open All Channels
seplocked Jita Park Speakers Corner
blankseplocked [CSM6] Seleene - EVE ONLINE: ITERATIONS!
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7

Author Topic

El'Niaga
Minmatar
Republic Military School
Posted - 2011.02.24 07:37:00 - [31]
 

The CSM is not guardian of the game populace. Yeah that's the PR line but its not true.

There's no real need to ship folks to Iceland, after all with video conferencing etc technologies it could be done just as easily over such medium and require no real travel. Its PR nothing more nothing less.

Much like SOE ignored its Senate with SWG during the CU and NGE development, CCP has mostly ignored the CSM. In both cases a few minor things have been changed as a result of said groups but ultimately major game changes are decided independently of them even if said groups are led to believe they have input.

James Tiberius Kirk
Posted - 2011.02.24 10:49:00 - [32]
 

Edited by: James Tiberius Kirk on 24/02/2011 10:54:02
What is your stance on botting?

How far are you willing to go with discussions regarding botting?

Are you aware of the full extent of botting?

Are you aware of the full extent of RMTing? (ie Alliance leaders RMT'ing through renters)

Edit: What do you think about micro-transactions?

Plex for Remaps, for or against?

What do you think about plex for ship customization?

FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2011.02.24 11:04:00 - [33]
 


Valator Uel
Caldari
Mercenaries of Andosia
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2011.02.24 15:37:00 - [34]
 

Woot! Will definitely vote for you. Couldn't believe it when I saw your CSM sig on another forum.

The above poster beat me to the botting/RMT question but I'm also interested in your answer.

Oh, can you please send those free tacos? kthxbye.

Reed Tiburon
Caldari
Future Corps
Sleeper Social Club
Posted - 2011.02.24 16:02:00 - [35]
 

Originally by: Lederstrumpf
If CCP would be a company I'd respect as a whole, you'd have my vote.

I'm pretty sure you're able to do a pretty good job in a company which is listening.

Realizing though what CCP seems to be these days I'll not waste your time by voting for you.

I'll vote for some random jerk instead, hoping CCP will get the least out of it and crash into some hard wall sooner than later. Some lessons obviously must be learned the hard way prior to change being able to happen.




An obstructive CSM will only lead to CCP getting even more out of touch with players.

Seleene worked on a bunch of stuff when he was actually at CCP:
http://seleene4csm.blogspot.com/2011/01/ccp-connection.html

He knows the way CCP operates and can pinpoint the flaws with it, and having been on the other side is a huge resource when you're talking to Devs. Just having been in their shoes gives you a lot of insight into the problems individual programmers, artists, etc. face in trying to make this game actually awesome, instead of just :awesome:.

My vote's going to you, man (though if I had more accounts, Trebor and Prometheus close behind).

Razin
The xDEATHx Squadron
Legion of xXDEATHXx
Posted - 2011.02.24 16:41:00 - [36]
 

Originally by: Seleene

My main priority will be pushing for the iteration and balancing of current features. Sure, I want to see new content as well, but iteration of the current game play would virtually guarantee new content as part of the process.

Would you consider delayed local and the associated changes to d-scan an iteration or new content?

Eliza Hacklehaber
Posted - 2011.02.25 02:34:00 - [37]
 

You've got my vote

Kepakh
Posted - 2011.02.25 12:09:00 - [38]
 

Originally by: Seleene

I have accepted that things like Incarna will be a part of EVE because the powers that be have deemed it essential to both their marketing strategy and necessary technological milestones.
.
.
.
In that sense, the CSM isn't a waste of time because it can play the role of guardian for the interests of the players. It can't prevent, but it can make visible things like CCP wasting lots of time on things that really don't matter to players.


I do not understand your point here.

Showing CCP how much time they wasted isn't going to help anything. You noted yourself that the game development is rather driven by marketing and technical milestones thus wasting or not wasting their development time is not really their interest as long as new shiny is pulled out. Basically you are pointing finger at something they consider a low importance.

Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.02.25 12:50:00 - [39]
 

Originally by: Seleene
Originally by: Scatim Helicon
Should we worry that your past as a Developer may prevent you from being impartial when working as a CSM? I'm thinking particularly of issues bought about under your watch - if CSM discussions turn to, say, de-buffing Supercarriers or changing some aspects of the Dominion sov system, will you be able to put ego to one side and be willing to take the axe to your own creations in the same way as you would that of others?


