Jita Park Speakers Corner

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Hans Jagerblitzen for CSM7

First post First post
Author
It Burns When I'm PvPing
#381 - 2012-02-16 14:20:03 UTC
Mortromain wrote:
Cearain wrote:

I don't think many people in low sec are deterred from ganking you due to the anti-pvp ss mechanics. Either they have decided they will not shoot neutrals, or they likely blow up your ship if they think they can get away with it.

Also he is not trying move all of low sec to the sisi. Ships and modules will still cost isk so PVP will still have consequences.



I aggree that people in low sec already made their choice about whether they will shoot neutral or not. However, they will either have to forget about high sec at some point or to stop.

and many people don't come to low sec because of this SS system. These changes might make casual piracy too easy. This could be good (i mean more people = more fight), but low sec should be a place where people live, not some sort of toilets where people come doing **** and leave. I'm afraid of a lowsec becoming as dangerous as nullsec.

FW already is an arena for consensual PvP.



I think you are probably right that this will bring more people into low sec looking for pvp. This in turn might mean that pvers will have more people looking to kill them per system. That would likely mean somewhat fewer pvers. I tend to think it would be a net increase for low sec though.

However if this happens ccp could do at least 2 different things to offset this. 1) they could make more low sec systems like they did with black rise. This would mean there are no longer more people per system and pvers could still find a quieter system for pve. 2) They could give some increases in the rewards pvers get in low sec.

The end result would mean more people are in low sec doing what they want to do.

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

#382 - 2012-02-16 15:12:14 UTC
Cearain wrote:
Mortromain wrote:
Cearain wrote:

I don't think many people in low sec are deterred from ganking you due to the anti-pvp ss mechanics. Either they have decided they will not shoot neutrals, or they likely blow up your ship if they think they can get away with it.

Also he is not trying move all of low sec to the sisi. Ships and modules will still cost isk so PVP will still have consequences.



I aggree that people in low sec already made their choice about whether they will shoot neutral or not. However, they will either have to forget about high sec at some point or to stop.

and many people don't come to low sec because of this SS system. These changes might make casual piracy too easy. This could be good (i mean more people = more fight), but low sec should be a place where people live, not some sort of toilets where people come doing **** and leave. I'm afraid of a lowsec becoming as dangerous as nullsec.

FW already is an arena for consensual PvP.



I think you are probably right that this will bring more people into low sec looking for pvp. This in turn might mean that pvers will have more people looking to kill them per system. That would likely mean somewhat fewer pvers. I tend to think it would be a net increase for low sec though.

However if this happens ccp could do at least 2 different things to offset this. 1) they could make more low sec systems like they did with black rise. This would mean there are no longer more people per system and pvers could still find a quieter system for pve. 2) They could give some increases in the rewards pvers get in low sec.

The end result would mean more people are in low sec doing what they want to do.

I do really think that they should increase the number of lowsec systems too. It'll make it harder to track down people in those systems and add a false sense of security to have more people come out and stay a while. Personally I'd love to mine in lowsec but at the current time there are just too many people roaming the systems at pretty much all hours. Plus more systems adds to the already large universe which I have a feeling may become fairly cramped if all things on the horizon go well.
Shadow Cartel
#383 - 2012-02-16 15:54:35 UTC
Mortromain wrote:

- Do you think that low sec should be a place where people can live in doing other stuff than PvP? or should it just be a battle arena where anyone can shoot at anything?


Excellent question. Low sec should provide both, in the end, I don’t see them as mutually exclusive. Many of my corpmates do not earn their income through PvP, they earn it from the many PvE activities there are to do in the region.

Pirates are the main group of players that earn their isk through PvP, though there are some individuals in the militia who loot enough to get by. The vast majority of us in the low sec casual PvP crowd are usually engaged in other activities, such as FW missions, exploration sites, static plexes, and generalized ratting, mining, and industry.

All of these activities not only need to be protected, they need to be enhanced. Low sec doesn't suffer a total lack of content, its just that the reward doesn't scale up enough to properly entice high sec players to take the "risk" and play in low sec.

The reason I say “risk“ in quotes is because I like to be real specific about which activities I consider to carry a chance-based negative outcome. Risk to me is flying a large ship blindly through a gate, with no scout, and no defensive modules such as a warp core stabilizer or cloaking device. Most low sec pilots don’t do these things, and those that do deserve to lose their ship.

