| Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Artctura
Clan Shadow Wolf
Fatal Ascension
29
   |
Posted - 2013.03.13 13:49:00 -
[1] - Quote
EVE is not broken. The work of the previous two CSMGÇÖs, along with the refocus of CCP on flying in space has been wonderful for the game. Player numbers are climbing again, reversing a 2 year trend. Faction Warfare has driven renewed interest in a large portion of low sec that was so long ignored. The numbers canGÇÖt be ignored. If more people are playing, CCP is doing something right.
EVE can be improved. Functionally, there are so many things that make EVE beautiful. First and foremost is that casual players can succeed. CCP built a system that allows both hardcore and casual players to succeed, side by side. What CCP has failed to do however, is to remove some aspects of tedium from the game that still limit casual players. It should not require a player to sit for 4 hours inside a starbase clicking GÇ£onlineGÇ¥. Think about it. WeGÇÖve built a system capable of faster than light travel across the stars, but a starbase canGÇÖt queue up itGÇÖs commands? There are common sense improvements like these in most aspects of the game. Sometimes it just takes a fresh set of eyes to see the forest through the trees.
EVE can become more interactive. The EVE universe has a fairly robust API that is unique in the gaming world. I can be sitting on a train and check my market orders in Jita. Now, imagine that instead of checking them, I can adjust them. Imagine that I can manage my corporation membership and roles from outside the EVE Client. Now, IGÇÖm not suggesting we replace tasks that required flying in space, or exceed the limits of the existing game, but allowing tasks to be completed outside of the game adds a new level of interactivity. The system is already in place with the EVE API, it just needs to be tweaked to allow two way interaction with the game. CREST is a great start, but shepherding it through completion is going to be a special area of focus for me.
EVE has shown its staying power. Develop and publish a 5 year plan for the game. This allows you to incrementally implement major changes without shocking the system. Develop expansion benchmarks for the long term processes so that the long term change takes jumps during expansions and steps during patches, eventually arriving at the completed change.
EVE can become more data rich. CCP has a ton of statistics that they break out from time to time. They show things like ship production, mining numbers, modules in use and so on. LetGÇÖs work on getting this data to players in a timely fashion, both in and out of the game, in a way that doesnGÇÖt compromise the sandbox.
The sandbox is paramount. CCP has built one of the richest player driven economies in the game. The interaction between the player mining veldspar in high sec and the Erebus being blown up in null sec, is rich, complex and a fundamental requirement of the game. Any changes that will strip this core away need to be taken very carefully and with a lot of time for the community to investigate potentially unseen impacts. Fortunately, CCP tends to agree with this idea as well.
If you'd like to know more, visit my blog - http://artctura.com/ where you can get to know myself and my ideals better.
Artctura for CSM 2013 |
Cpt Roghie
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
101
|
Posted - 2013.03.13 13:53:00 -
[2] - Quote
+1
This could be fun. |
Amy Garzan
Northstar Cabal
Fatal Ascension
12
|
Posted - 2013.03.13 14:11:00 -
[3] - Quote
Signed |
hfo df
Ramm's RDI
Tactical Narcotics Team
16
|
Posted - 2013.03.13 14:56:00 -
[4] - Quote
Cool. |
Aryth
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
866
|
Posted - 2013.03.13 15:05:00 -
[5] - Quote
I have it on good authority that Artctura is getting on the next CSM.
Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Cabal
Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve. |
Stags Leap
Li3's Electric Cucumber
Li3 Federation
11
|
Posted - 2013.03.13 15:07:00 -
[6] - Quote
Sounds good. |
Neffs
The Drunken Empire
Fatal Ascension
2
|
Posted - 2013.03.13 15:07:00 -
[7] - Quote
Looking forward to the fresh ideas you bring to the table Art! |
Damien Dixon
Demon-War-Lords
Fatal Ascension
0
|
Posted - 2013.03.13 15:23:00 -
[8] - Quote
Good luck! |
BrokenBC
Incompertus INC
Fatal Ascension
37
|
Posted - 2013.03.13 15:27:00 -
[9] - Quote
+1 Best of luck you have my vote. |
Nistrak
Balanced Unity
Fatal Ascension
2
|
Posted - 2013.03.13 15:33:00 -
[10] - Quote
+1
You have my vote. |
|
|
Shadowschild
Black Lance
Fidelas Constans
50
|
Posted - 2013.03.13 15:45:00 -
[11] - Quote
You talk about star base changes yet don't list specific ways to improve them. Are you expecting CCP to come up with ideas & implement them? That's a very weak ground to stand on.
