Jita Park Speakers Corner

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Hans Jagerblitzen for CSM7

First post First post
Author
Amarr Empire
#421 - 2012-02-19 11:33:18 UTC
Herr Jagerblitzen! For too long CCP has enacted a harsh policy on not just hisecers, but all Eve Online players, a policy that makes a mockery of the sandbox theory, a policy that expects us to conform, without even raising our voices in protest.

I ask you, what will you do to ensure that we can all run around pantless? We are capsuleers! Living gods in this universe! Living gods with nice thighs! Won't you please do what you must to allow us to show off our smooth silky legs?
#422 - 2012-02-19 21:10:45 UTC
Hans for president! I mean... wait, what?

I've read a lot of your reasoning behind lowsec (and fw in particular) being a testbed for new nullsec mechanics. I agree almost entirely, but I do want to hear what (if any in particular) plans you have to really give strong value to fw plexing and things of this nature. I'm sure I've read a few fairly specific ideas you've had and also plenty of others speaking for you, but I'd really like some detail about how you see it being fixed. In that vein, do you think FW should have a "sov-style" system where the capture and holding of a system actually holds a significant value to the militias? or are the ideas more cosmetic and 'meaningless' (not meant as insulting)?

It's obviously a big balancing game of making FW meaningful to those playing, but not so glorious as to invite all those blobby nullsec pubbie alliances to stick their noses where they are not needed. I don't in particular have a great idea in mind, but I'd really love to hear any more details you have in mind for the system. I've been in FW to one extent or another for the past 3 years (and was a nullsec resident for the previous 2), and the last thing I want to see is the overwhelming odds of nullsec being thrust on the fairly low-key and independent groups in lowsec.

Anyways, a hundred words to say very little... I want you to spill more details! Get with it!! Lol
#423 - 2012-02-20 04:11:17 UTC
2 votes from me, Hans. Keep up the good work and try to get that Jack Dant Proposal pushed through!

http://www.rollinseveride.blogspot.com

It Burns When I'm PvPing
#424 - 2012-02-20 06:28:49 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Seismic Stan wrote:

Essentially, should those players who seek a more immersive storyline-driven experience look elsewhere and leave EVE to be the dominion of the e-sports PvPers?

Should player-driven content be the only content?


Absolutely not. I think it is a tremendous waste of all the creativity that went into EvE's lore to not develop the story lines of the various empires and pirate factions in parallel to the stories the players create themselves. Yes, even the prepackaged content (Chronicles, novels, etc) delivered by CCP enriches the universe in a way that's meaningful to many players.

.....


I think ccp has to recognize why the lore perhaps doesn't catch on much. It's not that people no longer have an interest in this genre of science fiction. IMHO it's that eve lore in particular is a bit cliche.

We have the religious nutjobs who are out to enslave a whole race (lol) for religious reasons.

We have the freedom fighters of that race

We have the capitalist pigs.

And we have the Pseudo-French.

I don't really have good answers for this because I am not a good writer either. But maybe when jovians are discovered they will be from earth and tie things back to real world things. Like real religions and real issues of capitalism versus socialism etc. This new information from the jovians could cause some splintering in the factions. New scriptures, new constitutions, new histories or whatever people value, because the current set doesn't really draw people.

I don't really know that I have this right. That idea might have problems as well. The only thing I can say is I really like science fiction and I really like eve. But I can't get into eve science fiction. Sad I'm not the only one. For being a "Role playing" mmo there are very few role players. I don't mean to derail the thread but why does eve fiction not draw a better crowd?

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

No Handlebars.
#425 - 2012-02-20 08:49:55 UTC
I'll be voting for you Hans. Keep up the good work.
#426 - 2012-02-20 11:05:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Anabaric
Anything that brings more people into lowsec benefits me as a lowsec -10 dweller
You have my votes.

Also I'd like to see GCC in lowsec shortened to 5min. Unbuff the gate guns, for the last year they've been able to instalock and pop frigates with GCC. I may not want to fight on a gate with GCC in a frig, but I at least want to be able to go system to system without getting shot up.

Community Manager www.Battleclinic.com @battleclinic Loadouts + Killboards + Forums Twitter @anabaric_eve www.the-bastards.net Recruitment: OPEN

Shadow Cartel
#427 - 2012-02-20 20:55:38 UTC
Rei Seiji wrote:
Herr Jagerblitzen! For too long CCP has enacted a harsh policy on not just hisecers, but all Eve Online players, a policy that makes a mockery of the sandbox theory, a policy that expects us to conform, without even raising our voices in protest.

