These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Thistlegorm
Monty Pythons Flying Spaceships
#181 - 2012-02-10 05:57:43 UTC
Interesting platform document.

Good to hear someone crying death to the mining bots!

You'll get my vote.
Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#182 - 2012-02-10 06:27:15 UTC
War Kitten wrote:

When other members of CSM7 that play the game in discord with your world views on what is the right way to pvp disagree with your ideas about changes to high sec or lowsec rules and have alternate ideas, how will you react? And when it comes time to discuss sov warfare and super-cap re-balancing, will you have any more useful input than the naive "remove supers" response?


I don't think "PvP" is appropriate behavior for a CSM member to be engaging in with other council members. I agree with the decision made by the previous CSM members to cooperate and work as a team when serving as a voice for the players. In-fighting within the council does not send a message of strength and compromises the integrity of the council and the ability it has to protect the interests of the players.

It is important for all of us who are elected to rely on each other's area of expertise and defer to the individuals that know the most about a given area of space. I am campaigning to protect the interests regions of space I call my home, not to impose my own ways of playing the game upon other players.

One of the sitting CSM representatives recently said, " I think we'd prefer CCP beta-test ideas on a smaller population and see if they work out on a smaller scale, first. " This is what concerns me, because I feel the player community that loves to engage in a feature should have the strongest voice during the decisions that affect its future.

As for supercap removal, I only meant that it would greatly benefit the low sec PvP culture if they weren't present. I understand that this could greatly affect logistical chains for alliances, hamper their free movement, and making engaging in warfare much more difficult, and I sympathize with the need for more conflict, more often.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary
Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#183 - 2012-02-10 06:50:55 UTC
Angelus Ryan wrote:

I vehemently oppose any sort of mechanic where it is not possible to avoid being killed, regardless of what you do, and which (at the very least) does not come with great(er) material cost. Getting outsmarted and outpiloted is one thing, but if even a frigate scout (and no, you shouldn't have to fly a covops just to take a peek next door. If this will be the case, then what will draw new players and casual non-FW PvPers? What will become of the solo pilot?) cannot move around freely enough to let you know what is out there, then we have a problem.


Good question. I think conceptually it's not too difficult to view an insta-lock on a frigate as holding as much power in an engagement as a warp bubble is in 0.0 space. If we are to celebrate the mobility of small gang warfare in low sec space, I think that allowing a properly fit scout to evade even a fast lock time seems like a reasonable balance to strive for.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary
Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#184 - 2012-02-10 07:01:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Hans Jagerblitzen
Thorn Galen wrote:

I know you have read Malcanis' Manifesto on Highsec.
What is your take on it, summarised in a single paragraph ?


The value I see in Malcanis' High Sec Manifesto is that is written with sole consideration for the players that reside in low sec space, as supposed to being constructed using assumptions about who actually lives there. Malcanis took the time to accurately assess which type of players actually live in high sec, and consider the reasons they live there. He than shaped a proposal based on enhancing the type of game play that high sec natives might enjoy. It was an inside-looking-out perspective that I believe stands as an example of the way we should approach the development of our proposals as a council. You have to start by asking the players that live in a region of space what it is they enjoy, and build from there.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary
Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#185 - 2012-02-10 07:09:45 UTC
ceyriot wrote:
I think another cool addition would be a bar like incursion so you know the state of the system and much is needed to be secured.


I'm assuming you're talking about Faction Warfare here? If so, I couldn't agree more. I think that one of the frustrating things about the current occupancy system is the lack of feedback regarding the progress of a system takeover.

I think an update to the Miitia window would be extremely useful, if it provided us with better intelligence about what systems are most threatened and encouraged more pilots to go out and take up arms.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary
Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#186 - 2012-02-10 07:26:05 UTC
Sofia Wolf wrote:
What is your position on following issues of high sec warfare:

A) Neutral orcas in high sec wars
http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Neutral_orcas_in_high_sec_wars_%28CSM%29

B) Neutral remote repers not getting aggression timer when remote repairing targets engaged in combat making them near invulnerable when positioned near stations.

