These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
#241 - 2012-02-11 04:28:42 UTC
Hello Iam!

Happy to answer your questions. I'm having to work late today, and your questions came right as I went to bed last night.

I won't avoid any question in this campaign. If there's a delay, as I said in my blog, its because of having to take care of some RL issues. Now that the weekend's arrived, I should be more free throughout the daytime and be able to give more timely responses.

I'll get back to you as soon as I can, appreciate your patience.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary

Seleene
Body Count Inc.
Mercenary Coalition
#242 - 2012-02-11 07:01:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Seleene
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
I’ll pick on Seleene this round,


Based on everything I've read in your platform, I think we'd agree on much more than we disagree on. At the least, I'm sure bridges could be built, but this is campaign season so let's do this! Cool

Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
though by the election I'm sure I'll have something to say about all my opponents in the race (thats how these things work). Seleene is most certainly an EvE veteran, to the core - serving in all three capacities: As a player, as a CSM, and as a CCP developer. The problem is, he's still speaking about issues that he clearly doesn't understand. Take some of his recent responses to a questionnaire:

"I think that FW and null-sec sov could, and probably should, have some commonalities with regard to capture mechanics"

"Any proper iteration on FW is going to require a fundamental re-work of how players interact with NPC factions."

Seriously?? If I were Seleene, and wasn't particularly active in Faction Warfare, I would decline to comment rather than just make statements that show a clear lack of understanding about the players that engage in that activity.


Well, I guess one way to explain my opinion on this is, seeing as how I sat right next to CCP Greyscale when FW was being implemented (he did most of the work on it), I think I've got a fair handle on where FW was supposed to end up versus what it's languished as over the years. It's really one of the great tragedies of EVE what a step-child FW has been. That being said, you've singled out two statements so let's look at them.

The first is a pretty general answer / opinion and I made it because of the way that game mechanics tend to evolve. My answer was made because I believe it reflected what is most likely to take place and how I believe we'll get the most bang for our buck so to speak. It's highly doubtful that you are going to see CCP invest significant resources into improving two completely different, parallel territory systems. They are going to look for ways to use their resources most efficiently so it only makes sense that as they finally start to iterate on FW that those guys will also be involved in peer review of any null-sec sov changes and vice-versa.

As for the second statement you quoted, I can't really see how or why you wouldn't want improved NPC interactions in FW. I mean, do you want the way you deal with the NPC Empires to remain exactly as they are now? Don't you want those opportunities and processes to evolve and improve? v0v Smile

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!

Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
#243 - 2012-02-11 11:12:44 UTC
To be fair:
Almost everything in Eve ties into the NPC system in some way, very few areas can claim that they are "free" from that. It has long been a dream of mine that CCP expand on the capabilities of the factions, but it will require they spend what will probably be a lot of time rehashing the standings system to achieve it.
It is in my opinion something that should be championed by everyone due to the fact that everyone will benefit from a better NPC system.

To be less fair:
Problem I have with the "Sov vs. FW" answer quoted is that the notion it is likely one of the main reasons why CCP has gotten the idea that FW should/could be used as a guinea pig for revamping Sov (ref: December minutes). It gives the impression that everything not-null is there merely to cater to null in one way or another, which is why a lot of us in FW threw a fit when we read the minutes.
As for them having commonalities .. not with each other per se, but I can certainly see the Incursion system being co-opted and becoming part of both .. so in that way they can share some features.

Being there when it was designed gives you knowledge of how it was designed/intended, but as with all things Eve .. stuff happens when things goes 'live' and independent unforeseen dynamics often pop up (ie. reading a book does not automatically give understanding of content of said book).
Indahmawar Fazmarai
#244 - 2012-02-11 12:42:29 UTC
Seleene wrote:
(...)

Well, I guess one way to explain my opinion on this is, seeing as how I sat right next to CCP Greyscale when FW was being implemented (he did most of the work on it), I think I've got a fair handle on where FW was supposed to end up versus what it's languished as over the years.(...)