An axe? How about a flaming sword? Bear in mind that anything created on 'my watch' wasn't purely my own but the result of some sort of team effort that may or may not have been what was originally intended or desired. I know there are several things on TQ which I would have wanted to see come out differently or... finished. Wink

I appreciate that games development is a team effort, but there have been instances where you nailed your colours very publicly to the mast - I'm thinking specifically of the Supercarrier buff and the 'Nozh vs Abathur' episode between Dominion 1.0 and Dominion 1.1.

Dominion 1.0 supercarriers were hilariously underpowered, but many people (I'm one of them) feel that the current version has pushed a little too far in the opposite direction (see this thread). If the topic of Supercarrier balance comes up, are you really the best person to be impartially debating the argument, or do you risk (even if just sub-consciously) allowing your previous position to get in the way?

Quote:
Iteration is all about updating, tweaking and even scrapping things that do not work. This should be happening much more often than once every six months or every two years. It's one of the main reasons I am running for CSM - so I can go back there and ask in person, "Where the hell is XXXX? Sansha, wtf?" and a lot of other things.

Some kind of 'live balance team' to continually examine issues along these lines and push out tweaks and fixes would be much appreciated. The current stat of play where CCP give the players a year or more of complaining (and crosstraining to the current FotM), and wait for a space in the next bi-annual patch to drop the nerfhammer, satisfies nobody.

Seleene
Body Count Inc.
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2011.02.25 19:12:00 - [40]
 

Originally by: James Tiberius Kirk
What is your stance on botting?


In a perfect world, I'd like to see it completely eliminated. I worry that CCP may be taking an 'all or nothing' approach when it would seem to be more effective and efficient to follow a phased plan. But I do not know exactly what CCP is doing or planningwith regard to this specific issue so uninformed speculation isn't really productive.

Quote:
How far are you willing to go with discussions regarding botting?


This really depends on what CCP has to say on the issue when asked about it. It is certainly a topic that will persist on my agenda until they provide satisfactory answers and evidence of taking action to eliminate the plague of bots in the game. Personally, I would like to see them have a team devoted to this issue as I feel botting does more to unbalance game play than almost anything else in EVE.

It's a problem that has to be approached with a realistic assessment of how willing people are to take the easy way out (especially when punitive responses from CCP are laughably light), how determined they are to to do so, and how sophisticated and pervasive the software is. It's unclear whether CCP is being realistic with themselves about the problem, but it's pretty hard for them to claim ignorance given the information collected by players and provided to CCP over the years... especially in the last few months.

Quote:
Are you aware of the full extent of botting? Are you aware of the full extent of RMTing? (ie Alliance leaders RMT'ing through renters)


All too well aware, yes. If you are familiar with the series of articles published by E24, I was one of the people poking Manfred to, "Well, say something about it. See if anyone else speaks up as well."

I've initiated conversations with several players in the past months about this issue and it's also something I get asked about constantly. I plan to put a lot of effort into keeping the issue on the table and making sure CCP addresses it.

Quote:
What do you think about micro-transactions?


I think this is inevitable because CCP is a business and they want to make money. There are certainly a lot of things in EVE that have the potential to be developed as MT items. I am completely opposed to MT allowing you to pay for anything that you can currently achieve through normal game play though. For example, you shouldn't be allowed to go out and buy a Tobias warp disruptor for $$$. I have no issues with MT for vanity items or things which do not directly affect game play. If someone wants to pay $1.50 for a pair of Minmatar-skin boots, that's up to them.

Quote:
Plex for Remaps, for or against?


Against.

Quote:
What do you think about plex for ship customization?


This falls into the same area as my MT answer - if it's a vanity thing and not an actual 'game play' item, that's up to you to decide.

Two Shots
Caldari
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.02.25 19:14:00 - [41]
 

Seleene:

Explicitly and literally, can you walk me through the means by which—in other words, by what mechanic or process—you intend to get your pet topics pushed through to CCP? Bear in mind that it has been expressly stated by CCP, ever since the advent of the CSM, that the CSM does not exist to serve as amateur game developers. I am genuinely curious how you intend to bypass the stated position of CCP so that you can deliver on your promise to do stuff.

Seleene
Body Count Inc.
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2011.02.25 19:17:00 - [42]
 

Originally by: Razin
Originally by: Seleene

My main priority will be pushing for the iteration and balancing of current features. Sure, I want to see new content as well, but iteration of the current game play would virtually guarantee new content as part of the process.

Would you consider delayed local and the associated changes to d-scan an iteration or new content?


Those would both be iterations of current game play.

