These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Conflict. Opportunity. Destruction. Excitement.... Sabriz for CSM10

First post First post
Author
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#61 - 2014-12-05 08:11:55 UTC
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:
I don't claim there aren't people who play without wanting conflict.

Sabriz Adoudel wrote:
Players don't play the game for the thrill of scanning and running a solo Serpentis 8/10 site solo or with their static group for the fifteenth time – if that experience was what players sought, they'd load up the test server and get their fix there. Instead they play on a server where their actions matter, and so do those of their rivals.
This statement is incorrect.

Sabriz Adoudel wrote:
The thing is, those people *do* get involved in conflict without realising it.
Depends on your definition of "conflict". Arguably if you play any multiplayer game you have an effect on other players, but when you say that all activities should be "balanced in ways that drive player conflict", you're talking about direct conflict as the examples of conflict in your initial post show. At the end of the day, you're against players who want to just do PvE and treat them as if the are irrelevant. A CSM member has a duty to respect that people don't all want to play in just the way that CSM member likes to play.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Tora Bushido
The Marmite Mercenaries
BLACKFLAG.
#62 - 2014-12-05 12:55:45 UTC
Quote:
Conflict. Opportunity. Destruction. Excitement....
You are missing a surprising end game. Blink

DELETE THE WEAK, ADAPT OR DIE !

Meta Gaming Level VII, Psycho Warfare Level X, Smack Talk Level VII.

Tear Jar
New Order Logistics
CODE.
#63 - 2014-12-06 05:32:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Tear Jar
Lucas Kell wrote:
Cara Forelli wrote:
I would encourage you to read through her posting history - particularly in NCQA and Market Discussions - before you write her off as a simple ganker. I feel her expertise in market economics and deep understanding of ship stat balancing are great traits for a CSM candidate. You are, of course, entitled to your own opinion.
I'm not writing her off as a simple ganker. I'm writing her off as someone with knowledge of the game, who is willing to help out new players, but who I wouldn't trust with the responsibility of taking the needs of other player groups seriously. Already in her campaign outline she's decided that nobody plays without expressly wanting conflict, which is obviously false and puts across the impression that players who seek to play without conflict are irrelevant. From what I've read in the past, I'd be very surprised if any players who did not confirm to her ideas of how to play would be considered relevant. A CSM members has a duty to put that aside. While they should have their own thoughts and opinions derived from their own experiences, we should be able to trust them to look beyond that and consider the whole playerbase.

I wouldn't trust her to do that. Is her membership of CODE part of that? Sure, it takes a certain type of person to support CODE, a type of person who I wouldn't trust to make selfless decisions or consider other people feelings, but that's not the only, or even the majority factor. I'm not a newbie here and I've seen enough Sabriz posts to have a fairly idea of her thoughts on the direction of EVE.



"Actions matter" is not the same as conflict. There is no conflict.

Miners love to say "Without us you wouldn't have your ships/modules/etc". These people don't want to have to deal with suicide gankers(conflict) but they do want to feel like they have an impact on the rest of the game.
Thomas Mayaki
Perkone
Caldari State
#64 - 2014-12-06 08:51:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Thomas Mayaki
'The first half of the ship Tiericide initiative was a mixed bag – it made new players more powerful in PVP engagements in frigates and cruisers (a positive), but it also increased cruiser build cost significantly and made it much more crippling for a new player to lose a ship. This is a significant issue – when I was a rookie, a Vexor cost 6 million ISK, or about 3 hours of running level 2 missions with low skills and little game knowledge. Now it’s 11 million, or about 5 hours, despite the mineral price index being about the same.'

And yet you actively support destroying newbie mining ships costing much more than the 11million isk. The current cost of a retriever costs about 30 million almost three times as much as the 11 million vexor. A low skilled retriever pilot can easily be killed by couple of New Order catalysts costing an couple of million isk (which is fully reimbursable). So just to recap the costs newbie mining pilot 30million isk ( about 15 hour grind (3*5) ) against Sabriz's two New Order pilots 2 million isk ( reimbursable 0 hrs).

I guess the guy was a 'goofus' for mining. Seems ok doesn't it??

EDIT :
'Newbies and wardecs. Newbies cannot fly freighters or afford them (anyone with those SP and resources is not a newb). Our primary targets are exhumers (a month to train into), Orcas and freighters (multiple months), and mining barges as a low priority (which still require more SP to sit in than battleships). '

Mining barges low priority? From CODE. zkillboard
Exhumers 8,384 Mining Barges 13,895

EDIT2: Hiasa Kite Posted: 2014.12.06 18:15
I think you missed the point that the CODE CSM hopefull doesn't really care about nuturing new players and indeed if a new player mines they are pretty much fair game. My experience of the New Order is that rather than send a helpful mail offer advice they are more likely to try to send you one to attempt to make you upset so they get get a reply to post on their blog.

The retriever is the optimal ship for solo mining when you start mining in a procurer you are not using the best ship for solo mining. Where the procurer shines as you mention is in its defensive capabilities which as you point out is considerable and should be recommended to newer players because there is group of players that specifically target the newbie retriever pilots.

Since when was a retriever considered a suboptimal ship? It is a great little ship and indeed the New Order along with Sabriz Adoudel thinks is too good a ship and wants it nerfed.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#65 - 2014-12-06 10:27:46 UTC
Tear Jar wrote:
"Actions matter" is not the same as conflict. There is no conflict.

Miners love to say "Without us you wouldn't have your ships/modules/etc". These people don't want to have to deal with suicide gankers(conflict) but they do want to feel like they have an impact on the rest of the game.
Some miners do, some don't care. There's a significant subset of players who just play for the game mechanics, regardless of if they interact with others or not in any way. Pretending they don't exist or ignoring them completely as an irrelevant is not the way a CSM candidate should conduct themselves. It shows that if Sabriz doesn't agree with your playstyle, your opinion no longer matters.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Don Purple
Snuggle Society
#66 - 2014-12-06 11:36:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Don Purple
Salutations dear Sabriz

New player retention is an issue with this game and our play style can and does effect this.

A new player mining in his first retriever very well may quit after his first gank. There is also the chance he will be thrilled and excited and maybe curious. This all depends on the player and how others interact with him or her. Many see you as a negative effect on players but do not see all the help you give them. Any ideas on mechanics that may help them? I believe solo ganking is terribly easy on people like this [solo new player alone in a belt]. I feel the best answer is community support on current mechanics and heavier interaction between players but well you know how some people are.


Don Purple.

I am just here to snuggle and do spy stuff.

Hiasa Kite
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#67 - 2014-12-06 18:15:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Hiasa Kite
Thomas Mayaki wrote:
And yet you actively support destroying newbie mining ships costing much more than the 11million isk.

A fully fit Venture costs less than 1mil ISK.

Quote:
The current cost of a retriever costs about 30 million almost three times as much as the 11 million vexor.

The much more powerful procurer costs 20mil ISK.

Quote:
A low skilled retriever pilot can easily be killed by couple of New Order catalysts costing an couple of million isk (which is fully reimbursable). So just to recap the costs newbie mining pilot 30million isk ( about 15 hour grind (3*5) ) against Sabriz's two New Order pilots 2 million isk ( reimbursable 0 hrs).

A low skilled procurer pilot with a ~30mil yield fit in a 0.5 system with prepulled CONCORD requires at least 4, preferably 5 T2 fit catalysts costing about 40mil. A fully tanked procurer requires closer to ten. Remember: these are best case scenario numbers for gankers. In higher security systems, it gets much worse.

Quote:
I guess the guy was a 'goofus' for mining. Seems ok doesn't it??

For mining? No. For using a suboptimal ship and fit? Yes.

"Playing an MMO by yourself is like masturbating in the middle of an orgy." -Jonah Gravenstein

Django Askulf
Best Kept Dunked
#68 - 2014-12-07 14:34:13 UTC
What a joke. This is about as funny as your campaign on ganking incursion runners. Probably end up about as successful.

Also, per your comment in Tora's thread.

"Out of game - he's absolutely, positively someone the CSM needs, and will probably receive second (maybe third) place on my recommended how to vote list."

You sure sound full of yourself, even have a recommended how to vote list, for the sheep?

Just another ******, trying for some Eve fame.
admiral root
Red Galaxy
#69 - 2014-12-07 14:38:02 UTC
Django Askulf wrote:
What a joke. This is about as funny as your campaign on ganking incursion runners. Probably end up about as successful.

Also, per your comment in Tora's thread.

"Out of game - he's absolutely, positively someone the CSM needs, and will probably receive second (maybe third) place on my recommended how to vote list."

You sure sound full of yourself, even have a recommended how to vote list, for the sheep?

