These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page12
 

Harry Saq for CSM X

Author
Harry Saq
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#21 - 2015-02-23 17:51:51 UTC
Premier Kissoff wrote:
To combat the N+1 fight strategy, some have suggested reducing the effectiveness of Logistic Cruisers. Logi can keep 1 side from losing anything, and if both sides bring enough, it's a stalemate.

Is reducing the effectiveness of logistic cruisers a good approach to deal with the "whoever brings the most ships wins" strategy?

In large scale combat, sensor damps are the only commonly used ewar. Do you think ECM, Target Painters or tracking disruptors needs a buff?


Honestly, I have always hated the implementation of clerics or whatever other games call them (i.e. healers and buffers) into Eve. It turned what was a great spaceship battle field type game into "just another MMO" like freakin WoW, where you need to have all the correct party members to have a happy group outing (I don't play Wow, but saw all I needed from Neverrest....er Everguest). So, while the current chant is death to all supers (which I also think CCPs eyes got way too big when they launched the bright idea of going BIGGER BIGGER BIGGER, as though a battle freaking ship class isn't enough from a SINGLE pod pilot perspective) I would almost want to chant death to all logi....but, they are here, so I will answer the question given.

Currently big N+1 fleets are very linear in design and implementation because everything that isn't DPS or Logi is just too big of a PITA, or trying to be too cute by a half (however that saying goes). Simplicity rules the day when trying to deal with large numbers + the potential of going into a TiDi slow moving nightmare. Variety on the battlefield would be nice but ultimately, the objective in large scale chaos is to blow up the other things, and traditionally that is done with direct violence, not nuanced dancing (I can't imagine the pain of prolonging an already painfully slow 10% tidi fight). If this game was actually scalable in performance, it would be a different story, but reality is what it is.

So, even if they were given a buff, the underlying issues would make those buffs translate to an awful game experience, regardless of how cool it would be to see a real fight ensue based on positioning, flanking, and nuanced stratagems.

Aside from the above, we do need more parity in the long run.

Like I said in prior posts, I don't think the "have it our way" mentality of CCP dictated ship design is a real long term answer. All we will ever see are large swings in unintended consequences of the this or that nerf/buff to various types/roles/bonuses/applications of ships. What we really need is player generated parity through manufacture and design to bring out real innovation and dynamics when it comes to fleet design and implementation.

If I suddenly were granted powers to nerf logi and buff EWAR it would just be shuffling macro-poo around the table, and forcing people into predetermined classes and ships that happen to be good today. The cycle of searching for the perfect balance from the top down needs to be slowly moved away from over time. A bottom up approach where users drive the balance through the customizations they introduce in the manufacturing process will shift the onus of balance from over-tasked developers (who would then be free to work on the actual game experience and world level improvements) to the player base, and something that is a horrible experience now, will turn into insightful meaningful gameplay for all types.

Devs could then focus on the game experience and improvements in the tools we use to shape the world, but ultimately we would be driving and dictating advances of various "things to do" with ships, and roles to be played.
Harry Saq
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#22 - 2015-02-24 16:54:02 UTC
Cool, I was set to Evil be the Green Goblin (I think it is greedy, but who cares) for being a CFC pet, to which he then stated he never read any of my candidacy posts. I do love the internets ;)

He may have been interested in this entry: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5496751#post5496751
Kerplevich
Blueprint Haus
Blades of Grass
#23 - 2015-02-25 15:18:20 UTC
+1 for Harry Saq.

Good guy, loves the game, would be great on the CSM.
Harry Saq
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#24 - 2015-02-25 15:33:16 UTC
You know what day it is?!

"It's HUMP day!!"

...and I hear there is an election ;)

Vote for me please!
Harry Saq
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#25 - 2015-02-25 15:50:34 UTC
Also, to those conspiratorial types, it is official, I am not an official CFC null sec block candidate, and truly independent (as I stated before). For all you blue donut haters, and anti-collusion types, I have been confirmed to be on my own, so a vote for me is a vote for FREEDDDOOOOMMMM???

...or something, but yeah, please vote for me, I will represent the player base, not a preferred group, you can see from my posts that I care about the overall game design and quality gaming, not any special interest.
Harry Saq
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#26 - 2015-02-25 18:13:25 UTC
To see my responses to the 60 question eve match survey you can go here:

http://match.eve-csm.com/compare.php

and check box my name and filter (also by all means read the others too!).
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#27 - 2015-02-25 19:21:29 UTC
Harry Saq wrote:
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:

Can you highlight weakness in the game design and link to possible ways they can be fixed?


I tried to give a bit of flavor of that in my follow on posts. 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 commity, 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.


what does any of this actually mean? balancing by cost?
Harry Saq
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#28 - 2015-02-25 19:32:14 UTC
It means moving towards a model where the invention and manufacturing process actually has 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.

That is essentially the TLDR, though I have said it better elsewheres ;)
Harry Saq
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#29 - 2015-02-26 17:51:06 UTC
Remember, the CSM is a representative body, there to represent the player base, provide feedback regarding upcoming patches, and to be a sounding board/sanity check for developers. Though I have stated specific things I would like to see, it was more in response to questions and to provide a flavor as to my thoughts on the game and ilustrate my experience.

However, I would like to stress that I am running on both my ingame experience and my real life change management and training management experience. Reading through prior year in reviews, the CSM can be a thorn in the side to ignore or a useful partner to developers in terms of better understanding the game from a different perspective. I believe my background will provide insight and benefit to those developing the game we love, and it is my ability to bring unbiased assessment and change impact feedback on both gameplay and player quality of life.

A vote for me is a vote for focused meaningful quality change where quality of life, and actual FUN are the primary drivers to motivation and action.
Nadia Charne
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#30 - 2015-02-28 02:20:54 UTC
Getting your Alliance leader on the CSM.......Wonderful.
Getting your Harry Saq on the CSM......PRICELESS!!! Twisted
Bellak Hark
New Eden Media Organization
#31 - 2015-02-28 10:04:16 UTC
Harry Saq
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#32 - 2015-02-28 22:34:26 UTC
Bellak Hark wrote:


Thanks, Bellak!
Bellak Hark
New Eden Media Organization
#33 - 2015-02-28 22:46:05 UTC
Harry Saq wrote:
Bellak Hark wrote:


Thanks, Bellak!



Later than I wanted but at least I got it done.
Harry Saq
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#34 - 2015-03-02 18:25:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Harry Saq
I do feel I bring real value to the CSM in the form of change management, needs facilitation, player issues pass through and the like...

HOWEVER

If you are just voting for the shineys and the toys offered by CCP, then you might as well drop some comedic value in there in the form of a Harry Saq

...just sayin ;)
Harry Saq
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#35 - 2015-03-03 22:44:51 UTC
So continuing the theme of quality game play, and meaningful engaging content, regardless of the overall viewpoints of the new sov mechanics, CCP is still relying on the same low quality interfaces.

Mitigating the number of alts prevalent in the game is a function of engaging and meaningful game interaction. Alts exist to do the crappy things that CCP keeps designing to force teamwork (lighting a cyno is always the best example, but afk cloak camping is another).

They did the exact same thing with the Entosis Link. Push a button and wait, somebody even posted a snarky yet telling response in the feedback thread along the lines of "well, looks like I have a few more skills to add to my cloaky afk campers".

Whatever you think of the new module and mechanic, I would argue that it is a tremendous opportunity to add some awesome things to the game. Read my post in the feedback for what I am talking about:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5546663#post5546663

....and always remember to vote with your saq
Harry Saq
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#36 - 2015-03-04 01:50:35 UTC
...hell, it would even be interesting if there was a Valkyrie mini-game, something, anything over pressing a module and waiting...
Harry Saq
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#37 - 2015-03-05 22:16:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Harry Saq
As I write this we are on page 134 of the feedback forum, and by now it is all talking in circles. It would really be nice if CCP would provide a response regarding the issues raised so the conversation can move forward a bit. There are alot of good subtle ideas and other points being made that are getting drowned out by the big three issues.

1. Inty Entosis
2. Prime Time
3. We have now gotten two sticks, where's the carrot (otherwise known as incentive to even live in null)

I know it is only the third day, but I am not seeing alot of CCP feedback to the feedback, doesn't have to be much. Sounds like they need to grow a Harry Saq! Help them out and vote Harry Saq!
Harry Saq
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#38 - 2015-03-08 17:53:51 UTC
Only a little over a day to vote your Harry Saq onto the CSM ;)
Previous page12