CSM Campaigns

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
2 Pages12Next page
 

Harry Saq for CSM X

Author
Blades of Grass
#1 - 2015-02-09 18:23:42 UTC
...the CSM is in dire need of a Harry Saq ...(hmmm...that sounded better in my head)

Perhaps it would be better if I started with introducing myself.

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! <-- that sounded slightly dirtier than intended...

Elect me, and make CCP reason with your Harry Saq!
Of Sound Mind
#2 - 2015-02-10 16:58:28 UTC
Sorry, um, what are you campaigning on besides 'representing players'? All of us are campaigning on that, but most of us have some kind of focus we're specifically bringing to the table. Do you have one?

I fight for the freedom of my people.

Blades of Grass
#3 - 2015-02-10 17:49:51 UTC
I am campaigning on providing an unbiased player perspective with a focus on meaningful and quality gameplay. I do not believe bringing an armful of baggage in my specific wants and desires, but rather my knowledge and experience with both the game and process management (real life experience) in order to facilitate change based on the amazing amount of data already available from the payer base and the development teams defined vision, resources and capabilities.

Thanks for the question!

In terms of focus, I have been playing for so long I don't believe it is about pigeon holing issues, but looking at the game holistically and ensuring that change doesn't bog down into overly narrowed focus on singular game play/style/type. So new player experience, high/low/null-sec life, PvE, PvP, logistics, industry, sub-caps, caps, mechanics balance etc are all aspects of the game I have lived and both prospered and suffered with.

I am also not married to any particular style or mechanics niche. I happen to live and play in null sec right now, so obviously sov is a big issue, but the game is much bigger than just that, and I am thus interested in the greater development of the game. More importantly, how do we get from where we are now, to where the devs have stated they want to take us. To be able to contribute to that conversation, it is important to not be solely focused on my current life in null sec, and not be blinded by not wanting to change how I play, or worry about my current assets losing value and allowing that to turn into patch work narrowly focused thinking that misses the overall point.

I have already been through the logical "don't tough my _____" and "Eve is just about _____" lifecycles of thinking. Now I just want the game to meet its amazing potential, where the sandbox and emergent content through player interaction all play into making unique player driven experiences possible. Making it possible for each player's individual goals to be met and where personalization/customization and a sense of ownership allows players to feel like the things they make and the actions they take are uniquely theirs, and matter in the bigger picture.

...so, really not too much I guess ;)
Blades of Grass
#4 - 2015-02-10 19:12:39 UTC
However, if I were biased Big smile, it would be in the following way...

CCP has stated that they want the players to drive content.

CCP has also stated that players should drive new eden and help shape our surroundings

Currently, things are pre-designed by CCP and handed to us.

When we make things, they are not ours, atleast there is nothing unique about them, when we build something from scratch it is somehow the exact same as all others.

New ideas continue to be slanted in the “have it your way, as long as it is one of these limited choices”.

Ships are all pre-slotted, pre-attributed, and pre-skill bonused so that our choice is usually just to do what some dev thought we should with very minor variations (and usually less efficient variants). One of the biggest misinterpretations of how this sandbox is presented, and how it plays out, is that the players invent (discover/innovate), produce blueprints (design/customize), manufacture and distribute assets in a player driven economy. Where we are really just walking a very rigid pre-defined path to make the exact same stuff as the next guy. One would think, based on the terms used, that personal choices and uniqueness are intermingled all along the way to make a ship unique (and not just all at once in the very sterile “fitting” portion, where none of the aforementioned even matters).

For all we know, if the trend continues into how the new player made jump gates are developed, we will just be autopiloting through a series of pre-designed and optimized choices with only one solution. Think in terms of mixing the hacking mini-games with dotlan, where we are just clicking through choices, but really the path only goes to one place, and it just took time and luck, not skill or personal initiative, to get there. We won’t really be shaping anything, just playing out a very slow and expensive mini-game.

Skin licenses are another great example. We will soon be free to customize our ships with a paint scheme, as long as it is one of these choices we already pre-designed for you, and oh by the way, you have a bunch of weird non-industry type hoops to jump through to get them, and they aren’t even intrinsic to the ship in question, just another perishable hassle ridden post-production no marketable value add-on (think insurance).

Invention needs to be actual invention. Exploration needs to be real discovery. Manufacturing needs to allow for player customization and uniqueness so that both quality, efficiency and style are a value factor. PvE needs to play into PvP (shooting NPCs should be a primer to shooting players, with similar loadouts and training)....and the list goes on.

This game has a long history, a ton of knowledgeable players, enormous potential (we all feel it after we have unsubbed for any given amount of time), a great narrative, and a surprisingly good mechanics structure (really terms and placeholders) for both world economics and player lifestyles. It is just a matter of having the will and fortitude to implement change that takes this game to the next level where self sustaining emergent game play becomes a reality. CCP has shown signs that this is now possible (it has looked really bleak in the past) with their new design philosophy and actual practice. They just need to get from here to there with player perspective input of all types.

The reason I am running for the CSM is to both represent the player base’s current quality of life issues and help keep this big picture perspective in the forefront and ensure that questions are being asked along the change cycle that drive in these directions.

Quality of life, is where "representing the player base" comes in and where my priorities will be placed, whereas the remaining pipe-dreams mentioned are my underlying biases in terms of how greater future change can be implemented, and what it should build towards.
Blades of Grass
#5 - 2015-02-11 17:15:16 UTC
I have known Harry for several years in game and will gladly stand by him and endorse him for CSM X. Attention
Gallente Federation
#6 - 2015-02-12 17:15:12 UTC
+1, I support the above message.
Blades of Grass
#7 - 2015-02-15 02:17:29 UTC
Thanks Gehnster!
Gallente Federation
#8 - 2015-02-17 04:53:24 UTC
+1 I have been on both sides of his guns and I support this person.

Dradis Aulmais, Federal Attorney Number 54896

Free The Scope Three

#9 - 2015-02-17 05:53:18 UTC
I wonder how many CFC candidates are genuine and how many are for meta gaming purposes?

Can you present anything on this and other candidates?

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.

Blades of Grass
#10 - 2015-02-17 06:46:52 UTC
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
I wonder how many CFC candidates are genuine and how many are for meta gaming purposes?

Can you present anything on this and other candidates?


That is an interesting question, and one that I can only heavily speculate on, as this is my first bid for the CSM, and only have the minutes and commentary to go on.

I will say that while I am in the CFC, I am not at all representing them in any capacity (official or otherwise). In fact, aside from people finding out about my candidacy on these forums, I am not mentioned anywhere in the CFCs roster as an official candidate (I would be surprised if I was even incidentally).

So in response to your question, as it applies to me personally, I have no greater agenda, other than what I have already stated here, and nobody pulls my strings, has me by the short hairs, or anything else <--yeah, couldn't help it.

In terms of meta, I believe in quality change that ensures we can both shape the world we live in and put our personal stamp on the things we do and build. I believe this is best achieved primarily at the individual level (personal motivation and rewards) where teamwork and player interaction simply add value and meaning. Organizations are a bi-product of meeting individual goals and needs, and serve to enhance quality of life, they do not exist and cannot have meaning and purpose if the individuals (that comprise them) needs are not being met or achieved.

So I could absolutely care less about the meta for its own sake, and understand it to simply be a bi-product of combined game mechanics played out over the vast number of individuals that contribute to the daily execution of those mechanics. The meta is simply a reflection of the overall quality of design, and serves to gauge the effectiveness of the mechanics applied to the single shard universe (which is what makes this game great). So I do not serve the meta for a set of masters, but rather focus on the individual's experience and interpret the quality of change through the resulting meta.

Hope my answer helps...
#11 - 2015-02-17 10:33:58 UTC
Harry Saq, do you know a guy called Suq Madiq?
#12 - 2015-02-17 15:20:00 UTC
Harry Saq wrote:
Hope my answer helps...
It does and sounds like we have similar difficulties, by pure coincidence, I am in the very same corporation as corebloodbrothers.

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

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.

Blades of Grass
#13 - 2015-02-17 21:01:28 UTC
Alphea Abbra wrote:
Harry Saq, do you know a guy called Suq Madiq?


lol - no, I am from a different lineage ;)
Blades of Grass
#14 - 2015-02-20 19:39:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Harry Saq
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.
Goonswarm Federation
#15 - 2015-02-20 20:45:31 UTC
Harry saq for CSM X
Great leader and great personality.
#16 - 2015-02-21 14:13:15 UTC
Nice ideas - will endorse
Blades of Grass
#17 - 2015-02-21 18:53:28 UTC
Blades of Grass
#18 - 2015-02-23 02:13:29 UTC
Wow - 77 running, this could get interesting ;)
Gallente Federation
#19 - 2015-02-23 04:08:22 UTC
Don't let the cronies down in CFC-ville control the CSM! Vote for independents like Harry!
Caldari State
#20 - 2015-02-23 16:37:18 UTC
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?
2 Pages12Next page
Forum Jump