Just another ******, trying for some Eve fame.


Thank-you for supporting Sabriz's campaign by bumping the thread.

No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff

Hiasa Kite
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#70 - 2014-12-07 17:50:24 UTC
In addition to helping create a stereotype of what his opponents are like.

"Playing an MMO by yourself is like masturbating in the middle of an orgy." -Jonah Gravenstein

Meilandra Vanderganken
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#71 - 2014-12-07 21:38:20 UTC
You have my votes. Smile
Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
#72 - 2014-12-08 00:07:15 UTC
BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie wrote:
To throw a curveball Sabriz, do you support the addition of new pve content in high sec? God knows pve in eve is in a boring state right now, what should be done to improve the game experience for those players?



OK. I promised to respond more in detail to this when I had time; so I'll do so now.

PVE content in highsec is currently designed to be grind-based and fairly low player interaction. Anomalies are the most competitive content in highsec but they have their rewards tuned so low that noone runs them.

With the exception of quite new players, this leads to an environment where PVE stops being about "Can I succeed at this mission" and instead becomes about "How can I most quickly/efficiently succeed at this mission". Efficiency becomes everything, and PVE does not remain interesting once you get efficiency focused.

Fundamentally, this comes down to the fact that player opponents are dynamic and unpredictable, while NPC opponents are static and predictable. Even where NPCs have very high stats (such as the burner missions) it all comes down to learning an established efficient way to beat them and doing so.

Add in competition with other players (not necessarily starship combat) and this becomes a very different equation. Look at how *terrible* the PVE aspect of Factional Warfare is - 'kill one rat, orbit a beacon, kill the rat when it respawns, then sometimes shoot a structure'. This utterly terrible PVE content entertains thousands of players because of the involvement of other players.

There is a form of conflict available in incursions via the mechanics for contested sites, but the stakes are just too low for contests to matter much. If your fleet loses a site contest, you incur no real cost and only a hundred million or so in opportunity costs. You can also quite easily determine who will be likely to win before a contest happens, and if you assess that you can't win a contest you usually just warp out of the site and go and do another one.




Some rough ideas of what player conflict driven PVE content in highsec could look like, from lowest to highest level of PVP:
- Add level 5 security missions to highsec, but have them take place in deadspace areas where CONCORD only responds to PVP aggression towards pods (not towards ships). Unlike lowsec L5s, you will need to be scanned down to be attacked (in lowsec, you can be attacked on gates or undocks as well).
- A new type of mission agent that give missions only once per thirty minutes (at a set time). Everyone gets the same mission in the same deadspace pocket. These missions are designed in such a way that a limited number of people can succeed at them - perhaps you have to land a killing blow on an elite battleship NPC and there are only three of them in the site, or perhaps you have to collect a particular dog tag or cargo item. Penalties for failure are purely ISK (no standings loss) and are at a level that irritates, not a level that cripples.
- New types of anomalies that always offer escalations. However, anyone else doing these anomalies in the constellation or region will also get the same escalation. CONCORD will not respond to PVP aggression in the escalation site.
- New anomalies that always offer escalations, however, the escalations always occur in lowsec.
- Region-wide events where at unpredictable times an NPC fleet fight takes place, and players can join in on the side of their choice, and have the right to shoot both players and NPCs fighting for the other side.

I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#73 - 2014-12-08 10:51:51 UTC
Sounds like your ideas pretty much boil down to "Replace PVE with PVP" and "Make places where I can gank without concord getting involved".

What you fail to understand is that some people like PVE, not PVP. Better ideas will be around making PVE more engaging without turning it into PVP. The second you try to make it more engaging by adding PVP conflict, you fundamentally miss the reasons people enjoy PVE. It's certainly possible for NPC based content to be challenging, it needs to simply be less formulaic and require more on the spot thought from a player.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Meilandra Vanderganken
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#74 - 2014-12-08 12:25:36 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Sounds like your ideas pretty much boil down to "Replace PVE with PVP" and "Make places where I can gank without concord getting involved".
She's talking about adding stuff that will lead to PVP/PVE hybrid situations, that's not 'replacing PVE'. I really can't see why anyone would object to adding stuff like that. Nobody will be forced to run them, they merely add another, imo interesting option.
Kaea Astridsson
Hoplite Brigade
Ushra'Khan
#75 - 2014-12-08 12:51:49 UTC
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:
- Apply the NPC corp tax rate to the ISK component (not the LP component) of incursion payouts. This gives incursion runners a reason to join a corp and (combined with the next suggestion) to actively fight off anyone that wardecs them rather than merely surrendering.


