Bump for Hans.
None ofthe Above
#644 - 2012-03-08 17:11:12 UTC  |  Edited by: None ofthe Above
Tarryn Nightstorm wrote:
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Galatica789 wrote:
http://community.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&nbid=9129, Hans, your thoughts on this?


[...] And trolling the existing CSM who should have known about it prior to release. Thats all I have to say for now, it'll take some for me to write a bit more about the specifics.


In all fairness, maybe they did, but it was/is still NDA'ed?


I did actually find this worth investigating.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=77852&find=unread

I didn't get a definitive answer in the public thread, but I did get this private response from Trebor:

Trebor wrote:
Well, there was some discussion of making the ship progressions more logical but no real details -- like the skills changes -- IIRC.

But mostly what Mittens was doing there was reacting to that huge mea culpa, and making sure the dev knew that everything was cool between him and CSM -- which it always was. We just would have liked to give him some pre-feedback to help him communicate stuff better.

My general opinion: way too early to get all bent out of shape about particular things, and huge props to CCP both for having the courage to address a big issue AND to bring it out for public discussion so early in the process. That's a BIG change and very welcome.


He mentioned maybe responding to my public thread later to get it on the record, but apparently he's been too busy fending off spam accusations.

EDIT: Would like to point out that I pretty much agree with the last paragraph. I do give props to CCP for this and it is a huge improvement. There is still room for more improvement, but I hope that the response doesn't end up discouraging the communication.

TL;DR: It was discussed but it seems not with enough specifics to really react to.

The only end-game content in EVE Online is the crap that makes you rage quit.
None ofthe Above
#645 - 2012-03-08 17:18:47 UTC  |  Edited by: None ofthe Above
Mister Kwong wrote:
And btw, just a post that shows that CSM6 doesn't have as good of a rapport with CCP as you think it does. I guess Mittens isn't as chummy with CCP as he would like many of you to believe; http://scaurus.com/?p=673


Its been clear that the CSM is only allowed so far in to CCP's process.

IMHO, not far enough in, although I respect CCP's right to define a line there.

CSM election antics and crazy candidates devalue the CSM and would likely cause CCP to keep it at arms length. A CSM they can work with and is easy to respect will help us get a better game.

All the more important to vote for Hans, or at least take the election seriously enough not to vote for a joke candidate for the lulz.

The only end-game content in EVE Online is the crap that makes you rage quit.
Il Feytid
State War Academy
Caldari State
#646 - 2012-03-08 18:47:16 UTC
Ok sure it might have been brought up, but ill ask anyways.

Hans,

I see other threads mention you represent faction warfare. Mittani has stated he wants faction warfare to be a test bed for null sov mechanics. What are your thoughts about this?
Vaurion Infara
Doomheim
#647 - 2012-03-08 19:48:29 UTC
Marlona Sky wrote:
Ok sure it might have been brought up, but ill ask anyways.

Hans,

I see other threads mention you represent faction warfare. Mittani has stated he wants faction warfare to be a test bed for null sov mechanics. What are your thoughts about this?



99% sure he's absolutely against this.

this is it
Macon Chalaise
VNM Biological Survey Corps
#648 - 2012-03-08 20:18:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Macon Chalaise
Vaurion Infara wrote:
*Vaurion Infara secretly crafts theory that Trebor is working for Hans by hyping him in a 'voter's guide' then shooting himself in the foot with mass spam evemails.


While I am not saying I believe this is so, it did cross my mind.Pirate

P.S. Good Fortune Hans!

Here's to fire. Not the fast and furious kind that burns down shacks and shanties, but the slow, seductive kind that takes down pants and panties - Irish Toast
Klown Walk
Federal Defense Union
Gallente Federation
#649 - 2012-03-08 20:20:30 UTC
+1 Vote from me and I hope my corp votes for you aswell.
Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#650 - 2012-03-08 20:48:29 UTC
Marlona Sky wrote:
Ok sure it might have been brought up, but ill ask anyways.

Hans,

I see other threads mention you represent faction warfare. Mittani has stated he wants faction warfare to be a test bed for null sov mechanics. What are your thoughts about this?



Faction Warfare improvements should ONLY developed according to what works for Faction Warfare. If it works elsewhere, I don't care what they eventually do with FW mechanics out in null. I'm just adamant that they need to completely ignore what's good for null sec when making FW adjustments. The cultures are too different and trying to compromise will likely result in a system that fails to meet the specific needs of the Faction Warfare community, who deserve their own unique and highly functional set of game play tools.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary
Deen Wispa
Sheriff.
Caldari Tactical Operations Command
#651 - 2012-03-08 21:55:25 UTC
Chalk up another endorsement from one of the guys at Agony Unleashed;
http://www.evealtruist.com/2012/03/csm-endorsement.html

Quote:

When you're a fan of strategy and grand designs, it's easy to forget that for many people the fun is in the fight itself. Especially when it comes to smaller scale PVP (which despite what some may tell you, is still very much alive in NPC nullsec, lowsec, hisec and wormhole space), most people aren't really out to accomplish grandiose objectives so much as they are to find a fight and make explosions, and mechanics which make it easier and more enjoyable to get a fight on this scale are really good things. From reading Hans' manifesto, it's clear that this is something he gets. With a background in faction warfare, he comes from an area where easy to find, casual PVP is order of the day, and that's a perspective which I believe could go a long way, even outside of the areas he claims to have experience in.

There are many good candidates this time round, but if you're a fan of accessible, small scale PVP then Hans is worth a look.

High Five. Yeah! C'est La Eve .
Il Feytid
State War Academy
Caldari State
#652 - 2012-03-08 22:32:53 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Marlona Sky wrote:
Ok sure it might have been brought up, but ill ask anyways.

Hans,

I see other threads mention you represent faction warfare. Mittani has stated he wants faction warfare to be a test bed for null sov mechanics. What are your thoughts about this?



Faction Warfare improvements should ONLY developed according to what works for Faction Warfare. If it works elsewhere, I don't care what they eventually do with FW mechanics out in null. I'm just adamant that they need to completely ignore what's good for null sec when making FW adjustments. The cultures are too different and trying to compromise will likely result in a system that fails to meet the specific needs of the Faction Warfare community, who deserve their own unique and highly functional set of game play tools.


While I agree, I am curious how you plan on changing Mittani's mind?
Vordak Kallager
Descendance.
GoonSwarm.
#653 - 2012-03-08 23:46:47 UTC
Marlona Sky wrote:
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Marlona Sky wrote:
Ok sure it might have been brought up, but ill ask anyways.

Hans,

I see other threads mention you represent faction warfare. Mittani has stated he wants faction warfare to be a test bed for null sov mechanics. What are your thoughts about this?



Faction Warfare improvements should ONLY developed according to what works for Faction Warfare. If it works elsewhere, I don't care what they eventually do with FW mechanics out in null. I'm just adamant that they need to completely ignore what's good for null sec when making FW adjustments. The cultures are too different and trying to compromise will likely result in a system that fails to meet the specific needs of the Faction Warfare community, who deserve their own unique and highly functional set of game play tools.


While I agree, I am curious how you plan on changing Mittani's mind?


Why change The Mittani's mind? He is entitled to his opinion. I am hopeful that CCP will look at the voting statistics and see that a lot of people support Hans not because he is their alliance CEO, but because he has actual good ideas. Hans doesn't need to convince The Mittani, he needs to convince CCP; the actual FW community are eager to help show our support for Hans through petitions, threadnaughts, etc. if he is elected and CCP needs evidence that his ideas ACTUALLY represent the amalgamated desires of the FW community at large.

Sa souvraya niende misain ye.
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#654 - 2012-03-09 00:19:19 UTC
Marlona Sky wrote:
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Marlona Sky wrote:
Ok sure it might have been brought up, but ill ask anyways.