You mention using tools outside the game to make in game changes. This is not a priority for most players & honestly I don't support the idea of CCP wasting development time, (with their already small team) on some risky endeavor. You are blind to the obvious potential abuse of 3rd party macros. Do not open this door. Again, no specifics on how to implement this, just more wishful thinking.
Finally you bring up a 5 year plan. That is simply too far ahead to plan for any developer. A shorter development cycle would be more realistic.
Overall I find your points are too vague, not well thought out & sandwiched between statements of how beautiful & wonderful the game is. You lack the skills & insight to run for CSM , I do not feal you can best represent the playerbase at this time. |
Keep Crying
Demon-War-Lords
Fatal Ascension
3
|
Posted - 2013.03.13 16:21:00 -
[12] - Quote
You've got my vote, Art. |
Na Kolena Kuchka
Cryptic Networks
0
|
Posted - 2013.03.13 16:25:00 -
[13] - Quote
You've got my vote. |
Springfield Armory
Cryptic Networks
0
|
Posted - 2013.03.13 16:27:00 -
[14] - Quote
I'm voting for this guy. |
ChaeDoc II
Sigillum Militum Xpisti
Fatal Ascension
84
|
Posted - 2013.03.13 16:44:00 -
[15] - Quote
This discussion thread reminds me of the one HitIer started just before he announced his candidacy. |
ChaeDoc II
Sigillum Militum Xpisti
Fatal Ascension
84
|
Posted - 2013.03.13 16:48:00 -
[16] - Quote
In the interests of full disclosure - OP is a Brony. Just saying. |
Reah Loth
House Aratus
Fatal Ascension
15
|
Posted - 2013.03.13 17:28:00 -
[17] - Quote
Shadowschild wrote:You talk about star base changes yet don't list specific ways to improve them. Are you expecting CCP to come up with ideas & implement them? That's a very weak ground to stand on.
You mention using tools outside the game to make in game changes. This is not a priority for most players & honestly I don't support the idea of CCP wasting development time, (with their already small team) on some risky endeavor. You are blind to the obvious potential abuse of 3rd party macros. Do not open this door. Again, no specifics on how to implement this, just more wishful thinking.
Finally you bring up a 5 year plan. That is simply too far ahead to plan for any developer. A shorter development cycle would be more realistic.
Overall I find your points are too vague, not well thought out & sandwiched between statements of how beautiful & wonderful the game is. You lack the skills & insight to run for CSM , I do not feal you can best represent the playerbase at this time.
CCP are the game developers, it is their job to come up with the specific ideas.
Going into the CSM with a list of super specific changes you want made is only going to lead to disappointment, as CCP are the game developers and not the CSM. Artctura has a set of philosophies and principles that he will employ to guide CCP as best he can.
Planning 5 years ahead does not mean the same as detailing every step of the way 5 years in advance. Artctura wants a long term idea of where the game is going, implemented through shorter term changes. Radical changes made through non-radical steps.
He is not being vague, he is laying out the direction for which he wants the game to go. If you are looking for an armchair dev CSM representative, I suppose Art isn't your man. On the other hand, if you are looking for someone who knows the game, knows the process of development and is hell bent on seeing the game improve, voter Artctura. I know I will.
|
Besoina
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
5
|
Posted - 2013.03.13 17:35:00 -
[18] - Quote
Reah Loth wrote:Shadowschild wrote:You talk about star base changes yet don't list specific ways to improve them. Are you expecting CCP to come up with ideas & implement them? That's a very weak ground to stand on.
You mention using tools outside the game to make in game changes. This is not a priority for most players & honestly I don't support the idea of CCP wasting development time, (with their already small team) on some risky endeavor. You are blind to the obvious potential abuse of 3rd party macros. Do not open this door. Again, no specifics on how to implement this, just more wishful thinking.
Finally you bring up a 5 year plan. That is simply too far ahead to plan for any developer. A shorter development cycle would be more realistic.
Overall I find your points are too vague, not well thought out & sandwiched between statements of how beautiful & wonderful the game is. You lack the skills & insight to run for CSM , I do not feal you can best represent the playerbase at this time. CCP are the game developers, it is their job to come up with the specific ideas. Going into the CSM with a list of super specific changes you want made is only going to lead to disappointment, as CCP are the game developers and not the CSM. Artctura has a set of philosophies and principles that he will employ to guide CCP as best he can. Planning 5 years ahead does not mean the same as detailing every step of the way 5 years in advance. Artctura wants a long term idea of where the game is going, implemented through shorter term changes. Radical changes made through non-radical steps. He is not being vague, he is laying out the direction for which he wants the game to go. If you are looking for an armchair dev CSM representative, I suppose Art isn't your man. On the other hand, if you are looking for someone who knows the game, knows the process of development and is hell bent on seeing the game improve, voter Artctura. I know I will.