Do you think those are problems CCP should address? If yes what changes to mechanic would you advocate and what level of priority would you put on those changes?


I believe in fully committing to PvP, should someone choose to engage in it. I think its fair to call reshipping using an orca as assisting a PvP player, and have there be a consequence as a result. Same with neutral remote repair, it's assisting in PvP and should flag one as engaging in such.

This sounds simple enough to not implement without interfering with other major projects, so I see no reason it can't be promoted immediately.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary
Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#187 - 2012-02-10 07:52:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Hans Jagerblitzen
Nagarythe Tinurandir wrote:


i have one question:
whats your position to the new balancing efforts which started with crucible. do you see them finished or are you going to urge ccp to go deeper into that topic? do you see the 4 races as on par?


Balancing is complicated issue, I think you would have to clarify which particular ship or module you are concerned about balancing before I could chime in on whether I think it needs a nerf bat or not. The thing to remember is that balancing can often be a game of whack-a-mole, where every improvement in one area creates an imbalance elsewhere. My hope is that CCP keeps a team or indvidual with their thumb on balancing at all times, and it looks like CCP Tallest has been given that job for the time being. I think we're all seeing the positive results even if there is always more work to be done. As a low sec PvP pilot, I have a special sensitivity to balancing concerns because they can dramatically affect the enjoyment and diversity of the small gang warfare we engage in.

Quote:

i see no reason why 0.0 and empire could not be developed in parallel and still develop individually.
Once they have the hands full maintaining and expanding their little states, they will have less time argueing empire should become like 0.0


The reality is that null alliances engaging in high / low sec "shenanigans" are a symptom or broken game mechanics in 0.0, that disincentive warfare, conflict and competition. Without an engaging resource distribution and enjoyable set of sovereignty mechanics to fight over in 0.0, the largest player groups are going to continue to go wherever they can to have some fun, whether anyone wants them there or not.

In supporting the 0.0 representatives in their encouragement of more sov warfare iterations, I would also be working to protect the interests of empire citizens who want to enjoy EvE their own way.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary
Vordak Kallager
Wilderness
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
#188 - 2012-02-10 07:56:54 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
War Kitten wrote:

When other members of CSM7 that play the game in discord with your world views on what is the right way to pvp disagree with your ideas about changes to high sec or lowsec rules and have alternate ideas, how will you react? And when it comes time to discuss sov warfare and super-cap re-balancing, will you have any more useful input than the naive "remove supers" response?


I don't think "PvP" is appropriate behavior for a CSM member to be engaging in with other council members. I agree with the decision made by the previous CSM members to cooperate and work as a team when serving as a voice for the players. In-fighting within the council does not send a message of strength and compromises the integrity of the council and the ability it has to protect the interests of the players.

It is important for all of us who are elected to rely on each other's area of expertise and defer to the individuals that know the most about a given area of space. I am campaigning to protect the interests regions of space I call my home, not to impose my own ways of playing the game upon other players.

One of the sitting CSM representatives recently said, " I think we'd prefer CCP beta-test ideas on a smaller population and see if they work out on a smaller scale, first. " This is what concerns me, because I feel the player community that loves to engage in a feature should have the strongest voice during the decisions that affect its future.

As for supercap removal, I only meant that it would greatly benefit the low sec PvP culture if they weren't present. I understand that this could greatly affect logistical chains for alliances, hamper their free movement, and making engaging in warfare much more difficult, and I sympathize with the need for more conflict, more often.


A simple solution is to restrict the deployment of Fighter Bombers in lowsec, just as Titans can't use their DD in lowsec. The lowsec community doesn't have vast Super Capital resources and the grand majority of us aren't interested in collecting a vast Super Capital resource, preferring to slug it out with Sub-caps and Caps. Deploying any kind of capital assets in lowsec is a big risk because all your enemy has to do is be friends with a 0.0 bloc with bored Super Capitals hungry for some kills.

inb4 "u mad you don't have supercaps?"