Hans,

I see other threads mention you represent faction warfare. Mittani has stated he wants faction warfare to be a test bed for null sov mechanics. What are your thoughts about this?



Faction Warfare improvements should ONLY developed according to what works for Faction Warfare. If it works elsewhere, I don't care what they eventually do with FW mechanics out in null. I'm just adamant that they need to completely ignore what's good for null sec when making FW adjustments. The cultures are too different and trying to compromise will likely result in a system that fails to meet the specific needs of the Faction Warfare community, who deserve their own unique and highly functional set of game play tools.


While I agree, I am curious how you plan on changing Mittani's mind?


I don't think ccp views mittani as relevant regarding fw. Mittani would likely agree. Ccp is smart enough to realize that eves small scale pvp is fun enough to deserve its own major mechanic.

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#655 - 2012-03-09 07:46:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Hans Jagerblitzen
Marlona Sky wrote:

While I agree, I am curious how you plan on changing Mittani's mind?


I don't have to. He has already said that he not only supports my run for CSM but also that he would defer to me on Faction Warfare issues, should I be elected. All the more reason to get your friends to the polls!

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
#656 - 2012-03-09 13:12:25 UTC

Interesting the high numbers of people voting this time. Fingers crossed it leads to some genuine fresh air in the CSM and a return to representative accountability and focus on lowsec and small unit warfare.

The True Knowledge is that nothing matters that does not matter to you, might does make right and power makes freedom
Jitacaldari
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#657 - 2012-03-09 15:50:24 UTC
Hope to fly with you soon in FW, my skills are climbing to the point where i can contribute to a fight!
Vote Hans Jagerblitzen CSM7
Macon Chalaise
VNM Biological Survey Corps
#658 - 2012-03-09 16:38:33 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Marlona Sky wrote:

While I agree, I am curious how you plan on changing Mittani's mind?


I don't have to. He has already said that he not only supports my run for CSM but also that he would defer to me on Faction Warfare issues, should I be elected. All the more reason to get your friends to the polls!


Just doo eet!

Here's to fire. Not the fast and furious kind that burns down shacks and shanties, but the slow, seductive kind that takes down pants and panties - Irish Toast
Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#659 - 2012-03-09 18:52:40 UTC
Jitacaldari wrote:
Hope to fly with you soon in FW, my skills are climbing to the point where i can contribute to a fight!
Vote Hans Jagerblitzen CSM7



If you can fly a rifter / merlin / punisher, and fit both a scram and an afterburner, you're ready to contribute to a fight!

It's never too early to learn to pew. Let me know if you need any help getting on your feet - I can point you in the right direction depending on what faction you want to fight for or what ships you're interested in training towards. Mail me anytime!

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary
Gabriel Darkefyre
Gradient
Electus Matari
#660 - 2012-03-09 19:04:34 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Marlona Sky wrote:
Ok sure it might have been brought up, but ill ask anyways.

Hans,

I see other threads mention you represent faction warfare. Mittani has stated he wants faction warfare to be a test bed for null sov mechanics. What are your thoughts about this?



Faction Warfare improvements should ONLY developed according to what works for Faction Warfare. If it works elsewhere, I don't care what they eventually do with FW mechanics out in null. I'm just adamant that they need to completely ignore what's good for null sec when making FW adjustments. The cultures are too different and trying to compromise will likely result in a system that fails to meet the specific needs of the Faction Warfare community, who deserve their own unique and highly functional set of game play tools.


This.

To use an Analogy, look at FW being a Sports Car and Nullsec Sov being a High Speed Jet . You could have the best Sports Car Engine in the World, but if you try to put it straight into the Jet, well, it's just not going to fly. Likewise, strapping a Jet Engine to the Sports Car is just a Darwin Award waiting to happen even if it works perfectly for the Jet.

Simply put, if it works for one, it doesn't mean it'll work for the other.