Thank you for your interest in my campaign to be part of CSM 6. It is my intention to work diligently, effectively, and tirelessly to bring the concerns of the player base to the CSM, to CCP, and back to the players.

The following is a user submitted request for my stand on a topic important to them. I have given thought to the topic and formulated my opinion, but it’s just that; my opinion. Nothing more. There is no guarantee the opinion expressed herein will ever see the light of day.

My platform isn’t one of issues, but rather one of integrity, tenacity, and the willingness to hold the CSM and CCP accountable to the players that support everything we do. I will not push my own agenda, unless it coincides with what the majority of the player base wants for a given topic.

Never start a fight you can win. #RocTheVote

QUESTION: What is your stance on monetizing the EVE API? Do you think third party developers should be able to benefit from their efforts? How do you think CCP should enact quality control?

As half of the team that brought you the popular Capsuleer iPhone application, this particular topic is near and dear to my heart. I have had vested interest in this topic for quite some time.

CCP, once again, showed great innovation and community spirit by even offering a public API to their game. Few do. Recently, I’ve been working with the Need for Speed: World API, but it’s incredibly limited. CCP has opened up so much information through the EVE API, and has sporadically enhanced what data has become available as time goes on. Kudos to them on that.

The way I see it, and again, this is my own biased opinion, there are only two real options when it comes to the EVE API

Down with the API

The first solution is for CCP to remove the public aspect of the API altogether. Focus their social efforts internally, create their own mobile app, enhance the functionality of Eve Gate, and be done with it. Period.

Personally, I don’t like this option, but it is viable from a business point of view. By producing their own usages of the API, they easily have full control of their intellectual property, and all profits go directly to them. No fuss. No muss.

Quality Control

The other option for CCP, as I see it, is to develop a system where they monitor/control third party efforts, and let only the best uses of the API have their financial stamp of approval. I’m going to use EON Magazine as an example. EON has complete creative control over their efforts, yet every publish is thoroughly reviewed and approved by CCP. Not a single issue of EON goes to market without the CCP stamp of approval. It’s a good process. It’s also a much easier process when dealing with a tangible, printed product.

The world of digital property is much more complicated. For an iPhone app, CCP would need to setup a business agreement with the third party developer, taking a certain percentage of the profits from the sales of the app. Additionally, Apple also takes a cut off the top. This could result in an EVE Online app not being very profitable for the developers unless they have, let’s say, 60,000+ users. There are those that say this is typical of any competitive business practice; let the cream rise to the top. The dilemma there for CCP is they potentially stand to have a few crappy iPhone apps using their API that if it were up to them wouldn’t have the CCP stamp of approval at all, but then are they showing bias? Would the whining and flames begin? This last statement could be said for any mobile platform or use of the API, not just iPhone.

So there is a fine line for CCP to walk. Developers want freedom to express themselves how they see fit, but at the same time CCP needs to ensure quality control. How can they through their lot in with one development group without alienating others? There’s also the question of longevity. Anyone remember EVE Tracker? For that matter, anyone remember Capsuleer? We all want pay for work, otherwise development can only go so far. And at the end of the day, CCP is a business. They want to profit. Subscriptions to EVE Online = profit.

So how does CCP deal with this situation? One solution presented recently was to create a volunteer body to govern standards of usage for the API. This group would be aimed at nurturing and helping developers work within a pre-defined set of stlye guides in order to bring better quality products to the EVE community. It’s great in concept, but again, there is the question of longevity, not to mention who is qualified to participate as an advisor, and who determines those qualifications? What weight to they have in decisions regarding API development? Any? Do they even work with CCP on this initiative, or try to make a go of it strictly as members of the EVE community?

I think the heart of the issue is that CCP doesn’t have this level of mobile/social experience, and is having a difficult time choosing a path. Who is qualified to make recommendations within their organization? Do they alienate existing developers by restricting usage, or eliminating the API? Do they let anyone create an app for the API, even if it’s a piece of crap? How will that affect perceptions of their intellectual property? Of course, choosing no path means they are letting all options pass them by. Inaction is the worst choice.

If this issue was brought to the CSM, I would work with the CSM and CCP architecting a solution that works for everyone involved. Again, as half of the team that brought you Capsuleer, I worked for two years with CCP towards this very goal, and most of my documenation and business proposal is still relevant and valid. Maybe the weight of the CSM might make this topic of more importance to them. Maybe it will the EVE API more urgent.

Time will tell.

Thank you for your interest in my campaign to be part of CSM 6. It is my intention to work diligently, effectively, and tirelessly to bring the concerns of the player base to the CSM, to CCP, and back to the players.

The following is a user submitted request for my stand on a topic important to them. I have given thought to the topic and formulated my opinion, but it’s just that; my opinion. Nothing more. There is no guarantee the opinion expressed herein will ever see the light of day.

My platform isn’t one of issues, but rather one of integrity, tenacity, and the willingness to hold the CSM and CCP accountable to the players that support everything we do. I will not push my own agenda, unless it coincides with what the majority of the player base wants for a given topic.

Never start a fight you can win. #RocTheVote

QUESTION: Factional Warfare has over 20,000 active players, and is obviously broken. What are your thoughts on how to improve this game system?

When I first heard about the attack at Malkalen, and the subsequent massing of forces by the Amarr to assault the Minmatar Republic, there was no hesitation on my end; I would serve. And serve I did, bringing the offensive to the Amarr Empire time and again, earning the respect of my fleets as I rose through the ranks to Matar Colonel, the admiration of my people as the face of the war initiative, and the fear of my enemy as they trembled before me in system.

As a player, I eventually retired from Factional Warfare for one simple reason: what was the point?

Factional Warfare was an enticing and interesting idea when it was first introduced. Now it’s stale and pointless.

So what can be done to make this existing aspect of the game more engaging? Ironically, at Fanfest 2009, I had the opportunity to sit with a few of the CCP devs after a round table and pitch what I am about to discuss. It was received with great enthusiasm by the devs, and they were eager to go back to the office and run with it. Somewhere within the depths of CCP, I can only assume factional warfare became a non-priority, as obviously nothing has changed since its inception.

Dynamic Content

My first consideration was something I believe all MMOs fail it: the ability to generate content faster than players can consume it. It’s a problem that has existed for decades. Every new expansion of every MMO results in old players returning, new players signing up, an influx of capital to the production company, then a gradual decrease in subscriptions as players quickly finish the new content that took months/years to develop. It’s a vicious cycle.

What I proposed, and still adhere to, is the idea of a dynamic landscape. After talking with CCP devs and server architects, I know the technology can handle the demand of my idea with little overhead, and minimal effort.

Essentially there would be a dedicated server pool that tracks NPC objectives, in this case, factional warfare. When the idea proves solid, this could be expanded to other NPC factions. Let’s use the Amarr as an example in the table below:

* these are just sample ideas, not actual ideas to pitch

As you can see, there are multiple tiers for objectives. Each tier is dependent on the previous being completed. This results in a more challenging and difficult build up for both the NPCs, and for the players. Each tier has associated benefits, and penalties, depending on whether a player is for, or against, this particular faction. Also note that this strategy can also result in NPC vs NPC, which adds another fun dynamic to the equation.

At any tier, if a NPC faction is defeated, they do not cease to exist. They simply go back to the pool, pick a new objective, pick a new system within their sovereignty, and start again. It should be obvious that if you are an enemy of a faction, you want to defeat them at Tier 1. Of course, players that support that faction want to protect and work with them, enabling their faction to accomplish Tier 5, which has the most perks and benefits for players with good standing within that faction. Better LP rewards, higher level mission agents, better storyline missions, better FW perks, etc, etc.

There are caveats up for discussion within this dynamic content scenario. On the one hand, you’re denying players equal opportunity to content. Well, suck it. EVE does that now. I tried to do the level 1 Epic Missions during my time serving in the Tribal Liberation Force, and while the missions themselves were seemingly easy, trying to accomplish anything within enemy space was nigh impossible.

The other concern, in this example, would be that the 24th Imperial Crusade would blob their Amarr NPCs, almost guaranteeing Tier 5 success. To me, that is part of the challenge, and is a mechanic that also exists in many other areas of EVE, such as gate camping, blob capital fleet battles, etc, etc.

Intelligent Officer AI

Imagine, if you would, facing Lord Elwin. Lord Elwin is a Divine Commodore of the 24th Imperial Crusade. He’s also an NPC. He has survived many Minmatar attacks, and he has learned how they fight, and adjusted his attacks accordingly. He has grown more powerful. His bounty is worth more. He actually plays on the same ranking system we do, entitled to the same perks, rewards and benefits we are entitled to. He is a powerful adversary.

By allowing military Officer NPCs to remember previous engagements against players, we’re adding yet another element of complexity to Factional Warfare. You’re not always going to have the same fleet composition. You’re going to need to be smarter as a Fleet Commander.

Perks

As a Matar Colonel, it is my opinion that I should be a more decorated pilot than a green rookie to the TLF, and I’m not just talking about the rank medal. The table below shows some small incentives for players to remain involved in Factional Warfare:

* these are just sample ideas, not actual ideas to pitch

Again, these are not game changing bonuses, and they are only applied in Factional Warfare fleets, so the overall game still maintains balance (if you can call it that).

Rewards

Currently, there are no exclusive rewards for Factional Warfare. I can use my Loyalty Points to buy a Republic Fleet Firetail, but I can do that without being a part of Factional Warfare.

An added incentive to engage in the war should be the ability to cash in loyalty points for exclusive items. This could be Officer ship types, one time war fleet bonuses, unique implants, any number of things really. See the table below for some sample reward ideas:

* these are just sample ideas, not actual ideas to pitch

Essentially, that’s it. By introducing a dynamic landscape with NPCs that remember players, as well as incentive rewards to participate in the war, CCP would have created a more unique and interesting experiences for the pilots engaged. All the while, there is no unbalancing of those not involved in the war, thus no whining from others that Factional Warfare needs nerfing, though that will inevitably happen with any game system that changes.