These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at

EVE Forums

Capture Portrait
  • Date of Birth: 2009-08-25 08:10
  • First Forum Visit: 2011-04-07 15:45
  • Likes Received: 0

Hans Jagerblitzen

Security Status -9.4
  • Ice Fire Warriors Member since

Last 20 Posts

  • Singularity: Requests for account reactivation in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Requesting activation for Singularity. Thanks!

  • DNSBLACK for CSM9 in Council of Stellar Management

    DNSBlack absolutely deserves high placement on your ballots this year. I've had the pleasure of getting to know Brad well over the last couple of years, and witnessed his enthusiasm, work effort, and dedication firsthand. He is driven by a passion for this game and this community that goes largely unmatched, a passion you can hear in his voice when he speaks about the issues that are most dear to him.

    DNSBlack is also a fighter to the core, a man with a spine that won't give up easily when there's a problem on the table in need of resolution. He is unafraid to stand up to CCP (or members of the community if needed) in defense of the game that he knows and loves. He is a talented debater and public speaker, and knows how to command an audience. I vividly remember the open letter he wrote to CSM7 last year on the subject of power projection, that resonated so well with the frustration many players have felt about the direction nullsec play continues to drift.

    Nothing puts a smile across my face more than imagining DNSBlack in a CCP conference room, giving the devs a piece of his mind, and reminding everyone in the room why we're all here and why we all play this game. I urge you all to elect DNSBlack to CSM9, as I have no doubt he'll do an excellent job of keeping CCP focused on the issues that matter as we move into the next decade.


  • Xander Phoena for CSM9 in Council of Stellar Management

    I am super excited to give an early endorsement to Xander Phoena for CSM 9. Xander has one of the most outstanding work ethics of any EVE player, on or off the CSM, and this to me is one of the greatest requirements for any candidate. He is also objective, unafraid of criticism (both giving and receiving) and has a love for the game that shines through his work on the Crossing Zebras podcast. Xander always has his thumb on the issues that players care about the most, and I have no doubt he will make an outstanding representative. He will be near the top of my ballot when cast, and should be at the top of yours as well.

    Please vote Xander Phoena for CSM9!

  • whos hotter: Shalee Lianne or Susan Black? in EVE Communication Center

    Once you go Black you will never go back

  • Valkyrie and cloakie's in EVE Technology and Research Center

    You're not going to see manned joystick-wielding fighters in space alongside EVE ships for one very simple reason - Tranquility operates at 1 tick per second. The speed of Tranquility would make twitch gameplay impossible without rebuilding the entire server architecture.

    You could have instanced combat I suppose, but that kind of defeats the whole appeal of a one-shard universe to begin with.

    Sad news, yes....but better rip the band-aid off now. What?

  • CSM Guest Blog: "Reasonable Things" Crowdsourcing in EVE Information Center

    Suggestion: List maximum drone control range in the ship fitting window.
    Keywords: UI, Show Info, New Players
    Notes: This value would of course need to be affected by pilot skill and active ship type. An alternative to this would be to include drone control range as a value on the "Show info" of either the ship itself or the drones themselves, but this is much less convenient than simply showing it as an attribute in the fitting window, alongside the rest of the information pertaining to the drones such as bandwidth and bay capacity.

  • Petition for FoxFour to officially change his dev name in EVE Communication Center


  • Odyssey Patch Speculation Thread in EVE Gameplay Center

    YuuKnow wrote:

    "A game is structured playing, usually undertaken for enjoyment and sometimes used as an educational tool. Games are distinct from work, which is usually carried out for remuneration, and from art, which is more often an expression of aesthetic or ideological elements. However, the distinction is not clear-cut, and many games are also considered to be work (such as professional players of spectator sports/games) or art (such as jigsaw puzzles or games involving an artistic layout such as Mahjong, solitaire, or some video games).

    Key components of games are goals, rules, challenge, and interaction. Games generally involve mental or physical stimulation, and often both. Many games help develop practical skills, serve as a form of exercise, or otherwise perform an educational, simulational, or psychological role."

    It's painfully obvious that pressing three buttons and than walking away from the keyboard for 20 minutes fulfills none of the above criteria even remotely. Don't get me wrong here - I "AFK" ice mine like everyone else while writing, drawing, or playing other games - but I'm not so ignorant as to pretend I'm actually playing a game while sucking down isotopes.