Artctura does not strike me as an inteligent speaker either, have to agree with the crtical analysis from shadowschild. I think most of the likes on this page are alts or corp mates anyways.
|
Movement Runner
Black Lance
Fidelas Constans
1
|
Posted - 2013.03.13 17:43:00 -
[19] - Quote
When people talk about sets of philosophies I don't buy it either. Sounds like politics "say whatever people want to hear & then do the opposite". What people want to see is concrete plans. "I plan on working together with CCP & the community on point A by proposing x, y z changes, vote if you are with me". It's like what is this guy's agenda???? Too obscure
-1 |
Temmu Guerra
Interwebs Cooter Explosion
Fatal Ascension
112
|
Posted - 2013.03.13 18:01:00 -
[20] - Quote
Movement Runner wrote:When people talk about sets of philosophies I don't buy it either. Sounds like politics "say whatever people want to hear & then do the opposite". What people want to see is concrete plans. "I plan on working together with CCP & the community on point A by proposing x, y z changes, vote if you are with me". It's like what is this guy's agenda???? Too obscure
-1
You guys ***** when people are playing Junior developer and ***** when they say they are not going to but are willing to help CCP and guide them.
Make up your dam minds
+1 |
|
|
Serah Lightning
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2013.03.13 19:34:00 -
[21] - Quote
Sounds like a great candidate. Getting my vote. |
Kalenn Istarion
Northstar Cabal
Fatal Ascension
5
|
Posted - 2013.03.13 19:39:00 -
[22] - Quote
My vote as well.
Try Harder. |
Artctura
Clan Shadow Wolf
Fatal Ascension
57
|
Posted - 2013.03.13 20:52:00 -
[23] - Quote
Temmu Guerra wrote:Movement Runner wrote:When people talk about sets of philosophies I don't buy it either. Sounds like politics "say whatever people want to hear & then do the opposite". What people want to see is concrete plans. "I plan on working together with CCP & the community on point A by proposing x, y z changes, vote if you are with me". It's like what is this guy's agenda???? Too obscure
-1 You guys ***** when people are playing Junior developer and ***** when they say they are not going to but are willing to help CCP and guide them. Make up your dam minds +1
In a simple statement, concrete plans from your CSM candidates are pointless. You want to know my philosophy because that is what I will be basing decisions on. What if CCP never decides to approach the points you ran on? What if your the only one on the CSM that feels that way? Are you going to simply not be involved because they aren't doing anything you campaigned for? If you are you shouldn't be on the CSM.
The simple fact is, my philosophy will drive my decisions in every circumstance and in every case. When CCP wants my opinion, its my philosophy that will drive my decisions. No candidate can possibly touch on every possible thing that will be brought before the CSM. So given a short period to distinguish myself, I'd prefer that you have some idea on what I'd do in any situation versus as solid idea on what I'd do on only a limited few.
If you have a specific question you'd like me to address directly, I'm more than open to answering it. I don't fear the hard question. But don't be annoyed when I take my time to research it and investigate it and might take some time to get back to you. That's what I'd want from a CSM candidate, and that is what you should expect. The person who simply spouts out "I'd make POS's movable, warpable objects if elected" isn't giving you a clue as to what they'd do if asked about a rebalance of super capitals. By giving you my philosophy, you might not know exactly what I'd do, but you would have a strong idea.
Artctura for CSM 2013 |
Artctura
Clan Shadow Wolf
Fatal Ascension
57
|
Posted - 2013.03.13 20:54:00 -
[24] - Quote
Today's blog post is up.
Radical change in non-radical steps
Enjoy.
Artctura for CSM 2013 |
Sergant Cornhole
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2013.03.13 22:51:00 -
[25] - Quote
This guy has some good ideas and a solid approach to player representation.
He has my vote. |
Nuvista
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
1
|
Posted - 2013.03.14 02:52:00 -
[26] - Quote
Took me a while to put aside the jaded-colored glasses and see that this approach truly is a refreshing change from this past joke of a CSM.
Best of luck Artctura, you got my like. |
Notaji Taalt
State War Academy
Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2013.03.14 18:46:00 -
[27] - Quote
+1 For you.