To be fair, CCP and by extension the CSM should care about what players do, rather than try and push on them what to do according to CCP or the CSM. Roll

FW should be fixed to do what FW people wants it to do. CCP already had a chance to do it their way and it ended FUBAR.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#245 - 2012-02-11 13:53:00 UTC
It's hugely encouraging to see an empire space-focused candidate who isn't a horrible "make the nasty men go away daddy" style carebear panderer. A balanced, PvP-aware outlook, with a focus on player-driven mechanics is urgently required to reverse the tide of lazy, damaging whiney calls for NPCs to solve all problems.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Seleene
Body Count Inc.
Mercenary Coalition
#246 - 2012-02-11 14:38:05 UTC
Veshta Yoshida wrote:
To be fair:
Almost everything in Eve ties into the NPC system in some way, very few areas can claim that they are "free" from that. It has long been a dream of mine that CCP expand on the capabilities of the factions, but it will require they spend what will probably be a lot of time rehashing the standings system to achieve it.
It is in my opinion something that should be championed by everyone due to the fact that everyone will benefit from a better NPC system.


You and I are in total agreement. I've made several post in my Q&A thread on this very issue.

Veshta Yoshida wrote:
To be less fair:
Problem I have with the "Sov vs. FW" answer quoted is that the notion it is likely one of the main reasons why CCP has gotten the idea that FW should/could be used as a guinea pig for revamping Sov (ref: December minutes). It gives the impression that everything not-null is there merely to cater to null in one way or another, which is why a lot of us in FW threw a fit when we read the minutes.


Yes, and I've been pretty vocal about how I'm not really a fan of that. I don't see either system evolving completely independent of the other and have no desire to see any mechanic in eve be a 'guinea pig' for another.

Veshta Yoshida wrote:
As for them having commonalities .. not with each other per se, but I can certainly see the Incursion system being co-opted and becoming part of both .. so in that way they can share some features.


Something like this is just as likely as anything else. CCP is going to look at all of the various systems and figure out what would work best where, then find a way to have them all work together seamlessly. At least that's ~the dream~.

Veshta Yoshida wrote:
Being there when it was designed gives you knowledge of how it was designed/intended, but as with all things Eve .. stuff happens when things goes 'live' and independent unforeseen dynamics often pop up (ie. reading a book does not automatically give understanding of content of said book).


That's completely fair to say and, as I said to Hans, I think he and I would agree on much more than we disagreed on. Different perspectives are needed, that's why there's not just a one man CSM. Smile

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!

Maz3r Rakum
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#247 - 2012-02-11 16:06:57 UTC
Keep up the hard works Hans. You have my vote.
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#248 - 2012-02-11 17:50:26 UTC
Seleene wrote:
Well, I guess one way to explain my opinion on this is, seeing as how I sat right next to CCP Greyscale when FW was being implemented (he did most of the work on it), I think I've got a fair handle on where FW was supposed to end up versus what it's languished as over the years. It's really one of the great tragedies of EVE what a step-child FW has been. That being said, you've singled out two statements so let's look at them.



Selene
First let me say thank you for posting in this thread in a constructive way. I voted for you and I think you can be a real asset to ccp and the players.

Two points on what you say here:

1) If you know about faction war by sitting next to greyscale etc, where it was supposed to be etc. and think its a tragey that it wasn't worked on then why did you never seem to push for it in your term? Why didn't you engage the fw community more? Your failure to do this and your suggestion that it should be turned into a testbed for null sec send a message that you don't think the failure to work on fw was a "tragedy" at all. In fact it suggests you think it was a minor problem.

2) This may actually answer the first question for you. But what faction war was intended to be in 2008 may no longer be relevant to what it should be now. For example it seems the original plans for fw had npcs/rats playing a considerable role. But now Eve has many new ways for people to play the game if they want to shoot rats. They now have sleepers and incursions etc. So the niche of players who want more ways to shoot red xs seem to have gotten some love. But the players who want more small scale pvp have not had their needs addressed.

So when you say this:
Seleene wrote:

As for the second statement you quoted, I can't really see how or why you wouldn't want improved NPC interactions in FW. I mean, do you want the way you deal with the NPC Empires to remain exactly as they are now? Don't you want those opportunities and processes to evolve and improve? v0v


It seems if people want to interact with npcs more they can already do it allot of different ways in eve. Most fw players are now looking for small scale pvp not pve.



Seleene wrote:

The first is a pretty general answer / opinion and I made it because of the way that game mechanics tend to evolve. My answer was made because I believe it reflected what is most likely to take place and how I believe we'll get the most bang for our buck so to speak. It's highly doubtful that you are going to see CCP invest significant resources into improving two completely different, parallel territory systems. They are going to look for ways to use their resources most efficiently so it only makes sense that as they finally start to iterate on FW that those guys will also be involved in peer review of any null-sec sov changes and vice-versa.


I think your talking about using fw as a test bed. Where I disagree with your thinking here is you seem to assume that there is a single perfect mechanic that ccp should strive for. But there isn't. Different players want different things in this game.

Some want politics and think eve politics are great. Others think they are lame. Some think spying is great others think spying in eve is lame. There is no right or wrong answer here any more than its right to say people should like baseball more than football. If we change the rules of baseball to be a testbed for new football rules how do you think baseball fans will feel? (Actually thinking about that it might be pretty fun but I hope you still get my point.)

Now you say they need to conserve resources. Well I tend to disagree. If they want to grow this game they need to develop the game for several different playerbases. Null sec is for the more hard core players who can deal with a high maintance computer game. Low sec and fw should be for a more casual player who loves the single shard nature of eve and loves the consequences that come with pvp but can't commit the real life time. I really think abandoning the second group to conserve resources to chase after the first group is bass ackwards. The second group will probably yield a much larger number of players.

But there is another reason that resource efficiency argument is unpersuasive. FW is almost there! It’s really very close to being awesome. It won’t take allot of resources. I never met anyone who has really been able to pvp using the plex mechanics who doesn’t see its great potential. Yeah there are issues but people who have tried it can see how it can be awesome. It’s just not generating *enough* of the pvp we love. It needs iterations not abandonment in favor of something that might work in null sec.

Spending time on fw is not the same as spending time on WIS that really has no gameplay. FW has great gameplay if they get it working. It is a Maserati that currently doesn’t run because it needs some gas and a few new sparkplugs. After that ccp should give it oil changes every 30k miles. But don’t replace it with some sort of Caterpillar tractor that you think the null sec players might want.

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

Scalar Angulargf
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#249 - 2012-02-11 18:57:41 UTC
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:
Addenda: WTF is "GCC"? Question ALWAYS DEFINE JARGON!! Idea


If GCC is still jargon to you after a year and a half in the game it is sad. You shouldn't be voting.
Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
Wild Geese.
#250 - 2012-02-11 20:16:34 UTC
Thank you again for the great questions Iam, I'll tackle them one at a time here. First, regarding module deactivation in large high sec fleet engagements, I agree that it doesn't makes much sense for a fleet to have its cap chain dismantled every time it engages a new target, if it is already under aggression or involved in a legitimate war dec situation.

On the subject of ECM, I can only speak as to how it affects the scale of warfare I most frequently engage in: subcapital warfare ranging from 1-30 pilots on each side. In my experience, ECM hasn't been a major breaking factor, in that the fragility of ECM boats and the "primary" factor have been enough of a deterrent so that they aren't out of control. I am sensitive though to changes regarding ECM that might be breaking game play elsewhere, and would certainly consider options that make ECM more fair for everyone that plays the game. I know many are frustrated with ECM drone power, that would be something worthy of discussion.

I should clarify that I have no qualms with PvP occuring in high sec space, disdain isn't an appropriate word to describe how I feel. EvE does involve war that touches every pilot, and that includes those that live in high sec. However, with two other regions primarily offering mechanics that allow for more PvP with less legal interference, I feel that pilots seeking abundant PvP should be seeking it in low and null sec, not in high sec. I envision the ideal role for High sec PvP focus on security, meaning retribution for criminal activity through transferrable kill rights and paid bounties, and dispute resolution between corps and alliances that live and work in the region. Low sec should be enhanced to house the bulk of PvP that exists for profit (piracy) or sport (Faction Warfare).

Regarding orca swapping, I am firmly of the belief that assisting a flashy pilot in high security space through an orca swap should render the orca the same flashy status, plain and simple. Orcas should NOT be Brutix delivery services, they should not be a means to assist bait tactics, and they should vulnerable if the pilot they are allowing to swap ships is vulnerable. If a pilot commits to assisting a PvP player in any practical fashion, he is part of the PvP action and should be treated the same as the one engaged in PvP.

When I suggested using monetary means to stave off war, conceptually what I support is that players that seek passive activities such as mining, industry, and trade, should have more tools at their disposal to use financial means to combat aggressive war decs. Yes, simply allowing a defensive corp to pay more to increase the cost to the declaring corp is a solution that favors wealthy corps, and would be insufficient on its own to defend smaller corps. I did not intend to suggest it as the sole solution to high sec war decs.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary

Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
Wild Geese.
#251 - 2012-02-11 20:50:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Hans Jagerblitzen
Seleene wrote:
It's highly doubtful that you are going to see CCP invest significant resources into improving two completely different, parallel territory systems. They are going to look for ways to use their resources most efficiently so it only makes sense that as they finally start to iterate on FW that those guys will also be involved in peer review of any null-sec sov changes and vice-versa.


This is an excellent point of discussion, I'm glad you brought it up. I agree completely that the feasibility of a solution to a broken system should be of utmost consideration when considering how to invest valuable development resources.

Most of us in the Faction Warfare community believe strongly in the merit of the original design with regards to plexing. Plexing, with the ability to limit the size of an engagement to fight blobs and encourage diverse ship use, is great. The main problem facing the decline of Faction Warfare as I see it lies not the capture mechanics themselves, it is in the motivation to participate. Rewards are not directly linked to capture or PvP mechanics, they are delegated to a PvE side-show ripe with alt farming that denigrates the income of those that are there to participate in PvP.

This is what greatly concerns me when I hear about "territory systems" being overhauled. Removing or overhauling the original plex system in favor of a new system that might be used elsewhere would be a tremendous waste of time and energy, if thats not what the current playerbase values or is asking for. It also carries a strong risk of subscription loss, since most of the Faction Warfare pilots I know are strongly attracted to the PvP opportunities plexing offers conceptually, if not in execution.

There are creative ideas being floated for replacement systems of course, whether they are related to null sec sovereignty, or a a more incursion-style scenario. However, the more I've gotten to know the thousands of existing militia pilots I can confidently say that the majority do not require that scale of overhaul to be satisfied. If we are to save the most resources with regards to Faction Warfare – we need to listen to the players, whose solutions tend to be much simpler than anything we've heard so far from the developers or the sitting CSM.

Quote:
As for the second statement you quoted, I can't really see how or why you wouldn't want improved NPC interactions in FW. I mean, do you want the way you deal with the NPC Empires to remain exactly as they are now? Don't you want those opportunities and processes to evolve and improve? v0v Smile


The bottom line is that the the overwhelming majority of Faction Warfare pilots enlist for the PvP opportunities, and want to interact with other players, not with the computer. I think you would have to clarify what it is you mean exactly by "improved NPC interactions in FW"

Are you speaking about the NPC's in space, such as the AI systems that NPC'S in plexes or missions utilize? Or the agent system we use to pull missions? I think we'd have to talk about a specific NPC change before I could share my thoughts on how the current Faction Warfare community would respond to such a change.

For example, one of the changes I've frequently proposed would be to allow Faction-occupied stations to fire upon players of the opposing faction. This would allow for some greater consequence to be added to the occupancy of a system, and could be considered an 'improved NPC interaction' depending on what you mean by that.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary

Kaver Linkovir
Hoplite Brigade
Ushra'Khan
#252 - 2012-02-11 22:47:18 UTC
Seleene wrote:
It's highly doubtful that you are going to see CCP invest significant resources into improving two completely different, parallel territory systems. They are going to look for ways to use their resources most efficiently so it only makes sense that as they finally start to iterate on FW that those guys will also be involved in peer review of any null-sec sov changes and vice-versa.


We have seen CCP develope and abandon feature after feature like a child with too many toys. I don't care what CCP is most likely to do nor do I care for crystal ball gazing on what they are likely to do. The CCP track record is abominable when it comes down to deciding where CCP allocates their resources. A blind person throwing darts at a gaggle of CCP developers screaming idears would have had a better chance of getting it right. I am willing to bet all my Aurum on that.

Without people on the CSM willing to set the bar high, how can we ever expect CCP to deliver anything close to a playable product?

Simply stating it is unlikely they will take the efford scares me comming from somebody on all three sides of the fence. What also freaks me out is that current CSM members seem to think everything can be "solved" by some grand new and untested as well as undeveloped blanket solution. Painting everything in space with the same brush will simply make for a bland and washed out whole instead of distinctly different regions of space.

I want diversity, not some supramacist's dream on how everyone should adhere to their version of the ultimate endgame. If I wanted to fly the goose step in a mandatory fit I will fly somewhere where that would be required of me.
Harrigan VonStudly
Stay Frosty.
A Band Apart.
#253 - 2012-02-11 23:33:36 UTC
I try to hold out as long as possible (that's what she said) when it comes to political rhetoric and campaigning. I have learned that throwing your support towards someone publicly too early can and often times lead to a misstep. You think the candidate "is" what you are looking for then things develop and change.

I blogged about my willingness to support someone who was willing to work on behalf of the low sec community and continue to stand behind that. While I am a nobody in the game I stand by my convictions, my interest in this game, and those who have the same views as myself. While I agree there is much to be improved and explored in all facets of Eve I want to keep my support close to home.

I will continue to monitor all channels of communication regarding the CSM candidates but at this time I am heavily leaning towards supporting Hans with every vote I have personally as well as every vote I can garner to pull his way.
Lyrrashae
Albertica Bludgers' Union
#254 - 2012-02-11 23:40:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Lyrrashae
Kaver Linkovir wrote:


I want diversity, not some supramacist's dream on how everyone should adhere to their version of the ultimate endgame. If I wanted to fly the goose step in a mandatory fit I will fly somewhere where that would be required of me.


^^This. Mother of all Gods, THIS!!!

(I'd "like" this post 1000 times if I could. As well: Hans Jagerblitzen for...CSM7 Chairman? Hey, why not? Seriously, why freakin' not?)

E: Because what keeps me in EVE, what got me addicted to EVE once upon a time ago, is that diversity in the sandbox, and the sheer depth of the universe that it breeds. I want to find, explore and play my endgame, Mittens, that's just the way it is, and you're just going to have to deal with that...I find Mittens' and that ilk's endgame, frankly, repellent.

Ni.

Mystical Might
I HAVE THE POWER OF GOD AND ANIME ON MY SIDE
SAMURAI SOUL'd OUT
#255 - 2012-02-12 00:00:26 UTC
Blink Militias Most Hated Supports This Product And/Or Service.
Hanz For CZM.
Sandman Contra
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#256 - 2012-02-12 00:05:03 UTC
I support Jagerblitzen for CSM. It's about time we had some real representation out there.
SuckBrickKid
Doomheim
#257 - 2012-02-12 00:06:12 UTC
You have my vote
Lost InCogneto
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#258 - 2012-02-12 00:11:06 UTC
You have my guns in your sights and my vote Hans.

Give them whats for.
Seleene
Body Count Inc.
Mercenary Coalition
#259 - 2012-02-12 00:20:58 UTC
Cearain wrote:
Two points on what you say here:

1) If you know about faction war by sitting next to greyscale etc, where it was supposed to be etc. and think its a tragey that it wasn't worked on then why did you never seem to push for it in your term? Why didn't you engage the fw community more? Your failure to do this and your suggestion that it should be turned into a testbed for null sec send a message that you don't think the failure to work on fw was a "tragedy" at all. In fact it suggests you think it was a minor problem.


No, I don't think it was a 'minor problem', but I do think that there were bigger fish to fry for a large part of CSM 6's term. There was simply no way to push a FW re-vamp amidst the absolute chaos that CCP brought upon themselves last year. Bear this in mind - CCP actually went through with release planning last August and then COMPLETELY SCRAPPED IT just a few weeks later. In the time they had left to them, CCP committed to picking all the low-hanging fruit they could in order to salvage the Winter while they internally re-organized.

Now... I know that people who are passionate about this issue will say, "BUT YOU SHOULD HAVE TRIED!" Guys, seriously, pretty much every member of CSM 6 agrees that FW needs love; it's a known fact but it was never going to happen in last year's toxic spill of crazy. Sad

Cearain wrote:
2) This may actually answer the first question for you. But what faction war was intended to be in 2008 may no longer be relevant to what it should be now. For example it seems the original plans for fw had npcs/rats playing a considerable role. But now Eve has many new ways for people to play the game if they want to shoot rats. They now have sleepers and incursions etc. So the niche of players who want more ways to shoot red xs seem to have gotten some love. But the players who want more small scale pvp have not had their needs addressed.


Absolutely. I see it as a similar situation to what happened when CCP first introduced Alliances. Players started doing it on their own, so CCP stepped in and provided an in-game mechanic that formalized and supported it. I've already acquiesced to the fact that anything done has to take into account that players have been doing the best they could with the content they had for the better part of 3-4 years now.


Cearain wrote:
So when you say this:
Seleene wrote:

As for the second statement you quoted, I can't really see how or why you wouldn't want improved NPC interactions in FW. I mean, do you want the way you deal with the NPC Empires to remain exactly as they are now? Don't you want those opportunities and processes to evolve and improve? v0v


It seems if people want to interact with npcs more they can already do it allot of different ways in eve. Most fw players are now looking for small scale pvp not pve.


No, m8 - I want to see NPCs evolve to a point where they actively encourage players to murder each other through new rewards, recognition, campaign ribbons, HATS, whatever. Nothing to do with PVE.

Cearain wrote:
Spending time on fw is not the same as spending time on WIS that really has no gameplay. FW has great gameplay if they get it working. It is a Maserati that currently doesn’t run because it needs some gas and a few new sparkplugs. After that ccp should give it oil changes every 30k miles. But don’t replace it with some sort of Caterpillar tractor that you think the null sec players might want.


That seems perfectly legit to me. Here is the thing that bothers me - because of whatever reason, there seems to be this perception that CSM 6 as a whole, or certain members of CSM 6...or CCP or the Wolf Man or whoever is out to ruin the day by doing nasty experiments. I just didn't get that impression during the meetings with CCP and that's not how I feel either.

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!

Seleene
Body Count Inc.
Mercenary Coalition
#260 - 2012-02-12 00:21:29 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
There are creative ideas being floated for replacement systems of course, whether they are related to null sec sovereignty, or a a more incursion-style scenario. However, the more I've gotten to know the thousands of existing militia pilots I can confidently say that the majority do not require that scale of overhaul to be satisfied. If we are to save the most resources with regards to Faction Warfare – we need to listen to the players, whose solutions tend to be much simpler than anything we've heard so far from the developers or the sitting CSM.


Hans, I couldn't agree more m8. But, once again, I'm just not getting where this sense of ~persecution~ is coming from. I agree with your approach - I don't want to see CCP just slap some random **** together without talking to the players either, but I don't get the sense that's going to happen this year. I know historically that it's not always been the case but I think, (metaphor incoming!) after a long night that there's some light on the horizon and you'll find that you have many more allies than enemies on the current CSM and at CCP.

Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Quote:
As for the second statement you quoted, I can't really see how or why you wouldn't want improved NPC interactions in FW. I mean, do you want the way you deal with the NPC Empires to remain exactly as they are now? Don't you want those opportunities and processes to evolve and improve? v0v Smile


The bottom line is that the the overwhelming majority of Faction Warfare pilots enlist for the PvP opportunities, and want to interact with other players, not with the computer. I think you would have to clarify what it is you mean exactly by "improved NPC interactions in FW"

Are you speaking about the NPC's in space, such as the AI systems that NPC'S in plexes or missions utilize? Or the agent system we use to pull missions? I think we'd have to talk about a specific NPC change before I could share my thoughts on how the current Faction Warfare community would respond to such a change.

For example, one of the changes I've frequently proposed would be to allow Faction-occupied stations to fire upon players of the opposing faction. This would allow for some greater consequence to be added to the occupancy of a system, and could be considered an 'improved NPC interaction' depending on what you mean by that.


I want to see WAR, Hans. Full out, NPC faction approved, sponsored and rewarded WAR. I touched on this in an answer above and what you describe seems along the same line. I want your standings to mean something, I want to see the militia ranks transcend into something more meaningful (and be harder / more rewarding to achieve). I'd like to see faithful service in the line of fire rewarded.

Let me ask you a question, and there's a bit of RP to it - I read and actually enjoyed Tony Gonzalez's book, 'The Empyrean Age'. The idea of immortal pod pilots doing the bidding of the Empires (or any other major NPC faction) was pretty damn cool. When you sign on to a militia, what type of experience would you prefer to have? Does achieving rank and having a solid military structure mean anything to you or do you prefer the, "******* point me at them!" violence where you just GET PAID with no other hassles? Do you not care at all for dealing with the factions and just want to be a legalized pirate in the eyes of the Caldari State, etc...?

What if each of the four major empires, or someone like the Serpentis / Angel Cartel offered something a bit different in terms of how they dealt with their pod pilot fighters? What if the NPC interactions (agents, militia missions, whatever) led directly to increased PVP violence? I want to see players free to do as they choose, but I'd also like to see some actual choices / consequences inserted into the mix.

Anyway, I'm just a visitor in your thread and like talking about this stuff. Smile

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!