Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 26 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Andrea Roche
State War Academy Caldari State
31
|
Posted - 2012.02.09 13:38:00 -
[181] - Quote
question....where do you actually do the voting? |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
6
|
Posted - 2012.02.09 15:59:00 -
[182] - Quote
Good question now that they revamped the frontpage .. guess there will be a 'Big Ass ButtonGäó' linked ad nauseum when voting starts .. |
X Gallentius
Quantum Cats Syndicate Villore Accords
118
|
Posted - 2012.02.09 16:48:00 -
[183] - Quote
War Kitten 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?
Reposting my questions and waiting patiently. Aren't the questions:
1) "How will CCP react to the feedback given from various members of the CSM about changes to high sec or lowsec rules."
2) "Will CCP be more receptive to proposals for changes in game play by a monolithic CSM, or by a diverse CSM that has representatives from all parts of the game?"
w.r.t. Sov Warfare . Mittani admitted in his thread that there is no consensus from the 0.0 bloc CSM on how to implement changes. Wouldn't a different perspective be helpful? Maybe not. Maybe we should rely on the same monolithic CSM to not help solve this issue again in 2012.
|
Zagam
Incompertus INC Fatal Ascension
497
|
Posted - 2012.02.09 17:02:00 -
[184] - Quote
So basically... your entire platform is everything that doesn't involve nullsec... and the statement "I'm not The Mittani, and I'm not a goon".
Very nice PDF document, though. |
Omoprgos
Gonfanier
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.09 17:09:00 -
[185] - Quote
I support Hans for CSM. |
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
524
|
Posted - 2012.02.09 17:15:00 -
[186] - Quote
X Gallentius wrote:War Kitten 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?
Reposting my questions and waiting patiently. Aren't the questions: 1) "How will CCP react to the feedback given from various members of the CSM about changes to high sec or lowsec rules." 2) "Will CCP be more receptive to proposals for changes in game play by a monolithic CSM, or by a diverse CSM that has representatives from all parts of the game?" w.r.t. Sov Warfare . Mittani admitted in his thread that there is no consensus from the 0.0 bloc CSM on how to implement changes. Wouldn't a different perspective be helpful? Maybe not. Maybe we should rely on the same monolithic CSM to not help solve this issue again in 2012.
No, those aren't my questions.
I have a pretty good feel for how CCP reacts to feedback. I want to know how well Hans will work out in a diverse group that he may be painting as an enemy.
I understand he has to bolster his support amongst the flock of Mittani haters that will carry him to a CSM seat. But I'm not in that group. I want to know whether casting my votes for him will be helping or hurting the CSM overall.
Let's face it, the general public elected Ankhestamapoloopy, or whatever her name was, because she made lots of good-sounding noise about rallying around her banner to save FW and lowsec and everything else empire. And she was exactly the utter failure I figured she would be.
Let's not repeat that mistake, mmm'kay? Let me ask my questions, you ask yours.
This is my signature.-á There are many others like it, but this one is mine. |
Annie Anomie
Shadows Of The Federation Drunk 'n' Disorderly
8
|
Posted - 2012.02.09 17:29:00 -
[187] - Quote
Your platform document is really quite poor.
I have read it and I don't really understand why I want you on the CSM instead of Trebor or Prom.
I know you're saying "I am the FW guy" but I read the whole thing and I mostly got "I am the macro miner guy". |
Indahmawar Fazmarai
The I and F Taxation Trust
238
|
Posted - 2012.02.09 18:05:00 -
[188] - Quote
After some thought, I'm gonna do with this election pretty the same i do in RL elections, and will vote the guy i don't dislike against the guy I loathe, because the guy i like hasn't got a real chance.
So Hans, you will get my vote. Good luck opposing nullsec's attempts to dictate everybody's gameplay. EVE residents: 5% Wormholes; 8% Lowsec; 20% Nullsec; 67% Highsec. CSM 6: 100% Nullsec residents.
EVE demographics vs CSM demographics, nothing to worry about...-á |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
1128
|
Posted - 2012.02.09 18:19:00 -
[189] - Quote
Excellent questions guys, I'll have a nice chunk of time tonight to catch up with each of you.
I'll keep replying in the order I get inquiries, and I'll mail you once I've posted my response so that you can check it out, without having to wait and check every few hours.