This tax already applies, if you care to run a site you'll see a piece getting taken by corp tax. If anything this encourages people to create 'tax haven' one man corps.

I think players don't join corps and stay fighting for them is mostly because of the effort to organise for game play they don't generally enjoy.

Get on Comms, or die typing.

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#76 - 2014-12-08 14:09:40 UTC
Meilandra Vanderganken wrote:
She's talking about adding stuff that will lead to PVP/PVE hybrid situations, that's not 'replacing PVE'. I really can't see why anyone would object to adding stuff like that. Nobody will be forced to run them, they merely add another, imo interesting option.
Because it's all an attempt to gradually move PVE into PVP. I'm sure that the arguments would be made that because it's PVP, thus more risk, that it should then be more rewarding, then traditional PVE would be left behind to rot. And lets face it, the last attempt at hybrid PVE/PVP was FW, and that got abused by people ganking their alts and is now pretty much dominated by double stabbed plexing.

The objection I have is that Sabriz has absolutely no intention of accepting the existence of PVE players. It's in the OP. PVE players don't want PVP. What they want is more engaging PVE. Why should those players be ignored so players who want to PVP can have more hybrid content created for them?

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Cara Forelli
State War Academy
Caldari State
#77 - 2014-12-08 14:21:15 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
The objection I have is that Sabriz has absolutely no intention of accepting the existence of PVE players. It's in the OP. PVE players don't want PVP. What they want is more engaging PVE. Why should those players be ignored so players who want to PVP can have more hybrid content created for them?

Perhaps you have some suggestions for Sabriz on how to make PVE more engaging? In my eyes, players who only want to PVE already have quite a few options, but by it's nature PVE always becomes optimized and grindy. Incursions and Wormhole Sites were designed to be very challenging, but even they have been "figured out" and reduced to an efficiency game. (And yes, WH sites do have an element of PvP).

So how would YOU make PVE more engaging - without including player interaction? Sabriz has some ideas of her own, but one of the most important traits of a CSM candidate is being able to listen to and identify good ideas from the community. What is yours?

Want to talk? Join my channel in game: House Forelli

Titan's Lament

Black Pedro
Mine.
#78 - 2014-12-08 14:34:29 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Because it's all an attempt to gradually move PVE into PVP. I'm sure that the arguments would be made that because it's PVP, thus more risk, that it should then be more rewarding, then traditional PVE would be left behind to rot. And lets face it, the last attempt at hybrid PVE/PVP was FW, and that got abused by people ganking their alts and is now pretty much dominated by double stabbed plexing.

The objection I have is that Sabriz has absolutely no intention of accepting the existence of PVE players. It's in the OP. PVE players don't want PVP. What they want is more engaging PVE. Why should those players be ignored so players who want to PVP can have more hybrid content created for them?


While the first part of your reply is a bit of slippery slope argument, Sabriz seems to be voicing a reasonable position. She is saying that since Eve is a single-universe competitive sandbox, any new PvE content should be designed with fostering this competition and the emergent gameplay that results from it.

You are welcome to disagree, but it doesn't seem to me that Sabriz is proposing anything especially egregious.

Now there are arguments about where best limited development resources should be spent - on more solo PvE content which (according to CCP) the majority of these consumers quit the game quite quickly, or on more interactive content and game mechanisms that promote social interactions and thus player retention. However, that is really a CCP business decision which requires information that I lack to make any solid conclusions.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#79 - 2014-12-08 15:19:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Lucas Kell
Cara Forelli wrote:
Perhaps you have some suggestions for Sabriz on how to make PVE more engaging? In my eyes, players who only want to PVE already have quite a few options, but by it's nature PVE always becomes optimized and grindy. Incursions and Wormhole Sites were designed to be very challenging, but even they have been "figured out" and reduced to an efficiency game. (And yes, WH sites do have an element of PvP).
The simplest way would be adding more variation, so "figuring out" PVE is more difficult because it's dynamic. Take for example missions. They are made up of static waves of NPCs from static triggers. Instead, give each wave a set of points, and randomise the NPCs where tougher NPCs cost more points. Add the need to engage in ECM and counter-logistics to rats and it's already miles ahead of where it currently is.