Seleene
Body Count Inc.
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2011.02.25 19:27:00 - [43]
 

Edited by: Seleene on 25/02/2011 20:18:13

Originally by: Two Shots
Seleene:

Explicitly and literally, can you walk me through the means by which—in other words, by what mechanic or process—you intend to get your pet topics pushed through to CCP? Bear in mind that it has been expressly stated by CCP, ever since the advent of the CSM, that the CSM does not exist to serve as amateur game developers. I am genuinely curious how you intend to bypass the stated position of CCP so that you can deliver on your promise to do stuff.


Well, first of all, I don't have any pet topics, except to support that which involves iteration of current game play over the introduction of new features. That is my main priority, so I'm not going to lie to you and say I'm going there to "do stuff". If elected, it's up to me to be part of the elected council that presents a united front that provides incontrovertible evidence from players to support CSM positions on different matters and encourages CCP to do what is best for the GAME. I'm going to work with the other CSM members, using everything I know about EVE and my time at CCP, to give the CSM every advantage possible as we work together to move things forward.

FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2011.02.25 20:10:00 - [44]
 

Whether or not WiS should have PvP?

Seleene
Body Count Inc.
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2011.02.25 20:14:00 - [45]
 

Originally by: Scatim Helicon
Originally by: Seleene
Originally by: Scatim Helicon
Should we worry that your past as a Developer may prevent you from being impartial when working as a CSM? I'm thinking particularly of issues bought about under your watch - if CSM discussions turn to, say, de-buffing Supercarriers or changing some aspects of the Dominion sov system, will you be able to put ego to one side and be willing to take the axe to your own creations in the same way as you would that of others?


An axe? How about a flaming sword? Bear in mind that anything created on 'my watch' wasn't purely my own but the result of some sort of team effort that may or may not have been what was originally intended or desired. I know there are several things on TQ which I would have wanted to see come out differently or... finished. Wink


I appreciate that games development is a team effort, but there have been instances where you nailed your colours very publicly to the mast - I'm thinking specifically of the Supercarrier buff and the 'Nozh vs Abathur' episode between Dominion 1.0 and Dominion 1.1.

Dominion 1.0 supercarriers were hilariously underpowered, but many people (I'm one of them) feel that the current version has pushed a little too far in the opposite direction (see this thread). If the topic of Supercarrier balance comes up, are you really the best person to be impartially debating the argument, or do you risk (even if just sub-consciously) allowing your previous position to get in the way?


I am exactly the right person, especially on that issue, because I was THERE and know exactly what happened and why. I understand the ridiculous communication breakdowns that prevent(ed) proper iteration from taking place and as a member of CSM6 I can share that knowledge with the other council members in order to try to break the gridlock. That said, believing that old ideas are still the right ones is short-sighted. It is foolish to be married to ideas based on the way things were; CSM6 members need to look at ALL ideas in light of the here and now while taking into consideration contextual references from the past that may still be useful.

My goal is to be one of nine people prepared to impartially debate all matters as best we can, with the most information possible laid out on the table. I want to be on the CSM so that I will be in a position to share knowledge and insight the rest don't have. I am not tied down to any particular notion of how something is supposed to be in EVE, regardless of if I was on the game design team that worked on it or not. That is why my main platform centers on Iteration.

Originally by: Scatim Helicon
Originally by: Seleene
Iteration is all about updating, tweaking and even scrapping things that do not work. This should be happening much more often than once every six months or every two years. It's one of the main reasons I am running for CSM - so I can go back there and ask in person, "Where the hell is XXXX? Sansha, wtf?" and a lot of other things.


Some kind of 'live balance team' to continually examine issues along these lines and push out tweaks and fixes would be much appreciated. The current stat of play where CCP give the players a year or more of complaining (and crosstraining to the current FotM), and wait for a space in the next bi-annual patch to drop the nerfhammer, satisfies nobody.


A 'live team' is something I've wanted to see for years and it looks like this might finally be happening. There is currently a team (Team BFF) that seems to be focused on just this. I want to see this kind of thing continue.

Gehen Sealbreaker
Amarr
Posted - 2011.02.25 21:56:00 - [46]
 

No need for me to rephrase again what had been said by quite a few posters / CSM members or former members so far... You have a truly unique position and point of view that can make you an invaluable asset to the CSM.

My vote will go to me, ofc, but I hope to see you there.

Mashie Saldana
Minmatar
Veto Corp
Posted - 2011.02.26 00:06:00 - [47]
 

Would you support a change as drastic as removing sec status gain from every NPC in game except lowsec belt rats?