EDIT - Also huge thanks to those that answer the easy stuff for me (like whether I am German), much appreciated. I'll only step in and correct someone if one of my supporters has made a mistake. |
Cearain
Imperial Outlaws
253
|
Posted - 2012.02.09 18:22:00 -
[190] - Quote
War Kitten wrote:War Kitten wrote: So my questions are thus...
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?
Reposting my questions and waiting patiently.
Hans I can answer this based on what I have seen hans actually do - which is probably more important than what any politician claims they will do. If someone disagrees with him and has alternate ideas he first listens to what they are saying and tries to make sure he understands what they are saying. I have seen this time and again.
Once he understands what they are saying then his reaction will be dependant on what is said. Its not like he has the same reaction to every idea that is different than his own some ideas are good some are bad. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
|
Sofia Wolf
Ubuntu Inc. Lonely Maple Conglomeration
4
|
Posted - 2012.02.09 18:34:00 -
[191] - Quote
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? |
Shootin' Star
The Fancy Hats Corporation
1
|
Posted - 2012.02.09 19:54:00 -
[192] - Quote
Apologies for the brevity of this - the forum ate the original positing, which I had spent some time on and posted simply the quote. I will be re-editing momentarily with proper content. |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
1134
|
Posted - 2012.02.09 20:21:00 -
[193] - Quote
Shootin' Star wrote: I welcome your answers and clarification upon these topics, and the opportunity to further respond.
And I welcome the criticism! This is indeed a complicated issue in general, I'll get back to you tonight, after I've answered a couple earlier questions and had some time to read up on your blog.
|
Qenza
Gonfanier
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.09 21:19:00 -
[194] - Quote
Go blitz'em, Hans!
Even though you are a former/future sl...err, employee of the Amarr Empire:P |
Darrow Hill
Vodka and Vice
28
|
Posted - 2012.02.09 22:51:00 -
[195] - Quote
Great platform document.
+1
|
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
82
|
Posted - 2012.02.09 23:25:00 -
[196] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:I have no qualms about piracy for profit at all. That's the point right? Someone's gonna shank one of my clones for saying this, but pirate corps tend to be more experienced and professional than Faction Warfare corps. If you don't pwn, you don't eat. There is a point to having a blob, because you need an efficient loot haul to make up for the fact you're not missioning.
Thanks for your reply Hans.
The problem i have is that your statement about Piracy doesn't really match with some of your statements in your PDF platform. I suspect it may be due in part to differing definitions of piracy. It's my opinion that the outlaw players in Lowsec while no doubt great combat pilots and fierce PvPers are generally not Pirates. Most of the real Pirates of EVE are found in High Sec, some of the better known examples being the Privateers, Suddenly Ninjas/TEARS, Skunkworks among many others.
Here's what you said:
Quote:I'm going to give you my honest opinion here, though it will undoubtedly **** a few people off. I consider predatory high sec war declarations to be one of the cheapest forms of PvP available in the game. Truly hardcore PvP pilots move to low sec or null sec and seek out armed, skilled opponents who present a genuine challenge in return. Picking on a weaker corp and attacking them when you know they cannot fight back is some pretty unimpressive business. It's not worth glorifying, and I refuse to call this kind of non-consensual PvP one of the GÇ£defining features of EvEGÇ¥because there's just so many cooler things you can do in the sandbox.
What do you think Piracy is? Pirates historically, currently, and fictionally do not generally go looking for the toughest opponent to prove themselves, gain imagined honor, and glory. They look for the vulnerable and lucrative targets. This is Piracy, this is PvP for profit, and this is predatory PvP. Just like any real predator they look for prey, the challenge is in the hunt and if successful the end result is an easy kill not a battle. Pirates / predators do not seek to fight armed and dangerous opponents and only do so when such a conflict can't be avoided or the possible gains greatly outweigh the risks.
You also went on to list possible means for Corps to avoid Wardecs:
Quote:I have heard several, straightforward approaches to solving this issue, all of which have merit and are worth serious consideration. One approach would be to enable victimized corporations to simply bribe CONCORD, driving up the cost of war to the declaring corp. This would give true carebear corporations the opportunity to spend the wealth they accumulate to make bothering them much more costly. War fees could also simply rise each week if not declared mutual, making prolonged predatory harassment economically unsustainable.
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.