Sa souvraya niende misain ye.
Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#189 - 2012-02-10 08:14:10 UTC
Xorv wrote:

All this is very troubling Hans, unless it's matched by moving all valuable PvE content out of High Sec where Wardecs and suicide ganks are not required.


"Piracy" is a tricky because it means different things to different players, you're absolutely right about the need to use specific language.

The most efficient solution I see to the high sec piracy problem is to increase rewards in low and null sec space, to entice more PvE activity back into those regions where the "high seas" type piracy can thrive. This lessens the pressure to push deeper into high security space to engage in PvP-for-profit, which is the cause of so much controversy these days.

Quote:
"Engame PvE content" Since when has a Sandbox MMO had endgame PvE content? If you're serious about supporting EVE as a Sandbox PvP MMORPG then you would wish to either radically change High Sec Incursions or remove it from the game altogether.


"Endgame" is one of those buzzwords that has negative connotations for some, even if it doesn't bother me so much. I know it musters up images of "terrestrial MMO's" with level caps and stat creep, but I simply used endgame to describe incursions as the ultimate challenge in terms of teamwork-based PvE content in EvE. Many players have been really enjoying incursions, and not just for the money. I think they are a refreshing change from the stale NPC AI we've been used to the last couple of years, even if there's still some work to be done on them.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary
Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#190 - 2012-02-10 08:21:25 UTC
Iam Widdershins wrote:
Some questions for you.

Are you aware of the issues facing participants in large fights in high security space, such as two alliances at war, stemming from the changes to aggression inheritance?

What do you think of ECM? How about the drones?



Wow! I'm happy to discuss these with you, its important for our voters to know what each of us would bring to the next CSM.

Is there a specific mechanic you have an interest in changing that you'd like me to share an opinion about? There are a lot of complicated issues with both systems.

Maybe we can tackle the issues one at a time with some sharper focus, essays could be written about something as broad as "alliances at war" or ECM.

Let me know where you'd like me to begin...

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary
Angelus Ryan
One Ronin
#191 - 2012-02-10 08:31:47 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Angelus Ryan wrote:

I vehemently oppose any sort of mechanic where it is not possible to avoid being killed, regardless of what you do, and which (at the very least) does not come with great(er) material cost. Getting outsmarted and outpiloted is one thing, but if even a frigate scout (and no, you shouldn't have to fly a covops just to take a peek next door. If this will be the case, then what will draw new players and casual non-FW PvPers? What will become of the solo pilot?) cannot move around freely enough to let you know what is out there, then we have a problem.


Good question. I think conceptually it's not too difficult to view an insta-lock on a frigate as holding as much power in an engagement as a warp bubble is in 0.0 space. If we are to celebrate the mobility of small gang warfare in low sec space, I think that allowing a properly fit scout to evade even a fast lock time seems like a reasonable balance to strive for.


You got my vote. Good luck!
Iam Widdershins
Project Nemesis
#192 - 2012-02-10 08:54:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Iam Widdershins
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Iam Widdershins wrote:
Some questions for you.

Are you aware of the issues facing participants in large fights in high security space, such as two alliances at war, stemming from the changes to aggression inheritance?

What do you think of ECM? How about the drones?



Wow! I'm happy to discuss these with you, its important for our voters to know what each of us would bring to the next CSM.

Is there a specific mechanic you have an interest in changing that you'd like me to share an opinion about? There are a lot of complicated issues with both systems.

Maybe we can tackle the issues one at a time with some sharper focus, essays could be written about something as broad as "alliances at war" or ECM.

Let me know where you'd like me to begin...



There were four questions:


Iam Widdershins wrote:
Some questions for you.

Are you aware of the issues facing participants in large fights in high security space, such as two alliances at war, stemming from the changes to aggression inheritance?

What do you think of ECM? How about the drones?

How do you envision the role of hisec wardecs and hisec PVP in the future? You claim to be a major hisec candidate, but I do not get the impression that you have a lot of experience in/spend a lot of time in hisec, and you have expressed disdain for any kind of PVP in hisec, an area of the game rife with bugs and peeves and desperately in need of some pretty major mechanical fixes.

You say that you think a money-for-money solution for wars -- bribing CONCORD -- would solve the issues facing hisec corps at war. Why do you think this would not simply make wars a thing of the past for all but the most helpless corporations, driving PVP out of hisec entirely but for a few griefer decs that ruin the gameplay of poorer players?


...how about we start with the first one and go from there.

Ok, for the first one, you are apparently not aware of the serious, major issues that are currently in place (namely, constant module deactivation when using logistics against large numbers of targets, rendering cap-chaining logistics almost entirely useless in high-security space for big fights). So that answers that question.

For the second one, I just wanted a short answer, a couple sentences, on your views of ECM and its future in the game.

The second two you ignored entirely.

Lobbying for your right to delete your signature
Iam Widdershins
Project Nemesis
#193 - 2012-02-10 09:02:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Iam Widdershins
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
I believe in fully committing to PvP, should someone choose to engage in it. I think its fair to call reshipping using an orca as assisting a PvP player, and have there be a consequence as a result. Same with neutral remote repair, it's assisting in PvP and should flag one as engaging in such.

This sounds simple enough to not implement without interfering with other major projects, so I see no reason it can't be promoted immediately.

It would be fine for logistics to become unable to dock, as long as the timer that prevents them from docking or jumping is not kept at 60 seconds, but rather can only be as long as the person they are repping. Otherwise, logistics gangs deaggressing on a gate would never be able to jump and it'd be a turkey-shoot.

The Orca issue is already taken care of for the most part. Any pilot in a ship that is being aggressed in any way cannot board a ship from an orca or put their ship away in the hangar; they need to jump out first and this can be a very risky move. It might be a good idea for the aggressed and empty ship to be un-scoopable as well, but it is already 80% taken care of.

Giving the Orca an aggression timer for helping someone switch ships in space is ABSOLUTELY not OK, and extremely exploitable. This would be an incredibly easy exploit, allowing you to kill Orcas at will the moment you were allowed access to their maintenance array or joined their corporation with any kind of character, no matter how unskilled.

These are the kinds of answers you should be giving. What I'm seeing right now from you is a lot of pretty vague answers about how maybe you'll figure it out later, no actual descriptions or specifics of the sorts of things you'd like to see.

Lobbying for your right to delete your signature
Indahmawar Fazmarai
#194 - 2012-02-10 09:08:22 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Joyitii wrote:
Mining thoughts....


Checked out the thread. Textural mapping or spin rate variation to distinguish between asteroids that are named the same on overview, but contain varying amounts of ore is brilliant. It is perhaps the most beautiful solution to the problem I've seen so far. And developmentally, this makes a lot of sense. We've just overhauled planets, nebulas, warp tunnels, and now the ships themselves.....leaving asteroid belts as sadly one of the most graphically outdated features in the game. It makes absolute sense to me to build a "captcha" into the markings of the asteroids, their shape, or their motion, and solve the botting issue without even having to do much more work than they should be doing anyways to keep up with their artwork schedule. DEATH TO ALL BOTS.

I favor solutions that elevate mining as a profession. I also believe in addressing problems at their root. Currently mining is not a well-respected profession, despite it being such a critical part of the EvE economy. One of the root causes of this is that the game mechanics are so simplistic that artificial intelligence can substitute for human intuition. This is not the fault of the players. The resulting arguments over who is botting and who isn't absolute tear the EvE community to shreds year after year. It fuels griefing, it causes massive distrust amongst all sorts of player entities, even reaching the CSM itself. This is in no way the kind of "good conflict" that drives game activity and keeps things fun. It's quite the opposite. If we can convince CCP there's an accessible solution to the bot problem, that they can even sell well as part of an expansion (customers love new shineys!) I think its a win-win-win for the entire EvE community. Consider this a solution I can push to the developers if elected, until someone shows me something better. (...)


My apologies if i am being thick, but, that change would then mean that survey scanners would be gone?
Iam Widdershins
Project Nemesis
#195 - 2012-02-10 09:14:05 UTC
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Joyitii wrote:
Mining thoughts....


Checked out the thread. Textural mapping or spin rate variation to distinguish between asteroids that are named the same on overview, but contain varying amounts of ore is brilliant. It is perhaps the most beautiful solution to the problem I've seen so far. And developmentally, this makes a lot of sense. We've just overhauled planets, nebulas, warp tunnels, and now the ships themselves.....leaving asteroid belts as sadly one of the most graphically outdated features in the game. It makes absolute sense to me to build a "captcha" into the markings of the asteroids, their shape, or their motion, and solve the botting issue without even having to do much more work than they should be doing anyways to keep up with their artwork schedule. DEATH TO ALL BOTS.

I favor solutions that elevate mining as a profession. I also believe in addressing problems at their root. Currently mining is not a well-respected profession, despite it being such a critical part of the EvE economy. One of the root causes of this is that the game mechanics are so simplistic that artificial intelligence can substitute for human intuition. This is not the fault of the players. The resulting arguments over who is botting and who isn't absolute tear the EvE community to shreds year after year. It fuels griefing, it causes massive distrust amongst all sorts of player entities, even reaching the CSM itself. This is in no way the kind of "good conflict" that drives game activity and keeps things fun. It's quite the opposite. If we can convince CCP there's an accessible solution to the bot problem, that they can even sell well as part of an expansion (customers love new shineys!) I think its a win-win-win for the entire EvE community. Consider this a solution I can push to the developers if elected, until someone shows me something better. (...)


My apologies if i am being thick, but, that change would then mean that survey scanners would be gone?

Not only that, but he is completely ignoring the fact that a majority of the minerals harvested in the game DON'T come from mining; they come from mission and drone loot, reprocessed into raw minerals. There are issues of supply that need to be solved before we need to go into some kind of Turing-test campaign for mining in belts.

Lobbying for your right to delete your signature
Iam Widdershins
Project Nemesis
#196 - 2012-02-10 09:35:15 UTC
I hate to say it (lol) but I have one more question.

Your character's security status is -4.8.

How are you representing the players of hisec, and the people who seek entry-level PVP there?

Lobbying for your right to delete your signature
Joyitii
Red.Line
#197 - 2012-02-10 09:37:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Joyitii
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Joyitii wrote:
Mining thoughts....


Checked out the thread. Textural mapping or spin rate variation to distinguish between asteroids that are named the same on overview, but contain varying amounts of ore is brilliant. It is perhaps the most beautiful solution to the problem I've seen so far. And developmentally, this makes a lot of sense. We've just overhauled planets, nebulas, warp tunnels, and now the ships themselves.....leaving asteroid belts as sadly one of the most graphically outdated features in the game. It makes absolute sense to me to build a "captcha" into the markings of the asteroids, their shape, or their motion, and solve the botting issue without even having to do much more work than they should be doing anyways to keep up with their artwork schedule. DEATH TO ALL BOTS.

I favor solutions that elevate mining as a profession. I also believe in addressing problems at their root. Currently mining is not a well-respected profession, despite it being such a critical part of the EvE economy. One of the root causes of this is that the game mechanics are so simplistic that artificial intelligence can substitute for human intuition. This is not the fault of the players. The resulting arguments over who is botting and who isn't absolute tear the EvE community to shreds year after year. It fuels griefing, it causes massive distrust amongst all sorts of player entities, even reaching the CSM itself. This is in no way the kind of "good conflict" that drives game activity and keeps things fun. It's quite the opposite. If we can convince CCP there's an accessible solution to the bot problem, that they can even sell well as part of an expansion (customers love new shineys!) I think its a win-win-win for the entire EvE community. Consider this a solution I can push to the developers if elected, until someone shows me something better. (...)


My apologies if i am being thick, but, that change would then mean that survey scanners would be gone?

Not necessarily, they would still tell you how many minerals are in the asteroids. Just not if they're good or not. : ) Also read the thread that he is talking about if you don't want to be confused.
Joyitii
Red.Line
#198 - 2012-02-10 09:40:24 UTC
Iam Widdershins wrote:
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Joyitii wrote:
Mining thoughts....


Checked out the thread. Textural mapping or spin rate variation to distinguish between asteroids that are named the same on overview, but contain varying amounts of ore is brilliant. It is perhaps the most beautiful solution to the problem I've seen so far. And developmentally, this makes a lot of sense. We've just overhauled planets, nebulas, warp tunnels, and now the ships themselves.....leaving asteroid belts as sadly one of the most graphically outdated features in the game. It makes absolute sense to me to build a "captcha" into the markings of the asteroids, their shape, or their motion, and solve the botting issue without even having to do much more work than they should be doing anyways to keep up with their artwork schedule. DEATH TO ALL BOTS.

I favor solutions that elevate mining as a profession. I also believe in addressing problems at their root. Currently mining is not a well-respected profession, despite it being such a critical part of the EvE economy. One of the root causes of this is that the game mechanics are so simplistic that artificial intelligence can substitute for human intuition. This is not the fault of the players. The resulting arguments over who is botting and who isn't absolute tear the EvE community to shreds year after year. It fuels griefing, it causes massive distrust amongst all sorts of player entities, even reaching the CSM itself. This is in no way the kind of "good conflict" that drives game activity and keeps things fun. It's quite the opposite. If we can convince CCP there's an accessible solution to the bot problem, that they can even sell well as part of an expansion (customers love new shineys!) I think its a win-win-win for the entire EvE community. Consider this a solution I can push to the developers if elected, until someone shows me something better. (...)


My apologies if i am being thick, but, that change would then mean that survey scanners would be gone?

Not only that, but he is completely ignoring the fact that a majority of the minerals harvested in the game DON'T come from mining; they come from mission and drone loot, reprocessed into raw minerals. There are issues of supply that need to be solved before we need to go into some kind of Turing-test campaign for mining in belts.

Again I would like to say that you should go and read the thread that he is talking about. It talks about removing all drone mineral loot and all T1 drops from missioning effectively removing all mineral sources other than those from mining.
Nagarythe Tinurandir
Einheit X-6
Ushra'Khan
#199 - 2012-02-10 09:41:29 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Nagarythe Tinurandir wrote:


i have one question:
whats your position to the new balancing efforts which started with crucible. do you see them finished or are you going to urge ccp to go deeper into that topic? do you see the 4 races as on par?


Balancing is complicated issue, I think you would have to clarify which particular ship or module you are concerned about balancing before I could chime in on whether I think it needs a nerf bat or not. The thing to remember is that balancing can often be a game of whack-a-mole, where every improvement in one area creates an imbalance elsewhere. My hope is that CCP keeps a team or indvidual with their thumb on balancing at all times, and it looks like CCP Tallest has been given that job for the time being. I think we're all seeing the positive results even if there is always more work to be done. As a low sec PvP pilot, I have a special sensitivity to balancing concerns because they can dramatically affect the enjoyment and diversity of the small gang warfare we engage in.


i'd like to hear your thoughts on the hybrid weapons performance (medium sized and bigger blasters and rails) and their lack of use, as well as the "winmatard" problem (not my choice of words..) which is partly linked to the hybrids or their platforms (gallente and caldari gunships).
Joyitii
Red.Line
#200 - 2012-02-10 09:42:00 UTC
Iam Widdershins wrote:
I hate to say it (lol) but I have one more question.

Your character's security status is -4.8.

How are you representing the players of hisec, and the people who seek entry-level PVP there?

In his giant 20 page pdf file he mentions that he wants locked low-sec status decreases to end at 2.0 since it doesn't stop going down if you keep shooting people there. It doesn't mean that he was shooting people in highsec.