Cpt Underpants
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.02.26 01:22:00 - [48]
 

Originally by: Seleene
As a Game Designer at CCP...
Originally by: Seleene
...dozens of T2 BPOs

I'm sure everyone will draw their own conclusions about these admissions.

Marconus Orion
D00M.
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2011.02.26 10:47:00 - [49]
 

Originally by: Mashie Saldana
Would you support a change as drastic as removing sec status gain from every NPC in game except lowsec belt rats?


This is what I have been screaming for a while now myself. If Concord doesn't care about the bad things you do in 0.0, why should they care about the good things? I do like the idea of no sec status gain in empire too.

Ntrails
Posted - 2011.02.26 15:35:00 - [50]
 

How do you feel about the results of your supercap changes?

Hratli Smirks
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.02.26 17:01:00 - [51]
 

Given you were one of the developers involved in creating Dominion in the first place what do you say to people who think you are in fact part of the problem?

Seleene
Body Count Inc.
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2011.02.26 19:57:00 - [52]
 

Edited by: Seleene on 26/02/2011 19:59:16

Originally by: FinnAgain Zero
Whether or not WiS should have PvP?


There has been zero indication that CCP is planning to put any sort of PVP element into Incarna. I would like to see where something like that might go, but that entails having a PLAN.

Originally by: Mashie Saldana
Would you support a change as drastic as removing sec status gain from every NPC in game except lowsec belt rats?


If you mean that low sec rats give you sec status gains and 0.0 rats just give you bounties / rewards... from an RP perspective that would make a bit of sense. If you are talking about low sec incentives, I think there should be more than one way though of increasing your sec status than just shooting random bits of pixels in a belt as well. I'd be happy to bash more ideas around about this, especially alternative ways of raising sec status.

Originally by: Ntrails
How do you feel about the results of your supercap changes?


I think it's ridiculous that they have been allowed to sit as is for over a year, and for nearly three years previous to that. I have no idea why CCP seems almost scared to do minor tweaking and balancing every couple of months until they hit the sweet spot. There should be a dedicated team of people that work specifically on this sort of thing, actively soliciting feedback from players instead of working on things and then surprising us with dev blogs or changes on SiSi from nowhere. That's the entire point of my campaign: the ever-increasing amount of game mechanics that continue to sit stagnant year after year yet more new stuff keeps getting added to the pot.

Originally by: Hratli Smirks
Given you were one of the developers involved in creating Dominion in the first place what do you say to people who think you are in fact part of the problem?


Well, I worked on a lot more than just Dominion but if you are looking for someone to 'blame', for the state of play right now I'd suggest you look a lot higher up than me. I was one man on a team and the ultimate decisions as to what would or would not be in Dominion were not made by me. As I've stated elsewhere, the new Sov system is just one of the many things in EVE that were started and never finished. You can watch the presentation I gave at Fanfest last year for a few hints of things that didn't make it into Dominion or since.

It's not my decision that Sov, Factional Warfare, Lo-Sec, Wormholes or, hell, even Certificates were never iterated on. This is why I'm running for CSM - I want to know WHY, just like you do. I know what was in the cooker before and I remember how many of these decisions were made. I can use that knowledge to help CSM6 work together better than ever before in trying to at the very least get some answers. I won't make false promises that issue X or Y will be fixed because I know all too well how things work.

Profiteering
Posted - 2011.02.26 20:09:00 - [53]
 


iP0D
Posted - 2011.02.27 12:51:00 - [54]
 

Edited by: iP0D on 27/02/2011 12:54:34
Out of curiosity, how will you deal with the possibility of - should you get elected - select other CSM members confusing the concept of accountability with hurf blurf, emo or fists on a table (you know what I mean). Accountability is one thing, the other stuff has made CCP run away consistantly as well a caused much kneejerking over the years. It usually only ends up in social engineering, which at best gives no results (look at Mazziliu and Elvenlord) and at worst makes CCP throw their company values even harder out of the window.

And as a second question, how would you deal with repeat occurances of CCP running for the hills the moment CSM does not agree with them (like they did with Incarna) and isolates the CSM while still feeding it all to the media. The only instruments you have there are those that Hilmar emphasised (transparancy, communication), but that means keeping all occurances within the public view, which is not liked by some parts of CCP. It's a tough thing to approach.


FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2011.02.27 13:05:00 - [55]
 

Originally by: Seleene

There has been zero indication that CCP is planning to put any sort of PVP element into Incarna.