One last point. You also praise Incursions:
Quote:beloved endgame PvE content in the form of incursions
"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. |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Divine Power. Cascade Imminent
341
|
Posted - 2012.02.09 23:39:00 -
[197] - Quote
Xorv wrote:You also went on to list possible means for Corps to avoid Wardecs: Quote:I have heard several, straightforward approaches to solving this issue, all of which have merit and are worth serious consideration. One approach would be to enable victimized corporations to simply bribe CONCORD, driving up the cost of war to the declaring corp. This would give true carebear corporations the opportunity to spend the wealth they accumulate to make bothering them much more costly. War fees could also simply rise each week if not declared mutual, making prolonged predatory harassment economically unsustainable. 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. . Not to mention it's incredibly harsh on newbies and highsec starter corps full of inexperienced players. Under Hans' system, the ultra-wealthy targets never have to deal with PvP, because all the griefer/PvP targets will focus their efforts on blasting away the younger corps who can't cough up the cash for the 'CONCORD bribe'. Even moreso I mean because NPC corps will still be available. Under the current system, people can cowardly exploit into a decshield regardless of isk or SP - changing it so only poor players have to worry about the cost of nonconsensual PvP isn't a better solution imho. |
Cearain
Imperial Outlaws
254
|
Posted - 2012.02.09 23:47:00 -
[198] - Quote
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:Xorv wrote:You also went on to list possible means for Corps to avoid Wardecs: Quote:I have heard several, straightforward approaches to solving this issue, all of which have merit and are worth serious consideration. One approach would be to enable victimized corporations to simply bribe CONCORD, driving up the cost of war to the declaring corp. This would give true carebear corporations the opportunity to spend the wealth they accumulate to make bothering them much more costly. War fees could also simply rise each week if not declared mutual, making prolonged predatory harassment economically unsustainable. 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. . Not to mention it's incredibly harsh on newbies and highsec starter corps full of inexperienced players. Under Hans' system, the ultra-wealthy targets never have to deal with PvP, because all the griefer/PvP targets will focus their efforts on blasting away the younger corps who can't cough up the cash for the 'CONCORD bribe'. Even moreso I mean because NPC corps will still be available. Under the current system, people can cowardly exploit into a decshield regardless of isk or SP - changing it so only poor players have to worry about the cost of nonconsensual PvP isn't a better solution imho.
To the extent this post is at all coherent, it is untrue. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Divine Power. Cascade Imminent
341
|
Posted - 2012.02.09 23:53:00 -
[199] - Quote
Cearain wrote:To the extent this post is at all coherent, it is untrue. Nope, all true. |
HELIC0N ONE
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
81
|
Posted - 2012.02.10 00:01:00 -
[200] - Quote
Zagam wrote:So basically... your entire platform is everything that doesn't involve nullsec... and the statement "I'm not The Mittani, and I'm not a goon".
Very nice PDF document, though.
Up until this thread Hans seemed a pretty positive candidate: enthusiastic, active, and able to form complete, properly punctuated sentences. His fixation in the OP on being a 'anything but nullsec' candidate and Evil Goon Shenanigans undermines this somewhat, it would have been better to focus on his own positive features rather than get sidetracked into echoing the rather silly CSM6 hysteria we've seen on these forums in recent months.
I hope he focuses on why he makes a good candidate, rather than trying to ride a wave of 'anti-nullsec' which has been made up largely of the badposts and empty rhetoric of a few bitter babies with too much time on their hands to recycle forum alts. |
|
Iam Widdershins
Project Nemesis Moar Tears
478
|
Posted - 2012.02.10 01:27:00 -
[201] - Quote
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? Representing experience and reason in CSM 7 |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
1145
|
Posted - 2012.02.10 01:27:00 -
[202] - Quote
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.
Quote:The second suggestion that I mentioned was the removal of "tiers" and instead having roles instead for each type of ship in Eve. There are a fair amount of T1 ships all across the board that are never used because there are just direct upgrades to them.
This is a tougher one for me, only because in Faction Warfare we have a lot of experience doing PvP on a budget, and I think generally get more out of the commonly overlooked ships than elsewhere in the game. In null, fleet doctrine mandates ship and fitting selection a lot of the time, whereas in highsec, the more PvE-based activity favors the ship with the most tanking ability, which would indeed lead to the idea that the tier 1 and 2 ships are "obsolete".