The fact is, most ratting, missioning, exploration, mining, and hauling can all be done relatively risk free, if done in the proper ship, using the proper fitting, and the proper piloting techniques. Defensive scanning and working with friends goes a long way towards making low sec a lot less scary. You really have a choice 95% of the time whether to engage in PvP, or whether to avoid it if you so desire.

None of the low sec proposals I endorse really change that reality. When I talk about low sec being fight club, or a battle arena, I’m specifically referring to supporting those of us that PvP against each other for sport. The Jack Dant proposal, for example, removes the GCC flag from two pilots of negative security status engaging each other on a gate, GCC and sentry fire would still apply to a pirate attacking a mission boat or hauler.

I believe its possible to simultaneously increase the rewards for the non-PvP activities in the region, and still make it easier for those that want to PvP against each other without the legal restrictions of high sec or the alliance politics of null sec interfering. The pilots who simply want to run PvE or harvest resources in low sec would retain all the same tools for protection that they have today.

The real danger, as you pointed out, is in low sec becoming like null. I do NOT support measures like allowing bubbles in lowsec that would hamper the ability to move and operate freely, provided the pilot is in the proper ship or properly scouts the way. In null, interdiction ability dramatically changes both the tangible risk of jumping through a gate and the risk of warping to an object. There needs to be a hard line drawn between the two regions, because the impact on casual play (both PvE and PvP) is immense.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary

Shadow Cartel
#384 - 2012-02-16 16:05:33 UTC
Little Brat wrote:
QUESTION: I hate botting, there is a lot of it going on. I propose that at the announcement "Request for docking permission" the pilot would have to enter a randomly generated password for docking permission to be granted. Comment?


I hate botting too, but unfortunately this specific request I think might be a bit heavy handed. It would work great for preventing bot activity, but it would severely hamper PvP, because like Vordak pointed out you’d see a lot of ship deaths when a pilot fails to type fast enough.

The way we should fix botting, in my opinion, is to fix the core activity and game play such that artificial intelligence can no longer substitute for human intuition. There is a reason we don’t see PvP bots – there are too many variables. I think it’s possible to get mining and missioning content into that realm as well, with some development effort. When we do , the enjoyment level of the game increases for everyone, and its a far better goal to be striving for than simply adding password-type stop gap solutions.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary

Minmatar Republic
#385 - 2012-02-16 16:23:46 UTC
well to be more specific, blocking SS loss to -2 as long as your not podkilling is my problem, this kind of allow piracy without drawbacks. On the other hand, allowing someone to shoot at negative status without drawback when in low sec is fine with me.
Minmatar Republic
#386 - 2012-02-16 16:42:12 UTC
Hans is why I am in Faction Warfare today.

He's a good guy, he's a smart guy, and in terms of fairness and consideration, one of the best people I've met in EVE so far.

Anyone that lives in lowsec or highsec, or even wanders there from time to time for a change of pace would be well off to vote for him. He will do a great job of representing us.



Shadow Cartel
#387 - 2012-02-16 17:23:29 UTC
Mortromain wrote:
well to be more specific, blocking SS loss to -2 as long as your not podkilling is my problem, this kind of allow piracy without drawbacks. On the other hand, allowing someone to shoot at negative status without drawback when in low sec is fine with me.


Cearain made the excellent point that sentry fire itself is only a roadbump to piracy and doesn’t really “protect“ the mission runner or miner wandering through low sec. Pirates can use logistics to overcome this barrier quite easily, so you still have to use measures like cloaks, stabs, scouting, and safety in numbers to minimize losses.

If players with any negative security status became fair game to fire upon, that to me is a far greater penalty to breaking the law than simply being shot by a low sec sentry gun. Gate guns only restrict the type of ships pirates can use, they don’t stop them from doing their job.

High sec players wanting to move to low sec and PvE or mine successfully have to learn basic self-defense techniques anyways, and none my proposed changes to low sec affect the usefulness of those techniques. Once a pilot learns to scout, cloaky travel, and scan for danger, gate guns become negligible in terms of their impact on true “risk“. They’re tinfoil protection at best, so I’m fine with lifting them under the right circumstances.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary

The Bloc
#388 - 2012-02-16 19:10:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Deen Wispa
Mortromain wrote:
Cearain wrote:

I don't think many people in low sec are deterred from ganking you due to the anti-pvp ss mechanics. Either they have decided they will not shoot neutrals, or they likely blow up your ship if they think they can get away with it.

Also he is not trying move all of low sec to the sisi. Ships and modules will still cost isk so PVP will still have consequences.



I aggree that people in low sec already made their choice about whether they will shoot neutral or not. However, they will either have to forget about high sec at some point or to stop.

and many people don't come to low sec because of this SS system. These changes might make casual piracy too easy. This could be good (i mean more people = more fight), but low sec should be a place where people live, not some sort of toilets where people come doing **** and leave. I'm afraid of a lowsec becoming as dangerous as nullsec.

FW already is an arena for consensual PvP.


Your logic that pilots will need "to forget about hisec at some point or to stop" is iffy. Because tons of pilots have been trying to balance their outlaw status and keep it above -2 just so they have the freedom to enter hisec. I'm one of them. Quite frankly, I hate trying to balance it and Hans solution could make my life a heck of alot easier.

In an ideal world, lowsec should be a place for 'long term' residents but no one to my knowledge has really presented a viable long term fix that can work within CCP's development framework. Have you found someone who has presented an alternative framework for lowsec that you'd like to bring to our awareness? I have some issues with Han's platform on lowsec but it's still the most REALISTIC solution I've seen so far.

It can be argued that nullsec is safer than lowsec. Once you get past the initial bubble camps, it's practically empty.

High Five. Yeah! C'est La Eve .

#389 - 2012-02-16 19:50:05 UTC
I hope I didn't miss these elsewhere in the thread, but I have three questions for you:

1) How do you feel about time dilation and the potential impact it has on CCP in regards to demotivating them in upgrading server hardware?

2) PLEX/GTC prices are too damn high. How will you leverage your influence on the CSM to bring down the price of game time paid with isk?

3) How should CCP reward veterans for their longevity in playing this game instead of punishing them via "end-game" nerfs?

Thanks for answering and good luck in your campaign!
Minmatar Republic
#390 - 2012-02-16 20:51:22 UTC
You got all 3 of my votes Hans!

FW/low sec needs an advocate on the CSM and I applaud you for stepping up to run.
The Initiative.
#391 - 2012-02-16 21:18:42 UTC
Timmy Tebow wrote:
I hope I didn't miss these elsewhere in the thread, but I have three questions for you:

1) How do you feel about time dilation and the potential impact it has on CCP in regards to demotivating them in upgrading server hardware?

2) PLEX/GTC prices are too damn high. How will you leverage your influence on the CSM to bring down the price of game time paid with isk?

3) How should CCP reward veterans for their longevity in playing this game instead of punishing them via "end-game" nerfs?

Thanks for answering and good luck in your campaign!


Allow me to answer, using my own style of drunken shitpost-fu

1) Wow, Timmy, that's a really bad question. Like, you should feel bad for how bad that question was. TiDi is something that probably won't touch us lowsec warriors, and it's apparently making the game a whole shitload more playable out in null

2) While you're at it Hans, could you use GM market fuckery to drop the prices on Gyrostabilisers? You can do that, right? Just make **** on the market cheaper? That's a thing

3) You know what I have in rewards for longevity? A whole fuckload of SP. Like my ships are 10-20% better, just because it's my dumb ass in front of the wheel. That's pretty nifty.

In conclusion, your questions are really bad and you should feel bad for them. Kill yourself and give me your stuff
#392 - 2012-02-16 21:53:36 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Ugleb wrote:
+1 for being a non-null sec candidate that does not appear to be frothing at the mouth over the null sec bloc domination.

Please continue to present your hi/low sec experience as your main asset, and not harp on on about those evil null sec ppl.


Well, the null sec bloc domination is a serious issue, but I promise to keep my froth under control.

The issue isn't with "evil null sec ppl" anyways, I have no hard feelings against any of the players themselves. I also believe that most of the 0.0 alliance leaders elected to the CSM govern with the best intentions.

However, no council member is immune to their own bias, so we must also secure a voice on the council that will fight to protect the interests of empire citizens.

Quote:
Oh btw, I suspect the bit in your manifesto about asteroids moving about and colliding might kill TQ when it tries to track all those extra objects moving around in the physics engine thingy. It would be like hundreds of drakes spamming missiles continuously, but happening in every system all at once. ;)

So maybe we shouldn't ask CCP to do that bit.


There isn't any harm in asking, they can always have a laugh and say "No." Lol A new physics engine is, admittedly, not the most efficient way to improve mining, we can probably better tackle the boredom factor by addressing the mineral distribution within the asteroids, and better tackle the botting problem by implementing a visual texture-based solution.

The reason I discussed asteroid movement is because developmentally, mining remains in such an infant state that it invites much more imaginative changes than other features. I wanted readers to have a sense for how I personally envision a more thrilling mining environment, despite there being obvious technical considerations.


You might have just earned my vote as well as my +1, well done. Blink

Yes I do agree that null sec was probably over represented in CSM 6, and I say that as someone who has spent the vast majority of my considerable EVE-time out there.

I think your incremental changes approach to low sec/FW is practical, but I'd warn against being overly conservative. You're absolutely right that it is the PVP that should be incentivised over the PVE elements of FW, but I think that some deeper reaching changes need to be made to the mechanics then simply redistributing rewards.

But mostly, occupancy needs to be made important. That has always been FW's key failing and the core reason why I have spent years in null sec rather than in FW. I love my RP, but pointless objectives are pointless.

http://uglebsjournal.wordpress.com/

The Jotunn Risi are now recruiting, Brutor ancestry required in order to best represent the Brutor interest.  Join channel JORIS to learn more!

Amarr Empire
#393 - 2012-02-16 23:03:26 UTC
Deen Wispa wrote:
In an ideal world, lowsec should be a place for 'long term' residents but no one to my knowledge has really presented a viable long term fix that can work within CCP's development framework. Have you found someone who has presented an alternative framework for lowsec that you'd like to bring to our awareness? I have some issues with Han's platform on lowsec but it's still the most REALISTIC solution I've seen so far.


Agreed, and lets be realistic here about the role of the CSM. CSM are not game designers. I am skeptical of the candidates proposing grand and sweeping changes to gameplay and mechanics, such as Kelduum's war-deck scheme, which will never see the light of day, and hopefully will not be left to linger and burn up scarce CSM and CCP time. The advantage of Hans' proposals, even if you don't like them, is that they are small and iterative, aren't heavy-handed, ham-fisted attempts to bully players into a given playstyle, and many can probably be implemented in a few hours and thrown up on the CCP internal test servers.

Small changes that give players more options = good. Massive changes that dictate and restrict gameplay = bad.
Minmatar Republic
#394 - 2012-02-16 23:38:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Mortromain
Ok, i understand more why i was troubled by this SS threshold thing.

I fear that allowing piracy without highsec interdiction might transform low-sec into a huge amamake.
I mean, what you call drawbacks, i don't :
- The isk loss is nothing, a high sec player will have chosen to dedicate it to "sport" as you say. A pirate need to kill me to make isk, i need to survive if i want to make profit at the end of the day, it would kind of unbalance the game to put people messing around without any care for profitability.
- being shootable by anyone in low sec is not a drawback, it's what they want. I understand that a lot of people want to do casual and consensual PvP, but that is basically what FW offers (without the FFA part, can't you do without it?).

Besides, pvping for "sport" seems more like putting a pvp tag on you to me, like in some other games. Eve is not this kind of game, it is a game where your actions affects the way you play. Besides, there are not many things you can't do in low sec (if any), it's just harder.

To Deen Wispa :

Deen Wispa wrote:
Quite frankly, I hate trying to balance it and Hans solution could make my life a heck of alot easier.

That's precisely my point.

Deen Wispa wrote:
It can be argued that nullsec is safer than lowsec

I agree, the word easier is what i should have used, there are more stations and less jumps to do in low sec.


I have the feeling that you think i am trying to criticize Hans work, this is not the case, i really think many things in his platform pdf are great (bounty and kill right change, GCC reduction and others), I just have the feeling that this sport thing and the SS threshold might destroy all lowsec potential to become a place for long term residence.
Shadow Cartel
#395 - 2012-02-17 00:39:12 UTC
Timmy Tebow wrote:
I hope I didn't miss these elsewhere in the thread, but I have three questions for you:

1) How do you feel about time dilation and the potential impact it has on CCP in regards to demotivating them in upgrading server hardware?

2) PLEX/GTC prices are too damn high. How will you leverage your influence on the CSM to bring down the price of game time paid with isk?

3) How should CCP reward veterans for their longevity in playing this game instead of punishing them via "end-game" nerfs?

Thanks for answering and good luck in your campaign!


Time dilation is a difficult issue for me to chime in on at this point in time, mainly because I've avoided the kind of fights where lag is bad enough that it would kick in. They're not my cup of tea. I can't in good conscience argue that CCP needs to be upgrading their server hardware, because I haven't seen enough evidence of this in my day-to-day game play. If the rest of the CSM7 agreed it was a major issue, I'd trust their judgement and support them in seeing it resolved.

Regarding PLEX prices, I can understand that you feel they are too high, but I also believe that EvE's player driven market should remain precisely that - player driven. We have to remember that EvE is fundamentally a $15.00 a month subscription model, not play-for-free. It is a convenience that CCP allows two players to exchange RL time for in-game time, but I'm dubious giving CCP the authority to place a value on what a player's own time means to them. It's a personal decision.

For your third question, I'd to have ask you which specific "end-game" nerfs you're referring too. Supercaps? Anomolies? Incursions? "End-game" is a highly controversial term to use in a game like EvE, where players set their own goals. If you could let me know what exactly you're talking about, I'll happily share my opinion.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary

Snuffed Out
#396 - 2012-02-17 00:53:17 UTC
Tell CCP to make it if you have PVP agression you CANNOT activate self-destruction of your ship
Mercenary Coalition
#397 - 2012-02-17 01:38:23 UTC
Everyone here realizes that Hans is going to be on the CSM, right? Just checking. Carry on. Pirate

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!

Shadow Cartel
#398 - 2012-02-17 01:39:15 UTC
Mortromain wrote:

I fear that allowing piracy without highsec interdiction might transform low-sec into a huge amamake.
I mean, what you call drawbacks, i don't :
- The isk loss is nothing, a high sec player will have chosen to dedicate it to "sport" as you say. A pirate need to kill me to make isk, i need to survive if i want to make profit at the end of the day, it would kind of unbalance the game to put people messing around without any care for profitability.
- being shootable by anyone in low sec is not a drawback, it's what they want. I understand that a lot of people want to do casual and consensual PvP, but that is basically what FW offers (without the FFA part, can't you do without it?).

Besides, pvping for "sport" seems more like putting a pvp tag on you to me, like in some other games. Eve is not this kind of game, it is a game where your actions affects the way you play. Besides, there are not many things you can't do in low sec (if any), it's just harder.


Discussions like this can get tricky, so I think we're going to have to be real specific here to make sure we're on the same page.

With the current rules, low sec criminals like myself that don't break the law in highsec are still shut out of high sec. This is what actually contribues to low sec being more like Amamake, the fact that there are lots of us who are stuck here. If I could be in high sec more often, I would be. Allowing more free transit between low and high sec space for folks like me that behave themselves while in high sec actually may actually lower the resident low sec population, making it safer, not more dangerous.

The other problem with the current situation is that it took me a lot of attacks on neutrals to get to -4.8. Despite my clear willingness to engage in PvP, under current rules YOU would be considered the criminal if you attacked me on a gate. Does it makes sense to you that I can attack so many neutral "suspected Amarr sympathizers" yet you would be the one to have your SS lowered for attacking me?

Part of my vision for high sec space is more player-driven justice, where crimes leave the criminal open to retribution by other players. This is the core of the bounty system I outlined. The Jack Dant proposal is a great extension of this, because it removes protections that players like me currently enjoy despite the number of crimes I've committed in low sec.

I understand it may sound like flagging, but the difference is that I only "flag" myself for PvP by committing crimes. If I don't commit crimes, I'm not able to just "flag" myself for PvP. It's a choice I make with my actions, not by selecting an item on a menu. I hope readers here are following and understand that there's a difference between the two.

Once again to clarify: If you were living in low sec, and had a positive security status (most non-PvPers would), I would still get GCC and sentry fire for attacking you. Nothing I've discussed changes that fact. I'm advocating changes that allow law-abiding citizens free aggression upon law-breaking citizens, not the other way around.

The only way these changes increase the danger level for pilots living in low sec is if they make the decision to engage in non-consensual PvP. If you just wanted to come out here and run some deadspace plexes, it wouldn't affect your safety level at all, does that make sense?

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary

Shadow Cartel
#399 - 2012-02-17 01:58:42 UTC
Seleene wrote:
Everyone here realizes that Hans is going to be on the CSM, right? Just checking. Carry on. Pirate




ONLY if you guys all get your corpmates to vote for me, and your friends, and their corpmates too. Including all your other accounts!

We've only just begun folks, there's still a lot of hard work to do to spread the message further in the weeks ahead. This is no time for complacency!

Seleene I appreciate the love but no more making this sound like I've got it in the bag, alright! Twisted

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary

Amarr Empire
#400 - 2012-02-17 02:20:22 UTC
Forum Jump