I ask you, what will you do to ensure that we can all run around pantless? We are capsuleers! Living gods in this universe! Living gods with nice thighs! Won't you please do what you must to allow us to show off our smooth silky legs?



I fully support a no-clothes option for Avatars while lounging in our Captains Quarters. Since we can't have our friends over anyways, I see no reason we shouldn't be able to take advantage of the privacy!

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary

Caldari State
#428 - 2012-02-20 22:46:10 UTC
You have MY vote.

Now You will win for sure.
#429 - 2012-02-20 23:35:42 UTC
You have all my votes.

When your gut instincts tell you something is wrong, trust them. When your heart tells you something is right, ignore it, check with your brain first. Accept nothing, challenge everything.

#430 - 2012-02-21 03:56:46 UTC
We're voting for you. Would love to see you not only win, but take the chair, about time goonswarm got kicked out of it and replaced by someone that isn't a moron.
Templis CALSF
#431 - 2012-02-21 11:19:44 UTC
bump for hans Big smile
Minmatar Republic
#432 - 2012-02-21 12:49:12 UTC
Voting for you hans because I know from your FW-related posts that you dont leave things unfinished and I hope you'll speak for those who oppose microtransactions as well.

Good luck.
Thermodynamics
#433 - 2012-02-21 16:27:46 UTC
Super Chair wrote:
bump for hans Big smile


bump.

Sa souvraya niende misain ye.

#434 - 2012-02-21 22:11:02 UTC
As I suspected. No crying need for me as a protest vote with you around Hans.

You have the support and endorsement of the man who stands against all candidates, I hope that means something to people.

Good luck!

Hans Jagerblitzen for CSM7!

The only end-game content in EVE Online is the crap that makes you rage quit.

Shadow Cartel
#435 - 2012-02-22 01:54:00 UTC
SigmaPi wrote:
In that vein, do you think FW should have a "sov-style" system where the capture and holding of a system actually holds a significant value to the militias? or are the ideas more cosmetic and 'meaningless' (not meant as insulting)?


Sigma Pi wrote:
I want you to spill more details! Get with it!!


I would argue that the current "consequences" to capturing a system are already cosmetic and meaningless, and since they haven't been enough to sustain activity levels over the years the next set of FW improvements must include rewards and punishment that actually impact gameplay.

There are lots of ways both large and small in which we can reward successful occupancy, but I think the first round of fixes must be tied to the existing core system. No sense in throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Did you know that you can actually get LP for player kills? Most militia pilots don't. That's because the amount rewarded for a kill is so negligible the average pilot doesn't even realize he's earning it. This is an easy problem to fix. And with most death payouts, as long as the LP kickout is a percentage of the ship value you can prevent kill-farming for profit quite easily.

Players have also long appreciated the idea of the plexing mechanics, though not found enough reasons to engage inside them as supposed to on a gate, station, or belt. One of the most common questions a new player asks when they join FW is "how many LP do I earn for capturing a plex"? Frustratingly, the answer is none. Players intuitively assume they are being rewarded for their efforts, and then get dismayed when they find out this isn't the case. LP for plexing is one of the most commonly demanded fixes, and is a no-brainer for discussing with CCP. I understand there are legitimate concerns about farming and isk faucets, but if we can successfully move the isk-generation from PvE (level 4 missions farmed by bombers) to PvP (plex seizure by small gangs) it will be a massive step in the right direction. Central to all of these adjustments will be tweaks to the AI for whatever NPC presence is needed, so that the plexes are not farmable the same way the missions are today.

Even in the most radical scenario where missions were dropped and equivalent LP was to be found in plexes, the amount of increased activity in the plexes would be plenty sufficient to create locations where players could almost be guaranteed a fight. I personally don't care how many alts come to farm LP if they're doing it by plexing in gangs of destroyers, cruisers, and battlecruisers. That would be much more fun to engage than chasing individual stealth bombers in distant mission locations.

Giving cookies is one way to encourage fights, but we can also include some punishments for losing system occupancy as well. While I'm hesitant to endorse 0.0-style full station lockouts, I think it just makes sense that a Tribal Liberation Force pilot hanging on the undock of a 24th Imperial Crusade station is going to get shot. We are at war, after all. Systems will change hands faster than architects can build new stations, so we might have a designation that says "TLF-occupied 24th IC Logistics Support" indicating the station is currently under control of enemy troops, and will fire upon its previous owners. Station fire cuts down on boring docking games, and provides a sense of "home turf" that is sorely missing fromt he battlefield right now.

The other major missing component from the Faction Warfare feature is reliable data regarding the state of the battlefield. We desperately need an updated UI window for the militia tab, containing the progress indicator for a system takeover attempt, and perhaps such as information as the location of all open plexes or possibly whether they are currently under attack. Players need to be able to know how to be useful, and where to head to get some action. It should be fairly difficult to "ninjaflip" a system without the enemy having a clue as to what you're up to.

Note that these are pretty simple changes and have nothing to do with null sec soverignty, and would still go light years towards promoting frequent of fights. They also don't involve throwing more isk at the players, but simply shifting its source from PvE to PvP where it belongs. I think CCP should start with these basics, and see what the impact is before gutting plexes and implementing something different that could somehow be used in 0.0 space. In the meantime, they should be soaking up the good ideas being tossed around by the players in threads like this one that are currently active with discussion.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary

#436 - 2012-02-22 02:36:35 UTC
Very nice, Mr. Hans! +1 (or more Big smile)

I agree with you on every single point, however: it may be totally academic, but I would like to hear your views (for or against) system modification in relation to FW (like IHUBlite?). One of the more 'frustrating' things of the whole area is the perceived effort for perceived gain. Don't get me wrong, I love PVP and consider that its own reward, but if a faction wants to put in the effort to 'upgrade' a system from simply a staging area to a stronghold, should they have the tools to allow for this? I'm sure this is it's own can of worms and may not even be pertinent for this thread (and if not, feel free to ignore), but my creativity and imagination have taken the best of me.

I think FW and EVE have so much to offer the more casual gamer, but I think they can also benefit from commitment as well! If you have any ideas on a more fanciful future, I'd love to hear them!

<3 Hans!
A Band Apart.
#437 - 2012-02-22 03:48:01 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
SigmaPi wrote:
In that vein, do you think FW should have a "sov-style" system where the capture and holding of a system actually holds a significant value to the militias? or are the ideas more cosmetic and 'meaningless' (not meant as insulting)?


Sigma Pi wrote:
I want you to spill more details! Get with it!!


WORDS CUT FOR SPACE

Players have also long appreciated the idea of the plexing mechanics, though not found enough reasons to engage inside them as supposed to on a gate, station, or belt. One of the most common questions a new player asks when they join FW is "how many LP do I earn for capturing a plex"? Frustratingly, the answer is none. Players intuitively assume they are being rewarded for their efforts, and then get dismayed when they find out this isn't the case. LP for plexing is one of the most commonly demanded fixes, and is a no-brainer for discussing with CCP. I understand there are legitimate concerns about farming and isk faucets, but if we can successfully move the isk-generation from PvE (level 4 missions farmed by bombers) to PvP (plex seizure by small gangs) it will be a massive step in the right direction. Central to all of these adjustments will be tweaks to the AI for whatever NPC presence is needed, so that the plexes are not farmable the same way the missions are today.

Even in the most radical scenario where missions were dropped and equivalent LP was to be found in plexes, the amount of increased activity in the plexes would be plenty sufficient to create locations where players could almost be guaranteed a fight. I personally don't care how many alts come to farm LP if they're doing it by plexing in gangs of destroyers, cruisers, and battlecruisers. That would be much more fun to engage than chasing individual stealth bombers in distant mission locations.

Giving cookies is one way to encourage fights, but we can also include some punishments for losing system occupancy as well. While I'm hesitant to endorse 0.0-style full station lockouts, I think it just makes sense that a Tribal Liberation Force pilot hanging on the undock of a 24th Imperial Crusade station is going to get shot. We are at war, after all. Systems will change hands faster than architects can build new stations, so we might have a designation that says "TLF-occupied 24th IC Logistics Support" indicating the station is currently under control of enemy troops, and will fire upon its previous owners. Station fire cuts down on boring docking games, and provides a sense of "home turf" that is sorely missing fromt he battlefield right now.

The other major missing component from the Faction Warfare feature is reliable data regarding the state of the battlefield. We desperately need an updated UI window for the militia tab, containing the progress indicator for a system takeover attempt, and perhaps such as information as the location of all open plexes or possibly whether they are currently under attack. Players need to be able to know how to be useful, and where to head to get some action. It should be fairly difficult to "ninjaflip" a system without the enemy having a clue as to what you're up to.