Agreed, hence my proposal to iterate on WiS so that PvP is in it.
if you check my initial post with a link in this thread (and ignore the trolls in the linked thread), it goes to an 'elevator proposal' thread that Mynxee suggested I started, and the OP of that thread links to a mechanics thread.

Super Whopper
I can Has Cheeseburger
Posted - 2011.02.27 16:29:00 - [56]
 

CCP Abathur... I mean Seleene, you have my axe!

Seleene
Body Count Inc.
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2011.02.28 04:18:00 - [57]
 

Edited by: Seleene on 28/02/2011 04:21:14
Originally by: iP0D
Out of curiosity, how will you deal with the possibility of - should you get elected - select other CSM members confusing the concept of accountability with hurf blurf, emo or fists on a table (you know what I mean). Accountability is one thing, the other stuff has made CCP run away consistantly as well a caused much kneejerking over the years. It usually only ends up in social engineering, which at best gives no results (look at Mazziliu and Elvenlord) and at worst makes CCP throw their company values even harder out of the window.


I can't predict how I'll deal with that possibility because each situation is going to require a response based on the facts of the moment. It's very important that the people elected to CSM 6 understand that the bull**** grandstanding and ME ME ME politics and attention whoring that have been demonstrated by some previous delegates isn't going to work anymore. I've seen this process from both sides of the fence and I have a good idea of what CCP thinks of certain types of CSM members that don't seem to care about the fact that they are on a COUNCIL and not there to promote just their one favored version of game play in EVE.

For months, I have been speaking with both past and present CSM members and soliciting their feedback as much as possible. I believe that many of the the CSM 6 candidates know how important it is now to be informed and are doing the same kind of homework. They are looking very hard at the past CSMs and will base their approach on what seems to have worked and what has obviously failed. If I am elected I am going to work with other like-minded CSM members to ensure that we take our predecessors' hard earned lessons about dealing with CCP to heart.

Originally by: iP0D
And as a second question, how would you deal with repeat occurances of CCP running for the hills the moment CSM does not agree with them (like they did with Incarna) and isolates the CSM while still feeding it all to the media.


Heh... when I look at the list of candidates running this time around, I think there is a good chance that CSM 6 is going to comport itself much differently than past councils in terms of establishing communications amongst ourselves. When you get people who are long-time alliance leaders or real life professional managers (or both) on a council like this, we're going to play CSM much the same as we play EVE. There will be organized Skype / TS meetings, analysis of enemy fortifications, plans of attack and then execution.

If it sounds much like the CSM is going to war... well, perhaps it's an apt analogy. If you look at some of the other campaign threads in this forum, you'll see at least one common theme among several - that of forming a proper united front.

So when CCP moves to 'isolate' the CSM, it becomes the responsibility of the elected members of the CSM to do everything in their power and use all of their experience to bring the concerns of the people we represent to light. My former status as a Dev and the working relationships I had with people who are still there will count for something when there is a situation like that. If CCP chooses to run for the hills, as a member of the CSM I will call them out on it, keep the community informed about it and track it so that those trends can be demonstrated in no uncertain terms. I will work with the other CSM members together to be relentless in pushing for communication with the players on key issues even if there is no response.

At the end of the day, no one can force anyone in CCP to communicate with CSM, but I will certainly make sure there is a record of our attempts to try. Preferably, CCP will choose productive engagement with CSM 6. There's no reason to make this process unnecessarily difficult.

Marconus Orion
D00M.
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2011.02.28 06:30:00 - [58]
 

What are your thoughts on jump bridges, 0.0 logistics and power projection?

Venkul Mul
Gallente
Posted - 2011.02.28 10:00:00 - [59]
 

Edited by: Venkul Mul on 28/02/2011 10:00:56


Originally by: Seleene

If it sounds much like the CSM is going to war... well, perhaps it's an apt analogy. If you look at some of the other campaign threads in this forum, you'll see at least one common theme among several - that of forming a proper united front.



While you probably will be my choice for this election, that emphasis about an united front worry me a bit.

Sadly it sound too much like "We will unite and support what the majority of the CSM want, all other issues be dammed, no manpower to lose on "secondary" issues".

"Secondary" issues have an habit to be abandoned in a ditch for years and even it they are minor things from CCP and the CSM point of view they tend to fester and make a section of the player base unhappy.

Examples are the hybrids issue, AFs, the sorry state of missions and soloable PvE and so on.


Swynet
State War Academy
Posted - 2011.02.28 12:54:00 - [60]
 

One of the most serious candidates.

Wishing you GL and see youat that CSM6 with Rip, I think you guys can do a great job together.


Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only