For the benefit of voters, could you take one of the current hot-button issues and demonstrate how your philosophy of thoughtful incremental change would apply to it (for example, sov mechanics)? |
ChaeDoc II
Sigillum Militum Xpisti
Fatal Ascension
84
|
Posted - 2013.03.14 19:01:00 -
[28] - Quote
Before I can signify my intention to vote for this candidate I need to know how he plans to address the lack of market regulatory functions available to null security alliances for items such as skillbooks. |
Artctura
Clan Shadow Wolf
Fatal Ascension
75
|
Posted - 2013.03.14 21:27:00 -
[29] - Quote
Notaji Taalt wrote:+1 For you.
For the benefit of voters, could you take one of the current hot-button issues and demonstrate how your philosophy of thoughtful incremental change would apply to it (for example, sov mechanics)?
Sure. I'm in a bit of a time crunch now, so I'm going to use a past example (if you'll forgive me), and I'll post a current hot button issue example later this evening.
Let's assume that CCP wanted to implement the dominion sovereignty system today. For those who don't know, this meant we went to a TCU/IHUB system to from one of "Most POSes wins".
Step 1 would be to implement the TCU. You would place the TCU in the system on planet 1 and assign it to the alliance controlling the system. The TCU would be invulnerable until another alliance reached the 50+1 threshold to take over the system.
Step 2 would be to implement the infrastructure hubs. At this point, the TCU would become vulnerable when the infrastructure hub was destroyed, just as it is today.
Step 3 would be to add the station timers to the system bringing us to the system we have today.
In 3 steps you go between the two sov systems without anything being a radical change, while the overall change is radical. You could slow it further by doing station and infrastructure hubs as single timers initially before adding the second timer.
I will get a more relevant to today's issues post up later but I want you to understand now what I mean by radical change in non-radical steps.
Also, be sure to check out my latest blog post. The link is in my signature.
Artctura for CSM 2013 |
Artctura
Clan Shadow Wolf
Fatal Ascension
77
|
Posted - 2013.03.15 01:00:00 -
[30] - Quote
For a more current example. Let's say that CCP changes the game to progressively change the risk factor in high sec. There have been a lot of rumblings about how people are either too safe or not safe enough in high sec, and I think that revisiting the way security status works across the board, but particularly in high sec, is a good idea. So, lets look at the hypothetically.
Today: There is essentially no difference between 0.5 and 1.0 systems.
Goal: Make security progressive. Allow war declarations to be progressive costing more for the higher security of the system. Reduce the strength and response time of concord in 0.5 systems while increasing protections in 1.0 systems. Increase the rewards of 0.5 space while decreasing it in 1.0. Effectively, the end goal is to make security in high sec mean something.
Over the course of a year, steps to implement this would include, in my proposed order.
1. A reorganization of high sec security status, reducing the security level drop across systems to no more than 0.1 every 3 to 4 systems (as much as possible).
2. Realignment of the system rewards. Higher level missions will require trips to 0.5 or 0.6 space. Better mining will take place in 0.5 or 0.6 and reduce mining profit in 0.9 and 1.0. Ratting, industry, mining and POS's can all gain advantage by being in 0.5 or 0.6 space.
3. War declaration costs become tied to the maximum security you can engage in.
4. Concord responses are readjusted making the possibility of killing stronger ships in groups a real threat in 0.5 and 0.6 space, while making it harder for all but the most coordinated attacks to succeed in 0.9 or 1.0. (Note: I'm not saying to remove the fact that you will get concorded, just adjusting how quickly it happens and how strongly it happens).
I'm not going to sit here and tell you this is what will happen because I'm not a developer. I want to be the person representing the customer in the development cycle. I think it would help improve the game, ease the transition into low/null for players wanting to go that way and make security status of a system more meaningful. There are numerous other things that need to get tweaked along the way (such as route settings) that I haven't expounded on in this post.
Now, help the developers plan these changes for each of the next four quarters, and explain the benefits of this to them when given the opportunity. This means that on June 1st the first change happens. Then July and August can be spent adjusting to the things that got missed that would have to happen. On September 1st, make the next change, and so on. No step in the chain is a radical departure from the state preceding it, but at the end of the day we end up with a radical change. We allow time for each of the steps to have its consequences evaluated and adjusted to ensure everything is as it should be. I think this type of approach is far less chaotic to the player base the
EVE has been around now for 10 years. There is no reason to believe it won't be around in another 5. It's time to look at where the game will be in 1, 3 and 5 years and have CCP developers and the CSM publish that vision and work towards making it happen. Steps toward that vision can be filled in by the developers and designers as they see fit, with the CSM helping them to understand where the player base feels the limits of a "non-radical" change are.
Artctura for CSM 2013 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |