CSM Campaigns

I have to admit I had no difficulty with the idea of flying NPSI with Agony Unleashed a couple of times. Maybe it's because I'm in TEST, or maybe because my corp is cool like that, but I just didn't fear any repercussions from a mistake on my part. On the contrary, I rather relished the thought of possibly running into a blue or green and having to make a split second decision to assist my fleet or leave them alone. I even spent a fair bit of time running through scenarios in my head and deciding how I would act in each. I was a bit disappointed to not meet any friendlies during the roam-or perhaps I wasn't paying attention and shot somebody blue who is mad and is gonna hunt me down later.

These sorts of unknowns add a sense of adventure to EVE. I know a lot of people dislike them but I am careful to advocate the ability to see through it because such functions quickly become fleet/alliance doctrine and it destroys that adventure.

In the same way that there are no mechanics that impinge them (which I would argue is untrue) there are no mechanics that support the playstyle at all. People have simply developed creative ways of using chat channels and mailing lists to organize these thriving communities.

Alternatively, you could make the same argument against sov warfare. The system is currently functional, wars are being fought, sov is changing hands, the alliance that live is sov space seem to be doing pretty well.... why do they need a CSM? why does sov need to be worked on?

The CSM does more than just fix broken things, they let CCP know how and what they need to do to make the game better.

... and there are A LOT of different things that could be done to make the channel based communities better.

I found my notes!

These were mostly questions for variety (hopefully) and are all hypothetical.

* Imagine it's 2-3 years from now and you're still on the CSM. The vast majority of your proposed tools for improving npsi outlets of the game have been implemented to a satisfactory degree, and are mostly fitting in successfully. This area of npsi public gameplay is now in an overall "good place".

What is the next big thing you take on as your new agenda for change, and cause for improvement in the game?

* A relatively new player crosses paths with you during your space travels. You end up chatting briefly and he or she makes you an offer of 300 million ISK for 3 days training in the arts of EVE.

Assuming you accept, what do you teach them?

* Our beloved game developers somehow introduce a definitive change to the game that causes reactions from the playerbase similar to those witnessed in the Incarna expansion (a la Monoclegate). You agree with the players on this being a major issue.

What is you first course of action in tackling this?

* Lastly, you find yourself in an ice cream parlour on a hot summers day. Sadly there are only two flavours of ice-cream left over. Chocolate & Tutti Frutti.

Which flavour do you choose?

Thanks.

Thank you Ezwal. +1

Nailed it.

*Snip* Please refrain from discussing forum moderation. ISD Ezwal.

Reposting for the sake of everyone else:

Source can be found here.

Seraph: by now you've made it abundantly clear that you not only disapprove of me, but of my candidacy for CSM9 as well - not that either of those things were ever in question in the first place. Now, please stop posting in this thread if you're not going to contribute anything of value.

*Snip* Please refrain from discussing forum moderation. ISD Ezwal.

2-3 years from now? At that point I feel it's reasonable to assume that corporation and alliance mechanics have been completely overhauled, and the sovereignty warfare redesign has been completed as well - which would have been my focus if the items in my platform were brought to a point where they could no longer be improved upon. What I would focus on after all of these things are completely done and perfected, would be wardecs. Although you could consider this to be a part of the corporation and alliance mechanics, I doubt it'll receive the proper attention during the current development roadmap.

I don't feel that there are enough highsec corporations and alliances that operate and compete with one another exclusively in highsec... and I blame this entirely on the current wardec system. Highsec will be in a "good place" imho when the same depth of conflict, competition, and narrative can be seen in highsec as can be seen in sov null. Allowing player run groups in highsec to form empires, and encouraging them to compete with one another is extremely important to me, and will do wonders to improve the health of the game.

Take the money and say "Welcome to Eve" ?

Real talk tho, money should never be the root incentive for people to help players - just putting that out there.

Anyway, the one thing about new players that frustrates me, is that they don't know enough about the sandbox to know what they're going to enjoy in the sandbox. This is partly why it irritates me that people are so quick to encourage new players to join groups like Brave Newbies - not that BNI isn't a wonderful group and has a lot of systems in place to help new players - but that people are pigeonholing these new players into sov nullsec, which many consider to be the least fun part of the sandbox.

If I were to have three days with a newbro, I'd show them as many different parts of the game world as I could. Take them wormhole diving, try and fight FW plexers, gank a few miners, run a few mission.... show them the depth of the game, and let them decide where they want to set up camp and thrive within the sandbox. To this end, E-UNI does a great job, and after the 3 days I'd recommend the new player go there until they've found themselves.

You would think this comes with a rather complicated answer, but it's really quite simple.

In CCP Seagull's keynote speech, she discussed designing for unintended consequences within New Eden, saying that: "If we can predict what is going to happen, [The Players] can predict what's going to happen - and [The Players] are smarter than us."

The playerbase is extremely intelligent, the bloggers are outspoken and knowledgeable, and the subreddit and news sites allow for both discussion and dissemination of information. In a situation where there is a controversy regarding a change to the game - or anything really - it's important to make sure that constructive discussion is taking place and that the community knows what's happening and why. Regardless of whether or not I agree with a controversial change, it's the CSM's job to represent the players. That means facilitating the discussion within the playerbase, correcting any misunderstandings, and taking that feedback to CCP.

Forum rules prevent me from answering this question fully.

In short, Seraph is neither interested in a productive discussion about the CSM nor in my platform as a whole. We have a history together that dates back over two years to when we were in the same corp together, him as the CEO and myself as the director. We did not part amicably - that much I'm sure is obvious. I engaged with him during my CSM9 campaign, but the aftermath of that nonsense proved to me that simply ignoring him is the best course of action.

I'm all for discussions about the game, debating conflicting ideas, and defending both my position and opinions.

... but I'm not going to humor someone who harbors nothing but malicious intent towards me.

I apologize in advance for using argument ad absurdum, but by this logic any CFC candidate - even The Mittani himself - would have been a detriment to the CSM since they have enemies. In a game of conflict, it's impossible to constantly fight and compete with others without making enemies, let alone having everyone still like you.

As for people like Fuzzy, Mike, et al, they do not engage in adversarial play styles so the comparison is moot.

There are many candidates who can present your problems to CCP, and in your specific case Sugar is probably the best one for the job. That being said, the people who I compete against, or who am hostile with, would never find themselves without a voice on the CSM due to my inclusion on the council. I would never purposefully oppose change or try to silence those who I dislike, simply because I dislike them or because in game they are my enemy. This is no different than CFC candidates advocating for the health of the game as a whole rather than the health of their specific coalition.

Edited my bad post made when extremely drunk