  • Dev Blog: WantToTrade: Tags for Security Status in EVE Information Center

    Karig'Ano Keikira wrote:
    I can see reasoning behind this - more incentive for going into low-sec, more possible conflict in low sec, (slight) ISK sink from turning in tags.
    However, I am (slightly) sceptical about it turning into: want sec status? Ok, just pay a bit of ISK and *poof* you are no longer 'pirate' - at least now you have to work for it; removing consequence from low-sec actions further blurs the line between 'good pirates' and 'bad pirates' - if anything we need to widen that - EVE really needs more cause & consequence and risk & reward, not less of it.
    Ofc, I guess result depends on costs of turning in tags and spawn rates of new rats, so reserving judgement
    Note: I am not talking about high-sec gankers here, they are subject to totally different meta anyway

    EvilWeaselSA wrote:
    you know the bigger problem is a guy who can't enter highsec is gonna have a hell of a time awoxing anyone in highsec

    Both of these posts speak to why I believe so strongly in a system for rapid security status gain. CCP (Masterplan in particular) spent an entire year giving us a knockout system for Crime and Punishment, and yet it goes underutilized because criminals aren't committing frequent enough crime in high sec to begin with. Why? Because we can't operate there! What difference does it make if there's suspect flagging, criminal flagging, etc, if no one who is prone to committing those crimes ventures frequently into highsec space. I'd much prefer a system where more crime is committed in highsec, and thus more opportunity for player-driven enforcement (now possible through crimewatch) than one where the criminals stay in criminal land, and the carebears stay in carebear land, and never the twain shall meet.

    Next stop on the train to awesome - separating Factional Navy enforcement of security status and moving them to standings-based enforcement, and allowing a combination of players and CONCORD to work together as the strong arm of the law. I hope this is something that CSM8 will pick up and run with, its the last piece of the puzzle in setting up a robust, easy-to-understand justice system for all of New Eden.

  • Dev Blog: WantToTrade: Tags for Security Status in EVE Information Center

    Sugar Kyle wrote:
    War Kitten wrote:
    you won't have to jump around quite so much.

    Nerfing piracy by catering to lazy?

    Yet another question we were sure to raise internally while this was being discussed - and statistically, this movement was not creating the conflict and killmails that you would expect, (as it was often done in things like stealth bombers) so I am satisfied that this change is not a nerf to piracy at the end of the day. In fact, concentrating the activity in lowsec instead of spreading it between low and 0.0 space, combined with the chokepoints created by the tag turn-ins, actually serves as a buff to piracy in my opinion.

  • Dev Blog: WantToTrade: Tags for Security Status in EVE Information Center

    Sugar Kyle wrote:
    Aye. But for those that want to rat up their sec they are looking to receive a slight Nerf in comparison to what they can do now with chair. Ratting.

    Personally I haven't made it past shooting one rat before I decide -9 something isn't so bad in a while.

    We raised this exact same question when discussing this internally. It is my understanding that ratting in lowsec, collecting tags, and turning them in will be comparable to the sec gain that can be obtained by currently chain-ratting in 0.0 space, simply moved into lowsec. So its actually a buff for those that used to only chain-rat for sec in lowsec, and its a buff above 0.0 chain-ratting if you factor in extra payment for tags into the question. Also, the bounty from the rats offsets the cost of turning in the tags. Unless I'm grossly mistaken here, this is not a step backwards for sec raising as an activity in any way, this is something the CSM was adamant about while this was being hammered out.

  • Dev Blog: WantToTrade: Tags for Security Status in EVE Information Center

    Vincent Athena wrote:
    The buff is from the new tags you will get now and then.

    Tags drop every time you find a rat, it is not chance-based.

    "Once you've found one of the new pirates and killed it, you should go and check the wreck. In addition to some random loot, each NPC will always drop one tag."

  • Dev Blog: WantToTrade: Tags for Security Status in EVE Information Center

    mkint wrote:
    lowsec isn't that risky. Not something I'd expect a nullbear anom farmer to understand. Maybe more risky than the big blue donut, but still, not very risky.

    Ad hominem arguments never go out of style, do they. Roll

  • Dev Blog: WantToTrade: Tags for Security Status in EVE Information Center

    Zyrbalax III wrote:
    So... where's going to be the best place to sell these tags? Jita or another high-sec trade hub (which might be problematic for the people most likely to want to purchase them)? Or at the lowsec stations where you can trade them in?

    As someone who enjoys the odd spot of lowsec ratting, I'm looking forward to this feature!

    I'll just say there's a very good reason I sell all my illegal boosters in lowsec, not Jita. And its not because I give a crap about customer convenience. Twisted

  • Dev Blog: WantToTrade: Tags for Security Status in EVE Information Center

    Sheena Tzash wrote:
    2) Will we have some ability to see an audit of a players sec status? I can see some people abusing this system by going -10, ratting back to zero, joining a nooby corp, puts on the 'innocent look' to get into the corp and then runs off, causes trouble and gets the nooby corp war deced and quickly does a road runner impression from the nooby corp and leaves them to face the music.

    Rince & repeat for tears.

    ...which sounds totally awesome. WHY DO YOU HATE FUN? Twisted

    The bottom line is, killboards still tell the story, and are an even more effective audit method than simply looking at security status. If someone goes around awoxing constantly, as long as the victims are posting their losses, it'll be obvious to other recruiters. I strongly believe that as long as they criminal is willing to pay the cost to do this repeatedly, and recruiters are lazy enough not to investigate killboard histories, than corps should suffer the consequences. This is a free-form capitalist dystopian universe, paying off the cops just feels right and this feature is long overdue.

  • Dev Blog: CSM 8 Elections--CCP on the impact of the Council in EVE Information Center

    Frying Doom wrote:
    Ok after having done a little bit of looking I am yet to find a blog posted in the last 6 months from non-csm members that have actually praised CSM7s actions except Two Step.

    There are a lot of blogs maybe you could point me in the direction of a few as you have been praised so much by the community.

    No. You're being lazy, any amateur can sift through a few blogs and come up with any conclusion they way as long as they are selective enough. The fact that you think that praise has to come from a blog to count is ridiculous, and the fact that you think this is a good use of my time right now speaks volumes about how much you care about CSM performance vs seizing another opportunity to troll.

    Good day sir, I'm off to pack my bags for Iceland. o7

  • Dev Blog: CSM 8 Elections--CCP on the impact of the Council in EVE Information Center

    Frying Doom wrote:
    Amazing how hard it is to get transparency from CSM7.

    It's really easy, actually - you just haven't been paying attention every other time this has been discussed. No matter how much everyone enjoys sensationalizing the story for political purposes (CSM "activism" sells really well!), the fact remains that the CSM was told, in no uncertain terms, that POS improvements were going to happen in the summer expansion. We'd been in talks with them about the importance of POS improvements since the beginning of our term, and we'd already told them that NOT working on POS's in the summer was unacceptable no matter how you slice it. CCP admitted in the summit that while they weren't going to be doing the full modular POS system, the abysmal current state of POS's had been made clear to them and that they would be addressing it directly. Two step had his constituency to consider, and felt he was doing his responsibility to push the issue regardless of the fact that we'd already obtained the commitment from CCP that we sought.

    But did the threadnought change a goddamn thing other than tie up CCP's staff for a couple days trying to calm everyone down out of panic mode? Nope, the outcome was the same. But because it felt good, and was the closest thing to the Jita-shooting spirit we'd seen in CSM6's term, it's going to continue to be put on a pedestal and worshiped as a hero story by those that believe in the "activist" model irregardless of whether it was actually the reason POS improvements made it into Odyssey.

    If you think the CSM's job is to counter CCP at every step of the way, you're crazy. If Two step had wanted to go "against the wishes of CCP" he would have had to ask them NOT to work on POS's at all. There are times when CCP acquiesces and gives the CSM what its asking for, and in my opinion these are the least appropriate times to try to strongarm them further. I'd personally much rather reward CCP's cooperation than punish it. Two step meant well, and has been a tireless advocate for the players, and this doesnt reflect poorly on him in the long run.

    We simply disagreed at the time on how to best handle the situation, and since than the facts of the story have continued to be heavily politicized by various groups who like to use the threadnought story to make a point.

  • Dev Blog: CSM 8 Elections--CCP on the impact of the Council in EVE Information Center

    Frying Doom wrote:
    As to "The fact that we represented the players is made explicitly clear by multiple contributors to the blog", now personally I would be concerned if an employer was singing the praise of a union more than the employees were.

    Good thing you have nothing to be concerned about. This is by far the most extensive set of CCP comments we've heard about the CSM all year, and it pales in comparison to the collective feedback provided by the player base. We've enjoyed far, far more compliments from the community that we'll ever receive from CCP - and its THAT feedback we value the most, because you're the reason we put the time and effort in to begin with.

  • Dev Blog: CSM 8 Elections--CCP on the impact of the Council in EVE Information Center

    Poetic Stanziel wrote:
    Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
    The minute the CSM fails to be of use to CCP is the minute it ceases to exist.
    So, what you're saying is, your job is to keep CCP happy ... not listen to player concerns. Your less a voice of the players, and more a voice of CCP.


    Not at all. CCP has its own voice and throwing us into a bunch of meetings all year, interrupting their schedules, and paying money to fly us to iceland would collectively be a colossal waste of time if we weren't bringing a unique player community perspective to the table, that goes against their own natural instincts and helps them to spot problems before they are made manifest on the server.

    The fact that we represented the players is made explicitly clear by multiple contributors to the blog, there's really little point in trying this last-dtich effort to sing the "sycophant" song that by now has been thoroughly debunked and left to rot with the rest of your failed slam campaigns.

  • Dev Blog: CSM 8 Elections--CCP on the impact of the Council in EVE Information Center

    Poetic Stanziel wrote:
    Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
    ... its all the more critical that we prove our value to as wide a cross-section of the company as possible.
    Your time is up in a week. You don't have to worry about it anymore.

    That's ridiculous. It would be incredibly irresponsible to decide that because there's only a week left, our job doesnt matter and that there's nothing more to be done. You tried to spin that story, too, a couple months ago at the beginning of the CSM8 elections, declaring CSM7's time to have come to a close. In addition to all of the work that's transpired since than, today, drafts of the information that will be revealed in some of the Fanfest presentations regarding several critical features of the Odyssey expansion that haven't even been revealed yet were posted internally. The CSM have pounced on it with feedback via our various channels, just like we have all year.

    Simply put, "not worrying about it" would be dropping the ball and failing the player community, and leaving some massively consequential game changes to CCP's whim. Literally the only reason for you to actively encourage the CSM to not do their jobs right now is give yourself one last thing to complain about later.

Forum Signature

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary