These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
tewkz
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#321 - 2012-02-13 21:00:51 UTC
You have a very well-written post and introduction. I really appreciate you as one of the strongest new comers. I have one question for you. What is the basis for the assumption that the current CSM wants to buff their own null-sec interests at the cost of low-sec and high-sec? The way I, and I suspect many of them, perceive it, making high-sec and low-sec better (if done properly) can actually be good for null-sec itself. What this means is, CCP can't just increase isk payouts to fix things; if they actually make high-sec and low-sec so that they have good and unique content, ultimately it will be good for the game. What's good for the game is good for the subscriber base, and what's good for the subscriber base is ultimately good for all security regions. I'm kind of rambling, but the point is, why do you think empire and null-sec have to be diametrically opposed?
Vordak Kallager
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#322 - 2012-02-13 21:54:39 UTC
tewkz wrote:
You have a very well-written post and introduction. I really appreciate you as one of the strongest new comers. I have one question for you. What is the basis for the assumption that the current CSM wants to buff their own null-sec interests at the cost of low-sec and high-sec? The way I, and I suspect many of them, perceive it, making high-sec and low-sec better (if done properly) can actually be good for null-sec itself. What this means is, CCP can't just increase isk payouts to fix things; if they actually make high-sec and low-sec so that they have good and unique content, ultimately it will be good for the game. What's good for the game is good for the subscriber base, and what's good for the subscriber base is ultimately good for all security regions. I'm kind of rambling, but the point is, why do you think empire and null-sec have to be diametrically opposed?


People who dwell in Empire space as opposed to Nullsec simply have different expectations out of the game. I know the FW crowd in lowsec the best, and I can safely say that 90% of FW players are in FW because they are not interested in the Nullsec politics, alarm-clock CTAs and waiting around for hours for fleets to form up and slug it out. I'm not saying that is a bad style of play; many people enjoy the Nullsec gameplay and culture. But FW pilots do not enjoy those same things; we like to log in and find a fight quickly and nearby with no :drama: and politics.

CCP and CSM6 had mentioned using FW as a "test-bed" for Nullsec mechanics (particularly, Sov mechanics) and Faction War players are vehemently opposed to this. Mechanics that might work for Nullsec won't work for Lowsec just as mechanics that might work for Lowsec won't work for Nullsec; they are entirely different populations.

Yes, iterating and improving on Lowsec and Highsec will improve the game. A healthy sandbox helps all areas of the game, Nullsec included; and the opposite is true: improving Nullsec will also benefit Lowsec and Highsec.

As for the "assumption" that CSM6 has a strong interest in Nullsec iterations, to cite one example, The Mittani has frequently stated that using FW as a "test-bed" for Nullsec Sov Mechanics is a "good idea".

Sa souvraya niende misain ye.

Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
Wild Geese.
#323 - 2012-02-13 22:26:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Hans Jagerblitzen
Damn it, Vordak! I had a fancy pants answer prepared and then you stole 90% of my thunder. Nice work though.

Anyways, I hope I didn’t give off the impression that null and empire spaces are somehow “diametrically opposed” in my writings. I think all three regions of space are very interconnected, much like ecosystems that live next door to each other. This doesn't mean that changes in one region have to negatively impact another, however. It all depends on the criteria and mindset used to discuss such a change. The CSM must be willing to consider how changes will affect even the communities they don't represent. "Not my constituency, not my problem" is not something you'll hear from me should I be elected to serve on CSM7.

As Vordak discussed, there are a lot of good reasons to be wary of “one size fits all” solutions if they are meant to cover multiple regional problems at the same time.

With regards to high sec and low sec improvements being good for null sec space, I think you’re on the right track I just see the problem in reverse. I think that the lack of worthwhile gameplay in null continues to cause bored alliances to migrate into empire space, where their power is projected in an imbalanced fashion that residents there often find extremely disruptive. The sooner we fix 0.0, the sooner the majority of null alliances move back “home” and allow empire citizens to enjoy the game their own way.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary

BIGTEX123
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#324 - 2012-02-14 00:03:45 UTC
Read the whole PDF and I have to say I like it. +1
Courthouse
Perkone
Caldari State
#325 - 2012-02-14 00:29:07 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
With regards to high sec and low sec improvements being good for null sec space, I think you’re on the right track I just see the problem in reverse. I think that the lack of worthwhile gameplay in null continues to cause bored alliances to migrate into empire space, where their power is projected in an imbalanced fashion that residents there often find extremely disruptive. The sooner we fix 0.0, the sooner the majority of null alliances move back “home” and allow empire citizens to enjoy the game their own way.


You're only half right on this point, at least as far as Goonswarm Federation is concerned. When we've got war we do the nullsec war thing, but we won't stop stuff like the Gallente Ice Interdiction because we have a lot of fun with those sorts of activities.

Shaking up the sandbox and making changes that benefit lowsec is good for nullsec, inherently, as it drives interest in conflict. With the ability for alliances to enter Faction Warfare we may even see some more participation on behalf of groups that would love nothing more than shooting more people when our enemies are too disheartened to log in.
Devore Sekk
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#326 - 2012-02-14 00:50:36 UTC
Even though I am a certified carebear, and avoid pvp (being a non-focus trained 2 month old player), that does not mean I will always will be. Low sec living intrigues me. Faction warfare not so much, and nullsec politics, drama and RL demands definitely not. I see the bounty, kill-rights and wardec systems as being broken, to one degree or another.

Bounties, ineffective. A bounty of any significant size will be claimed by the target's alt or friends. A bounty that is too low will not garner any interest vs the risk posed. I don't know if bounty proportional to the value of the target will do the trick.

Kill-rights, futile. I'd bet vast majority of pilots with kill rights are incapable of exercising them themselves due to their specialization and skills not lending to 1vs1 PvP. I know mine do. Being able to re-assign kill rights and hire mercs to do the job might do the trick.

War-decs, outright griefing. In theory, they work. In practice, they are dirt cheap to (ab)use, and very expensive to fight. We'll never know how many players left the game entirely due to having their corps griefed by bored multi-year vets, unable to leave the station and play the game.

I'm not a game designer, and no one pays me the big bucks to solve these issues. I just play the game. So the more attention is given to these areas, the higher the chance something will be done to improve them. It sounds like Hans is the man.
Mystical Might
Dead Game.
HYDRA RELOADED
#327 - 2012-02-14 03:22:45 UTC
On the topic of POSes, Will you at any point push for the option to unanchor offline POSes that are NOT owned by the person wishing to take it? And if so, with what guidelines?

Also, my uber-duper super-important question;
will you push for the introduction of tophats in le nex store? Bear
Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
Wild Geese.
#328 - 2012-02-14 04:08:16 UTC
Mystical Might wrote:
On the topic of POSes, Will you at any point push for the option to unanchor offline POSes that are NOT owned by the person wishing to take it? And if so, with what guidelines?


OH ****!! I KNEW I forgot to put fuel in it last night! .......Ok this will be a short post while I get online and assess the damage....


Mystical Might wrote:
Also, my uber-duper super-important question;
will you push for the introduction of tophats in le nex store? Bear



Push, no. Accept if already complete? Yes, but only if they cost less than real top hats.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary

Vordak Kallager
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#329 - 2012-02-14 05:00:56 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Mystical Might wrote:
On the topic of POSes, Will you at any point push for the option to unanchor offline POSes that are NOT owned by the person wishing to take it? And if so, with what guidelines?


OH ****!! I KNEW I forgot to put fuel in it last night! .......Ok this will be a short post while I get online and assess the damage....


Mystical Might wrote:
Also, my uber-duper super-important question;
will you push for the introduction of tophats in le nex store? Bear



Push, no. Accept if already complete? Yes, but only if they cost less than real top hats.


Goddamnit, Hans.

Sa souvraya niende misain ye.

Consequence Zero
Non Affiliation
#330 - 2012-02-14 06:20:39 UTC
What this next CSM needs is members from all areas of gameplay. With the amount of effort you have put in leading up to here I believe you would make an excellent candidate.

I just hope the High-Sec votes are not too watered down and spread out.. but from this high-sec player who tends to get lost in wormholes, you just got a couple more.

Good Luck
Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
Wild Geese.
#331 - 2012-02-14 07:17:02 UTC
Thanks again to all the new faces taking the time to stop my and hear my message, I appreciate all the kind words of support. Be sure to tell your corpmates to stop by as well!

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary

Nex Parietis
Interstellar Booty Hunters
#332 - 2012-02-14 07:20:18 UTC
I feel that you match up with what I want.

Particularly a spot talking about bounty hunting, which is a terribly underused and broken feature, as well as faction warfare, which is something I would love to have updated.

You have my vote Hans. and good luck.
Deen Wispa
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#333 - 2012-02-14 08:40:16 UTC
Tusker pirate, Marc Scaurus, of the blog, Malefactor, endorses Hans. So should the rest of you lowsec scumbags;

Quote:
So far, I think Hans is the guy for us in lowsec. He lives in lowsec, fights in lowsec, etc. Granted, he’s FacWar, but he bares no ill will towards us outlaws, nor towards the bear population. He expresses himself well and is obviously passionate. He may be overserious (bonus question was more or less a joke/litmus test – not serious business), but that is not a bad thing. I look forward to learning more about him in the coming weeks, but as it stands now, he’s the guy.

High Five. Yeah! C'est La Eve .

IbanezLaney
The Church of Awesome
Shadow Cartel
#334 - 2012-02-14 10:46:27 UTC
+1 You have my vote.

The PDF must be down atm - I can not open it so sorry if my next question is already covered somewhere.

What is your position on low sec gates and stations shooting their own militias?
voetius
Grundrisse
#335 - 2012-02-14 11:16:06 UTC
+1 I will be voting Hans
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#336 - 2012-02-14 11:48:43 UTC
Devore Sekk wrote:


War-decs, outright griefing. In theory, they work. In practice, they are dirt cheap to (ab)use, and very expensive to fight. We'll never know how many players left the game entirely due to having their corps griefed by bored multi-year vets, unable to leave the station and play the game.

I'm not a game designer, and no one pays me the big bucks to solve these issues. I just play the game. So the more attention is given to these areas, the higher the chance something will be done to improve them. It sounds like Hans is the man.


War decs will always be more or less "griefing", because the aggressor is the one who gets to chose whether or not there will be PvP. Logically, they will only declare wars they think they can win or at least profit from (barring edge-case stuff like RP reasons). So the corp being war-dec'd will usually be at a disadvantage vs a stronger opponent (which is what gets called "griefing" these days, although you might as well say that cats "grief" mice because they pick on easy prey instead of something that would put up a fight, like a goat or something).

One possible addition that might prove useful to the wardec mechanism would be 'defensive treaties'. Industrial corp A makes a defensive treaty with Mercenary corp B in return for a regular weekly payment. So long as A maintain the payments, then any Wardec corp C which wardecs A will then also be automatically at war with B as well. But if A declares war on corp D, then B are not involved (of course they can still declare war in the normal way if A pay them).

Defensive treaties could be optionally private, meaning that declaring war would have some hidden risks, or public in which case they could act as either a deterrent or even an incentive, depending on the confidence of the wardeccers. Meanwhile, merc corps would be able to arrange a steady income for ongoing defensive contracts, placing a premium on reputation: a powerful merc corp should be able to sustain quite a few contracts, giving them a nice income for doing nothing.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Khimi Harar
#337 - 2012-02-14 14:57:11 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
...One possible addition that might prove useful to the wardec mechanism would be 'defensive treaties'....

Hell yeah, there are immense possibilities in an expanded contracts system, which I reckon something like this would fall in under .. a time limited protection agreement. So many things that can be "solved" by having a non-verbal agreement as pre-req.
Mystical Might
Dead Game.
HYDRA RELOADED
#338 - 2012-02-14 15:02:30 UTC
What's your view on ECM, and the mechanics behind it?
Would you suggest changes, and if so, how would you change ECM to bring it more in line with other forms of E-WAR?
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#339 - 2012-02-14 16:02:13 UTC
Mystical Might wrote:
What's your view on ECM, and the mechanics behind it?
Would you suggest changes, and if so, how would you change ECM to bring it more in line with other forms of E-WAR?


Nerfing ECM down to the level of other EW forms is fine, you just need to come up with a secondary EW for Caldari.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Mystical Might
Dead Game.
HYDRA RELOADED
#340 - 2012-02-14 16:08:02 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Mystical Might wrote:
What's your view on ECM, and the mechanics behind it?
Would you suggest changes, and if so, how would you change ECM to bring it more in line with other forms of E-WAR?


Nerfing ECM down to the level of other EW forms is fine, you just need to come up with a secondary EW for Caldari.



lol, I'd be happy if ECM was nuked from orbit, after being smashed repeatedly with the nerfbat.
I'm just wondering what Hans' view is.