For our first audio interview, we present Hans Jagerblitzen. This follows the text interviews of Skippermonkey and Mintrolio.  Put on your headsets, here’s Sindel:

Eve News 24: Hans Interview by bagehi

For those who don’t want to listen, I attempted to sum up what was said.  Here’s the synopsis:

Sindel: What would you like people to know about you?
Hans: Started playing 2.5 years ago.  Came across Eve, downloaded via steam.  In 45 minutes, knew I would play until it ends.  Grew up on Privateer and Wing Commander, happy to see it as an MMO.  As a pilot, been involved in FW since I began.  Mostly PVP, but I mine and manufacture as well.  Do a lot of booster manufacture in low sec.  Empire space has been my home since I began.  Had some alts in null, but it never hooked me.  I’ve been working the last six months to improve faction warfare.  Really trying to connect the different FW groups, to step past the in game disputes and work together to improve FW.  Really want to improve FW and other parts of the game.

Sindel: What do you think as a CSM member you can do to get the Devs listen and what changes would you make?
Hans: Work off CSM 6’s method.  Skype.  Forum channels.  Put off controversial stuff.  Work with community on things that everyone agrees with.  Get the core stuff fixed first.  Would like to see the good parts of the existing FW system there: plexing system (gate hull size control).  Need to fix the rewards to promote actual fighting.  The lasting appeal is the small gang warfare.  RP and grudge match and the stuff that may work in null doesn’t promote warfare in FW – a smaller, casual gaming crowd.  The existing rewards are for PVE missions that have nothing to do with PVP, and can be farmed in stealth bombers, so the PVP that promotes is stealth bombers being chased by interceptors.  The rewards should be lifted from the missions and moved to actual PVP.  Like to see that kind of thing tried out.

Sindel: Does Faction Warfare need a little bit of work or a lot of work?  Should it be iterated upon or should CCP scratch it and start over?
Hans: I’m not a programmer.  Don’t want to say something is easier to transfer AI around.  However, PVE has traditionally been lackluster in Eve.  Sleepers were a good start but players mastered that and demanded PVE to be brought to the next level.  Incursions really accomplished that.  It is engaging PVE content.  Missions in high sec… there are reasons they are so easily farmed.  I know the potential to fix PVE is there, CCP did it with Incursions, but the PVE content across the board needs to be improved.  Even if they left FW PVE content intact, the AI needs to be smarter so it cannot be farmed by stealth bombers.  Need to remove the stealth bomber grind.  If they even need the PVE content to begin with.  Many players think there isn’t a need to grind rats.

Sindel: Do you feel that past CSMs represented the entire population.  Do you feel like you would represent the entire population.  How would you make sure that the needs of as many people as possible felt included in this process?
Hans: Previous CSMs have been mostly dominated by null bloc candidates.
Sindel: Heh.  Sorry.
Hans: Null is an important place and deserves representation  I understand the democratic process that leads to null candidates being dominant.  I think there needs to be more diverse representation.  The changes to CSM make me optimistic that those without a giant bloc backing us will have our voice heard as well.  If the players elect mostly null sec candidates, it wouldn’t be game breaking if the elected CSM is willing to reach out to the community of parts of Eve they do not understand.  That’s been done somewhat in past CSMs.  I want to encourage more of that.  Look to the people who know the mechanics best.

Sindel: If you had to sum up your primary goal if elected to CSM, what would it be?
Hans: More important than the issues, the really important things that CSM needs to take advantage of is the momentum and the direction of the way CSM can influence CCP.  The power of CSM is that it draws on players.  The players are a resource that have devoted more man hours gaining experience than even the developers on the mechanics of the game.  The most important thing is that CSM should be a balance of interests.  The playerbase/CSM/CCP relationship is still in a delicate state.  Need to keep the communication channels open.  Been involved in communicating with the current CSM, trying to get ideas in.  Some came across, some of what I saw in the summit didn’t seem to match up with what the community wanted.  Need to improve the process.