Note that these are pretty simple changes and have nothing to do with null sec soverignty, and would still go light years towards promoting frequent of fights. They also don't involve throwing more isk at the players, but simply shifting its source from PvE to PvP where it belongs. I think CCP should start with these basics, and see what the impact is before gutting plexes and implementing something different that could somehow be used in 0.0 space. In the meantime, they should be soaking up the good ideas being tossed around by the players in threads like this one that are currently active with discussion.



I would definitely make an effort to log in more often if these changes where made.

You have one of my 3 votes for sure and positions like this make it more likely I will give you all my votes.

One thing I just thought of when reading this was what if CCP didn't make FW more like Sov is today but in the rewrite of SOV made the final take over of a system more like it is in FW.

My very basic and first thought on this is thus:
I like the idea of being able to get SOV for actually living in the system, or at least maintaining sov that way. But what if when sov got contested to a certain point instead of doing massive structure grinds on things what if a certain set of FW like plexs where spawned so that mixed fleets would have to be deployed to a system to take over. And say the outcome of the whole day's worth of activity would then determine who had SOV come downtime.

And if this went where with a system of maintaining sov based on activity if you later become inactive then the NPC pirates would then take it back. Since players are basically taking over what they consider there space anyway.

Good luck in the election
Thermodynamics
#438 - 2012-02-22 05:28:31 UTC
Kethry Avenger wrote:
Cool Stuff


This is a pretty cool idea. I don't presume to dictate what nullsec'ers want or need, but I think having some kind of smaller-fleet objectives that influence the greater sov-war mechanics can only be a good thing that creates more diversified and frequent PvP.

Sa souvraya niende misain ye.

Minmatar Republic
#439 - 2012-02-22 07:08:15 UTC
Vordak Kallager wrote:
Kethry Avenger wrote:
Cool Stuff


This is a pretty cool idea. I don't presume to dictate what nullsec'ers want or need, but I think having some kind of smaller-fleet objectives that influence the greater sov-war mechanics can only be a good thing that creates more diversified and frequent PvP.

The point of taking 0.0 space is access to valuable resources that you can choose to exploit, not forcing people to meet ratting quotas to maintain infrastructure. Enforced PvE, which is what Kethry seem to suggest, is a poor way of determining ownership. Admittedly I guess that's not a million miles away from how it works in FW but as has already been discussed in this thread, the incentives for doing so are pretty much limited to bragging rights so its not as though anyone loses out all that badly.

I mean, the idea of invading a hostile system with hulks and out-mining the defenders to take their sov is amusingly surreal, but I don't think it would actually make for entertaining gameplay beyond the novelty value of doing it the first couple of times.
Thermodynamics
#440 - 2012-02-22 09:22:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Vordak Kallager
HELIC0N ONE wrote:
Vordak Kallager wrote:
Kethry Avenger wrote:
Cool Stuff


This is a pretty cool idea. I don't presume to dictate what nullsec'ers want or need, but I think having some kind of smaller-fleet objectives that influence the greater sov-war mechanics can only be a good thing that creates more diversified and frequent PvP.

The point of taking 0.0 space is access to valuable resources that you can choose to exploit, not forcing people to meet ratting quotas to maintain infrastructure. Enforced PvE, which is what Kethry seem to suggest, is a poor way of determining ownership. Admittedly I guess that's not a million miles away from how it works in FW but as has already been discussed in this thread, the incentives for doing so are pretty much limited to bragging rights so its not as though anyone loses out all that badly.

I mean, the idea of invading a hostile system with hulks and out-mining the defenders to take their sov is amusingly surreal, but I don't think it would actually make for entertaining gameplay beyond the novelty value of doing it the first couple of times.


I was under the impression that these "small-fleet objectives" actually entailed, you know, PVP. Where the **** did you get "mining for victory" out of this? I was thinking along the lines of having objectives with hull-size restrictions or some kind of fleet-size restriction (although that would be a ***** to theory craft and I admittedly don't have any bright ideas about how such a mechanic might work). The Mittani himself always talks about the New Player Experience and how Nullsec shouldn't be some hostile land for new players who want to experience it. Having objectives that matter in sov-warfare (the extent to which they matter is a point of debate that I don't know; only Nullsec'ers could answer that) that can be accomplished by new pilots or small-gangs should be a good thing, right?

But, please, feel free to put words in my mouth that make me sound like an asinine and ignorant ******, who via guilt by association makes Hans Jagerblitzen potentially support such a clearly irrational proposal and therefore a worse candidate for the CSM7. Work on your forum-fu, bro. /tinfoilhat

Sa souvraya niende misain ye.

Forum Jump