I've played more games that I could possibly try to count, and many of them have very engaging offline modes. It's certainly possible to achieve without needing to add PvP

Cara Forelli wrote:
So how would YOU make PVE more engaging - without including player interaction? Sabriz has some ideas of her own, but one of the most important traits of a CSM candidate is being able to listen to and identify good ideas from the community. What is yours?
Another important trait of a CSM candidate is accepting that not everyone plays EVE for the same reasons you do. It seem pretty obvious that Sabriz has absolutely no respect for players with gameplay styles which aren't focused around PvP. The OP even goes so far as to suggest that a certain subgroup of players simply don't exist.

Black Pedro wrote:
While the first part of your reply is a bit of slippery slope argument, Sabriz seems to be voicing a reasonable position. She is saying that since Eve is a single-universe competitive sandbox, any new PvE content should be designed with fostering this competition and the emergent gameplay that results from it.
Slippery slopes aren't always wrong. Suggesting they are is to suggest that changes would never occur as a precursor to further changes in the same direction. And while all content should have levels of competition, making it so that new PVE content forces you to move to an area when you can be ganked without concord protection certainly doesn't seem like the right way to go about it. To be honest it sounds like "I'm running out of targets and want a new mechanic that allows me to kill more people who don;t want to fight".

Black Pedro wrote:
Now there are arguments about where best limited development resources should be spent - on more solo PvE content which (according to CCP) the majority of these consumers quit the game quite quickly, or on more interactive content and game mechanisms that promote social interactions and thus player retention. However, that is really a CCP business decision which requires information that I lack to make any solid conclusions.
Yes, many of those people quit. The stats from fanfest in fact show that around half of new players leave EVE within a month, of those that remain 10% go into group content, and 40% move into solo/PVE content. Put another way, if 75% or less of players who stay more than a month but move into solo/PVE content leave, they they are still above or on par with the number of players who stay for group content even if none of the latter group leave (highly unlikely).

Now to me, this would be an indicator to devote time to making PVE more engaging. Considering PVE gets very little work, and mechanics like mining have been the same dull gameplay for pretty much ever it would seem it's long overdue. Obviously there are players joining who like that experience, so pretending they do not exist and focusing on yet more PVP zones would seem to be a bit backwards.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Black Pedro
Mine.
#80 - 2014-12-08 17:20:48 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Slippery slopes aren't always wrong. Suggesting they are is to suggest that changes would never occur as a precursor to further changes in the same direction. And while all content should have levels of competition, making it so that new PVE content forces you to move to an area when you can be ganked without concord protection certainly doesn't seem like the right way to go about it. To be honest it sounds like "I'm running out of targets and want a new mechanic that allows me to kill more people who don;t want to fight".

Ok, sure, but if you frame it that way then any attempts to add mechanics that promote more interaction or competition between players is "an attempt to gradually move PVE into PVP". Even Mike Azariah agrees that CCP should be spending development time on increasing the mechanisms facilitating group and player interaction.

I see no problem adding new, optional, PvE content that is more rewarding but has additional risks (such as, but not limited to, reduced/no CONCORD). It's essentially just a proposal to bring a bit of lowsec into a specific highsec context. Eve is all about risk vs. reward and lowsec (or this hypothetical new mechanic) PvE should be more rewarding.

Lucas Kell wrote:

Now to me, this would be an indicator to devote time to making PVE more engaging. Considering PVE gets very little work, and mechanics like mining have been the same dull gameplay for pretty much ever it would seem it's long overdue. Obviously there are players joining who like that experience, so pretending they do not exist and focusing on yet more PVP zones would seem to be a bit backwards.

Perhaps you are right, and more people would stay if the PvE would massively revamped. However, Eve is not a single-player PvE game: it is a sandbox where social interactions, both competitive and cooperative are paramount. CCP seems to have recognized that and everything CCP Seagull has said points to development being focused on a more player-controlled, player-driven Eve universe in the future, so I doubt you are going to see any significant solo PvE content ever again. Even if a complete revamp was done (which for mining might happen eventually), it will be to make it more group orientated and competitive, not make it more solo-friendly and isolationist.

I am not saying you are wrong in your views - you like what you like - but you appear to be fighting an uphill battle against the direction Eve is moving. You've made it clear that Sabriz isn't your candidate, but I am not sure you are going to find many other CSM candidates that share your view that Eve development resources should be spent on expanding Eve solo content over group content, nor even if you did would the developers listen to that CSM member.