So I'd argue that while I don't believe the lower tiers are useless, they certainly could use a balancing pass, and I'm excited that I've heard rumor that CCP has that in the works. The tier 3 BC's are nice in that they fit a more niche role, I can see them giving the tier 1 BC's more specialization as well. I don't know whether or not we need to remove the naming system or not, that matters far less to me than making sure the ships all have their uses, like you said. |
Ogi Talvanen
Enlightened Industries Test Alliance Please Ignore
93
|
Posted - 2012.02.10 01:35:00 -
[203] - Quote
"Asteroids captcha" You have my like! |
Abyss Azizora
Yuengling Technologies
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.10 01:36:00 -
[204] - Quote
HELIC0N ONE wrote:Zagam wrote:So basically... your entire platform is everything that doesn't involve nullsec... and the statement "I'm not The Mittani, and I'm not a goon".
Very nice PDF document, though. Up until this thread Hans seemed a pretty positive candidate: enthusiastic, active, and able to form complete, properly punctuated sentences. His fixation in the OP on being a 'anything but nullsec' candidate and Evil Goon Shenanigans undermines this somewhat, it would have been better to focus on his own positive features rather than get sidetracked into echoing the rather silly CSM6 hysteria we've seen on these forums in recent months. I hope he focuses on why he makes a good candidate, rather than trying to ride a wave of 'anti-nullsec' which has been made up largely of the badposts and empty rhetoric of a few bitter babies with too much time on their hands to recycle forum alts.
Confirming goonswarm members don't like the candidate. This guy is now officially worth voting for. Hell, I'll start campaigning for you now. |
Mister Kwong
State War Academy Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.10 01:56:00 -
[205] - Quote
HELIC0N ONE wrote:Zagam wrote:So basically... your entire platform is everything that doesn't involve nullsec... and the statement "I'm not The Mittani, and I'm not a goon".
Very nice PDF document, though. Up until this thread Hans seemed a pretty positive candidate: enthusiastic, active, and able to form complete, properly punctuated sentences. His fixation in the OP on being a 'anything but nullsec' candidate and Evil Goon Shenanigans undermines this somewhat, it would have been better to focus on his own positive features rather than get sidetracked into echoing the rather silly CSM6 hysteria we've seen on these forums in recent months. I hope he focuses on why he makes a good candidate, rather than trying to ride a wave of 'anti-nullsec' which has been made up largely of the badposts and empty rhetoric of a few bitter babies with too much time on their hands to recycle forum alts.
The fact that Goons are already chiming with in the propaganda and spinning confirms that they are already threatened by FW pilots and empire dwellers ruining their nullsec CSM7 plans. Working as intended.
|
Carcosa Hali
True Slave Foundations Shaktipat Revelators
12
|
Posted - 2012.02.10 02:02:00 -
[206] - Quote
" if the faction warfare iterations are a success, I think its only natural that they follow the original design intent and expand to include pirate factions as well"
"It's also a shame that most pirate mission content that does exist in the game resides in 0.0, whereas most players that culturally consider themselves pirates (and often honor ransom's, etc) primarily reside in low sec. "
You just got a +1 |
Damassys Kadesh
Eternal Damnation of the Woken Mind
43
|
Posted - 2012.02.10 04:04:00 -
[207] - Quote
I'm going to pump you up as much as I can (being a casual player).
I haven't had a full read of the document yet, but I will soon(tm). ;) I am in Factional Warfare and it needs a lot of work: -It's NOT a stepping stone to null -It DOESN'T have balanced risk/reward -It COULD EASILY be the best feature for small-scale PvP CCP, the players are speaking up, please take the time to listen carefully |
Thistlegorm
Monty Pythons Flying Spaceships
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.10 05:57:00 -
[208] - Quote
Interesting platform document.
Good to hear someone crying death to the mining bots!
You'll get my vote. |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
2051
|
Posted - 2012.02.10 05:57:00 -
[209] - Quote
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:So you can still haul, mine, rat and trade all you want through NPC corp alts and enjoy a lowered risk level over those who don't, you just can't mine, rat and trade as efficiently?
This would be a more accurate way of describing the balance that I believe needs to be protected in high security space. Missed an interview or debate? Check my CSM7 blog for details.
Many thanks to all of my friends and supporters for the kind words! |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
1150
|
Posted - 2012.02.10 06:27:00 -
[210] - Quote
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, "-áI think we'd prefer CCP beta-test ideas on a smaller population and see if they work out on a smaller scale, first.-á" 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. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 26 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |