These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

CSM Campaigns

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Harry Saq for CSM XI

Author
Harry Saq
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1 - 2015-12-27 21:17:10 UTC
My name is Harry Saq and I have been playing Eve on and off since the game was first released. I have quit and renewed my accounts for similar reasons most do (mix of RL and just grrrrr EVE), and have a special place in my heart/excelspreadsheets for this wonderfully frustrating MMO. The thing that has always intrigued me, and continually brought me back was the enormous potential this game has. The reasons I have left and disavowed all loyalty externally was for that potential being squandered (not necessarily intentionally or maliciously).

In other words, I have been through the cycles of love and hate, and made all the mental proclamations and conspiracy claims imaginable to account for the greatness and shortcomings of this game similar to what I am sure most seasoned and even new players have. So instead of offering a litany of nuanced stratagems or wild fantastical hopes and dreams I might have for this that or the other thing this game could do, I would rather like to offer my services as a player facilitator and advocate for quality game change, that focuses on a better experience for us all.

Eve is only a game, however it is a game that dares to throw us all in one universe and offer us the tools to both shape the places we reside, as well as hang ourselves most embarrassingly and painfully. Over the lifespan of Eve CCP has taken many funky steps in various directions to do everything and nothing in an attempt to both commercialize their product to a broader customer base and fulfill all of our wacky idiosyncratic desires (and theirs as well...and some of their desires are kind of scary). Of all that has been said about CCP, it cannot be said that they haven't produced something worthy of attention, and as of late, it can also not be ignored that they are starting to grasp how to actually release the potential this game so promises, through incremental change.

I have seen several topics over the effectiveness and use of the CSM, and I feel some of the more recent trains of thought simply miss the point. Any change process has a development life cycle, and alot of the time catalysts to change are incredibly subtle in their origin and sources of influence. Some see the CSM's place in that lifecycle as the final check box in approving some upcoming release, or an entity that must be listened to during backroom talks and strategy meetings. Some have even lamented over their influence being overshadowed by bloggers and popular websites. Regardless of any stated purpose or intended role the CSM has, implementation of any process always settles into places not planned due to human factors, both in usefulness of those involved and how their messages are carried.

The CSM has been around for awhile, and quite frankly is only as effective, active and useful as those in it. What I plan to bring to the CSM, if elected, is an active reasoned/rational voice whose agenda is to facilitate the change process so that the game remains challenging, engaging, and worth logging into (regardless if my personal preferences are catered to or not). The CSM is as useful as we make it. If we are not included in the conversation, than we must be proactive in seeking out and engaging in the conversations that matter. So rather than lament whether I am being listened to, or whether a release was approved by a council I am on, I will seek to actively represent the player base by presenting the perspective of those that play when the opportunity is there, and creating that opportunity in as many ways as possible.

IN OTHER WORDS, both the player base and CCP have unique and sometimes conflicting perspectives and motives that need to be navigated through in order to make a product that continues to capture the imaginations of those that play while drawing in many more new peeps to play with!

This is the same speech I gave last year, and I don't think anything has changed and the current questions surrounding the usefulness of the CSM are just variations on the same theme. It's time for the powerbloc agitating self interest candidates to go, and short of that, they should atleast be balanced with those that are interested in mechanics and game design, vs meta-talk and good'ol day syndrome narrative. I am amazed at how little value some CSM members put in having direct comms with devs, and fail to see that those interactions have a long term affect.

If CSM members can't comprehend the value of that direct line to devs and potential influence, nor have the ability to exercise it in a meaningful way, then they absolutely need to go. The change you can bring won't be evident, it's not about a specific change or a single agenda item getting accomplished, but rather that reasoned voice helping guide devs in a way you won't ever realize. The point is to be a sounding board, a sanity check, and in some instances a first line reaction Guinea pig. The change CSM members affect are on the aggregate and it utterly misses the point to be a space Union or advocacy brigade.

You don't know what is in the heads of devs, and maybe they don't action anything you provide them directly, but most likely your arguments affected their overarching viewpoint (if presented well or reasonably) and the dev is simply powerless or not able to address any of what makes sense right now the idea is to get that bug in their head, to interject that other perspective so that when they are implementing change they control, they might just utilize your reason and arguments on something totally different.

The CSM has value and can be effective. CSM members must communicate the player perspective when it comes to overall mechanics and what PAYING/PLAYING consumers actually want to shell out real cash for when purchasing CCPs goods and services. CCPs has to pay the bills and we want to get value for our buck. That is why I am running for CSM XI as an outsider (i.e. not a powerbloc space teamster wannabe).
Harry Saq
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#2 - 2016-02-09 22:28:19 UTC
Something I was asked last campaign -> "Can you highlight weakness in the game design and link to possible ways they can be fixed?" I believe my following answer still holds true, in fact, now more than ever...

Essentially it boils down to me that the focus needs to be on customization, and player driven/unique solutions to overall balance. For instance, when CCP generally thinks of balance, they consider how they can better move us to the right decisions, based on some pre-determined ship archetypes and given specifications.

I see it MUCH differently, this game like no other has embraced the very foundation of economics and material acquisition. That should be used to drive balance from within the player base through real invention and tweaking of products in the manufacturing process. More like being given a bag of ingredients that we discover how to put together better based on a more fundamental approach to attributes, specifications, and parameters. So instead of changing an attribute tag on a ship and making the mass artificially some number, that should be a function of all the crap you put on it plus materials used in construction etc (along with efficiencies in design and whatever).

So while the ship o'the day meme never gets old, it does always say the same thing...cookie cutter top down design doesn't work. Innovation needs to come from those that actually make use and need it etc, and not by committee, but by individuals experimenting and literally inventing, drafting and building custom ships from the raw materials available throughout the eve universe.

To me that is the ultimate waaay on down the line end-game, and not something I would imagine would just be implemented, but rather a philosophy of thought driven towards, so that progress can be made in that direction over time. Nothing in eve feels like it is mine, even though I may have mined/harvested the components, or done the reactions etc etc etc, at the end of all that work, I get some thing that is the same as all the other things, with no more or less value, and all I did was jump through the right hoops for the sake of it. That can extend to all sorts of aspects of the game.

This means moving towards a model where the invention and manufacturing processes actually have an outcome on the ship, and that is where numbers tweaking and modifications happen by the players. Eve has done a remarkable job at creating a market and economic system based on player based manufacturing.

Essentially it requires a different mentality, building and invention are actually just that. The baseline physics, mechanics and engine are all that are really needed, ship modules and composition along with various choices in building would provide the customization and performance balance on a daily basis by the players really inventing blueprints, and making manufacturing choices when executing a build.

That is essentially the TLDR, though I have said it better elsewhere...
Harry Saq
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#3 - 2016-02-18 03:15:16 UTC
If elected to the CSM, I will provide reasoned feedback based on my RL experience as a technology change management professional.

I will not be a showboating metaclown distraction writing dissertations on how to make enemies and remain ineffectual.

If you want someone who doesn't give a crap about popularity contests or metagaming BS and just likes solving problems and offering logical solutions based feedback, then please vote for me.

With all the CSM drama and crybaby antics, it's about time the CSM grew a Saq, a big f'ing Harry Saq...just sayin
Harry Saq
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#4 - 2016-02-21 19:09:15 UTC
https://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/46kc25/casual_player_point_of_view/

The points brought up in this reddit post are one of the biggest areas Eve needs to improve. This is done incrementally and over time, and I know has already been mentioned in the prior CSM minutes as part of the NPC rework and a utility called "Blackboard".

My comments on this can be found here: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5425079#post5425079

The long and short of it is, moving towards an NPC PvE experience that is reflective of PvP and utilizes the same dynamics and mechanics would go along way to strengthening the overall game experience. PvE is pretty terrible right now, and we saw this almost immediately when Aegis Sov highlighted the "why hold sov" issue.

While my philosophy is always to debate the issues as they come up based on their merits, I do want those voting to know that I will focus in on core game elements needing improvements and not get lost in the turd polishing mental sinks that is module tweaking and data table messaging.

I represent the casual players, RL money challenged frugal gamer, and those that want to play on their own terms.

On a random side note, the alliance tournament speaks volumes for the mental developmental schism between actual everyday PvP game play, and the "idea" of PvP in Eve through set piece battles (and a great indictment of database tweaking "game development" as opposed to mechanics based improvements and innovation - fortunately CCP is making great strides in this area, and need constructive CSM feedback and patience in these areas, not lobbyist mentality grandstanding after individuals ideas are "ignored"). A better alliance tournament would involve only elements that exist within the game using actual game mechanics as they are. This would also naturally compliment and drive innovation in core gameplay experience and focus in on everyday life improvements.
Harry Saq
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#5 - 2016-02-27 18:00:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Harry Saq
Also, I represent the casual gamer that has a life, job, RL commitments and most likely families to support etc. Not exclusively, but that is where I am coming from and tend to sympathies with, not so much the "Eve is my life" crowd that like things arbitrarily difficult or time consuming as a right of passage...
Bumblefck
Kerensky Initiatives
#6 - 2016-02-27 19:50:21 UTC
"I was elected to lead, not to read"



GL

Perfection is a dish best served like wasabi .

Bumble's Space Log

Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#7 - 2016-02-27 20:50:16 UTC
Pity reply:






good luck

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Harry Saq
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#8 - 2016-02-28 19:42:52 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Pity reply:






good luck

A pity bump is better than no bump ;)
Harry Saq
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#9 - 2016-02-29 15:40:30 UTC
You also likely won't hear me say "risk vs reward", as that phrase has been perverted in this community to basically mean; force other players into "sitting duck" mode so I can shoot them whilst plexing for isk, so I never have to become that same victim.
Harry Saq
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#10 - 2016-03-02 14:29:03 UTC
Vote with your saq....your Harry Saq
Harry Saq
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#11 - 2016-03-03 14:36:55 UTC
I am running completely independently, not tied to any power bloc or other metagame influence. I just care about the quality of the game and providing useful reasoned feedback.
Harry Saq
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#12 - 2016-03-07 14:50:22 UTC
The only reform required for the CSM is to have candidates that aren't trolls or "meta" stars marveling at data about data. Vote in candidates whose platforms are about providing feedback and being the sounding board we were always meant to be, and move away from the union thuggery mentality that has poisoned the CSM in the past. The CSM is a pretty simple concept, screwed up by those that have a status complex and want to see it as a chance to push singular agendas or make CCP beg them for approval to develop their own game.

The CSM is only as useful as the people on it.
Harry Saq
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#13 - 2016-03-08 13:29:24 UTC
When you vote...vote Saq...vote...

...Harry Saq