Sindel: You are right, 2011 wasn’t a good year for CCP.  I agree, it is a fragile relationship that CCP has with CSM and the players.  A question from a dev – how would you have handled the emergency summit?  Do you think that it actually helped?
Hans: Absolutely.  I think there is no question that it helped.  I was listening to VoV podcast with Mike.  Agree with what he said.  CSM is the spike driven into CCP by the hammer of the playerbase.  I think the method of the CSM was legitimate tactic.  I would have participated in that.  That is what CSM is about.  It is a bold experiment in customer service.  CCP delivers a product to customers.  It is a video game.  CCP is setting themselves up for success when they allow CSM to work.  The summer was a reaction to the CSM not being allowed to do their job.  Unfortunate that they did not get more time to work on Crucible.  Need to pick up that ball and run with it.

Sindel: Hans and I did shots before we started.  I did peanut butter vodka.  This interview brought to you by Nutliquor.

Sindel: We’re back.  Any words for the EN24 audience?
Hans: The more people who vote, the more democratic this becomes.  The less voting blocs impact the game.  Take the time, educate yourself.  This is useless if you don’t vote.
Sindel: This is Sindel and Hans… somewhat sober… signing off!

[spoiler show=”Did we mess up?”]
We want to give you guys the best possible intel, to post as fast as we can confirm it, but Eve being :Eve: is quite confusing. If we messed up with our intel, please contact us directly [email protected], provide the proof of it and we’ll correct it immediately noting the change and bringing the correction on top of the article list.[/spoiler]

If you would like to send intel or contribute, feel free to use the form below:

[spoiler show=”Submit Intel Here”]



  1. testie

    you haven't interviewed Montolio. You interviewed Mintrolio, an altogether less dangerous and far more unstable character.

    February 29, 2012 at 4:58 pm Reply
    1. bagehi


      February 29, 2012 at 4:00 pm Reply
    2. M_D_

      wth lol?

      May 4, 2012 at 9:34 pm Reply
  2. Hans: Previous CSMs have been mostly dominated by null bloc candidates.

    He should look harder at the history of the CSM. Only CSM6 has been "mostly dominated by null bloc candidates."

    CSM1: 2 Goons, 1 CVA – Hun Reloaded alt
    CSM2: 1 Goon, 1 MM, 1 Hun Reloaded
    CSM3: 2 Goons, 1 MM, 1 PL – TRI and SCA alts
    CSM4: 2 Goons, 1 MM, 1 TRI – PL and Goon alts
    CSM5: 1 PL, 1 TRI, 1MM
    CSM6: 2 Goons, 2 PL, 1 XIX, 1 IM, 1 MM, 1 TEST, 1 RAZOR, 1 w.e Darius III counts as.

    Seriously, its not like this shit is hidden information. People without a bloc's backing had their voice heard for 5 CSMs – nothing got done and greyscale pooped on everything he could. Now we have candidates who are actually get feedback from the people they represent ( because they represent an actual united group of people, not just a theoretical group such as 'high sec miners' or 'mission runners') and GASP – shit got done.

    This guy goes off about the history of the CSM and keeping its momentum going and how its a "spike driven into CCP by the hammer of the playerbase" and other nonsense, but I never get a sense that he actually has a clue what the fuck the CSM does or how it operates – or what he stands for. At least Mintrolio seems to have some drive and a plan beyond "continue the success and momentum of the people I claim shouldn't be on the CSM because they're bloc candidates"

    February 29, 2012 at 5:27 pm Reply
    1. bagehi

      Goons used to do it just because they could (plus, free trip to fanfest, blah blah). Really wasn't until CSM5 that nullsec paid attention to CSM and decided "we have to be properly represented" – after seeing and reading some of the things that CCP did based on CSM approval during the 5th CSM.

      February 29, 2012 at 4:32 pm Reply
      1. Exactly, to say anything but CSM6 was null-dominated is just plain fiction.

        February 29, 2012 at 4:48 pm Reply
    2. Hans Jagerblitzen

      You could always ask the existing CSM members whether I have a clue about what the CSM does or how it operates. No need to take my word for it. The unilaterally positive testimony they've given about the work I've done with them so far pretty much speaks for himself.

      And, for the record, most of the items pumped out during Crucible had been on the backlog for years, so previous non-bloc CSM candidates most certainly deserve credit for their contributions.

      I'm not saying null bloc candidates don't belong on the council, I certainly can't help fix nullsec by myself. I've simply argued that the council needs diversity. The idea that "whats best for null is best for the game" is bullshit.

      February 29, 2012 at 10:20 pm Reply
      1. Space Jew


        February 29, 2012 at 11:04 pm Reply
    3. Random Miner

      Well, despite how mittens acts, csm doesn't actually get anything done anyway. And the only reason why CCP all of a sudden started "listening" was because of unsubbing, and all around discontent of players because of poor choices in company, not the choice in reps.
      CSM is only there for CCP to hear what the players think. Having nothing but null dwellers telling CCP what players think… isn't telling CCP what players think.

      March 1, 2012 at 6:46 am Reply
  3. FW player

    The only thing that keeps FW above 10 people is the missions rewards. Remove those and I foresee a 90% drop in FW numbers. Yes, that may leave a few "we love small scale pvp" players, but really – what then is the difference between just joining RvB where your faction standings (to the opposing factions) aren't blown to hell either….

    Yes, the few wealthy people playing FW would like to see missions go away or change. A majority does not think like that and actually use the isk gained from those to do… tadaaa: FW.

    February 29, 2012 at 5:38 pm Reply
    1. Hans Jagerblitzen

      The truth of the matter is, the voter base I've rallied are all individuals that participate in the PvP culture. I've been frank and honest that the missions could be ELIMINATED and you can still preserve the essence of Faction Warfare for those that have built a community around it. So there you have it. If anyone only values FW for the missions, I'm not your candidate. If what you say is true, I probably just lost my whole voting core. :)

      I guess we'll find out in a few weeks whether that's the case or not, won't we? The CSM election results will settle the "FW is just a bunch of mission farming alts" arguments. They exist, they're a problem, but they are by no means the only ones left using the feature.

      February 29, 2012 at 10:09 pm Reply
      1. guest

        Hans, I really suggest you to create an account to post comments.

        March 1, 2012 at 2:13 pm Reply
    2. Markius TheShed

      ATM I and most of my corp mates will blitz FW missions for a few hours one or two days a month to pay for the ships we will need for the rest of the month.
      I haven't done any missions for about 6 weeks because i haven't lost enough ships to need the isk yet.
      Missions are a means to a end and that is FIGHTS, if we can replace missions with a PVP based system that pays LP for system/plex capture I would happily never do a mission again.

      I'm not sure where you get your statistics that it's the missions that keep people in FW from? But I would argue it's more like fights like this that do it.

      March 1, 2012 at 11:40 am Reply
  4. newsoul

    Advertising for alchool is illegal in many countries. Just so you know.

    February 29, 2012 at 7:01 pm Reply
    1. bagehi

      Welcome to the internets.

      February 29, 2012 at 11:57 pm Reply
  5. Saiphas Cain

    I saw Hans touted on sand, cider, and spaceships and I like what he has to say about lowsec and faction war. My vote's already accounted for but I do want to see lowsec and highsec properly represented for balance so all the best.

    February 29, 2012 at 11:52 pm Reply
  6. Space Jew


    February 29, 2012 at 11:54 pm Reply
    1. Goonwaffle

      Hello, Alex. Welcome to the conversation.

      March 1, 2012 at 8:17 am Reply
  7. Arguecat.

    You have my sword.

    March 1, 2012 at 3:29 am Reply

Leave a Reply