Thank You to everyone who has entrusted me with their votes over the years, and given me the opportunity to experience the most exclusive in-game profession in all of computer gaming.
Thank You to my colleagues on the past four CSMs, who have given me the opportunity to be part of the evolution of a unique and effective organization.
Thank You to CCP, for having the courage to try the CSM experiment and give it the time it needed to properly develop.
Thank You, one and all.
But now, it is time for me to step down. I will not be running for re-election to CSM9.
Don't get me wrong, I'd love to run again. Being on CSM is a wonderful (albeit exhausting) experience, and I'm going to miss it terribly. But one of my main long-term goals on CSM was to help restructure it so that it could be a more effective voice for the community, and that job is largely completed. My particular (and perhaps, peculiar) skills are less necessary -- so it's time for me to return to being a private capsuleer.
You can depend on me to work hard for the rest of the current term, and to be very vocal about who deserves your vote in the upcoming elections. And I look forward to seeing you all at Fanfest!
But after that? Well, just call me Citizen Trebor.
Monday, March 3, 2014
Wednesday, January 22, 2014
Only you can prevent Hamster Fires
In my previous post, I took a stab at explaining the mathematics of lag. Subsequently, I was goaded pestered challenged encouraged by CSM Vice-Chair Ripard Teg to explain in more detail how the problem of lag might be addressed. As he put it, it "might require you doing more than one post in a month, but it'd be worth it."
In my post, I pointed out that (a) faster computers aren't going to help, and (b) more efficient code is helpful, but not helpful enough. The fundamental problem is that because it's never a bad idea to bring more people to a fight, "fleets expand to fit the lag available."
Fixing that is a hugely difficult problem that will touch many areas of the game. But perhaps there are some significantly simpler game design changes that can, if not solve the problem, at least buy us more time in which to deal with it. This is what I'd like to address in this post.
As with the previous post, all the examples given below are very simplified for purposes of explanation. And I want to make it absolutely clear that I am not involved in Sov-warfare, so I am sure that there will be many flaws in the example I give below. This is just an exercise in identifying the problems that need to be solved.
At the most basic level, what causes lag is that everybody has to fight in the same place at the same time. Since every object on a grid can potentially interact with every other object on the same grid, the amount of computation needed to process a fight increases non-linearly -- doubling the number of objects more than doubles the horsepower you need.
The key thing to keep in mind is that the important variable is "number of objects that can interact". For purposes of illustration, let's say that the computation load increases as the square of the number of objects; twice as many objects means four times as much computation.
As is well known, one of CCP's secret weapons is that their servers are powered not by common everyday electricity, but by genetically-engineered hamsters. Let's say that with the hamsters running flat-out in 10% TiDi, CCP's best server can handle 2000 players fighting it out on the same grid. 2000-squared is 4,000,000, so the server can be rated at 4 million hamsterpower.
If you draw a graph with # of players along the horizontal axis, and # of hamsters required along the vertical, you get something that looks like this:
Alas, when the line hits the top of the graph, we run out of hamsters even worse, all the hamsters are working so hard that they catch on fire. As the aroma of roasted rodent chokes CCP's server complex, two things happen: soul-crushing lag descends upon New Eden, and tomorrow's lunch menu at CCP gets an additional "meat dish".
But all is not lost; if we could split the fights up into 1000 player battles in the same system, then each battle only requires 1000-squared, or 1 million hamsterpower. Running flat out, the faithful hamsters can handle 4 of these battles simultaneously on a single server.
And even better, if we could spread out the fights to different systems, then each could potentially run on its own server, with its own set of hamsters.
So this is the first thing we need: Sov-warfare should take place on a constellation-wide basis, and require multiple simultaneous fights in multiple systems. And to discourage people from just jumping and bridging around to create local concentrations of force, Force projection by cyno must be cleverly nerfed.
Another thing to consider is that at present, battles are focused not only in space but also in time, thanks to the timer system. This is one consequence of the fact that Sov is a binary state; you either have it, or you don't. So timers have to go, and that means that Sovereignty must become a continuum.
Finally, Shooting structures is boring, so let's get rid of it.
I spent a few hours and came up with a humble suggestion that tries to incorporate all of these concepts:
Sovereignty is determined on a constellation-wide basis. In each system in the constellation, there is a Sovereignty Control Monitor (SCM).
The SCMs give out Political Points (PP) for ratting, mining, and just plain being in space, but they also give points for any kills that took place in the system. These points are given to the player who struck the final blow, and the amount depends on the value of the kill. SCMs that are giving out more than the constellation's average amount of PP reduce their awards, to encourage multiple fights. Obviously, this has to be structured so that sitting in a big blob in one or a few systems while your opponent hangs around in all the other ones is a losing strategy. I'll be the first to admit that figuring out a PP-awarding system that is resistant to abuse is a challenging problem, but I don't think it is an unsolvable one.
During peacetime, and periods when one side has timezone dominance, people can do stuff and get some points, but the real payoff happens when you fight and win multiple fights.
And yes, a super-rich alliance could descend upon a constellation and AWOX themselves to generate PP. Good for them, they are demonstrating their awesome economic might in a massive space Potlach!
Each ship has a PP accumulator. The accumulator records how much PP the ship has, and what constellations they are valid in. Every day at downtime, 25% of your PP drains away, so it's use it or lose it. You can transfer your PP to another ship if you do not have an aggression timer, and you can also siphon PP off a wreck by salvaging it. If you have PP that is valid in a particular constellation, you can go to any SCM in the constellation and deposit them to either increase or degrade Sov, which is now a continuum -- let's say from 0 to 10. If your deposit is the one that drives Sov to 0, then Sov resets to 1 and the entire constellation belongs to your alliance.
Depositing PP takes a little time, and everyone in the system will know you are doing it. Stealing an idea from the ESS, the SCMs have bubbles around them.
When Sov is low, it takes more PP to degrade it than it does to improve it; when Sov is high, it takes more PP to improve it than to degrade it (and a certain amount just to maintain it). The closer you are to either 0 or 10, the harder it should be to push it there. Sov battles become a tug of war, with the emphasis on war.
Finally, we need to nerf force projection. We want to make both caps and subcaps useful and important ships in combat with distinct roles, and in particular, we don't want cynos and bridging to be used to leap around the constellation playing whackamole, because that stresses out the hamsters. So how about this? Ships get a new aggression counter; if they cyno or bridge within an hour of committing an aggressive act, they trigger a cooldown that does not let them cyno or bridge again for an hour or two.
So you can cyno and bridge across the galaxy, and you can cyno and bridge into a combat, and you can cyno and bridge out of that combat, but then things get a little interesting.
As I said before, I am sure there are many awful problems with the above, but perhaps it will inspire someone to come up with something that will work.
The hamsters will thank you!
In my post, I pointed out that (a) faster computers aren't going to help, and (b) more efficient code is helpful, but not helpful enough. The fundamental problem is that because it's never a bad idea to bring more people to a fight, "fleets expand to fit the lag available."
Fixing that is a hugely difficult problem that will touch many areas of the game. But perhaps there are some significantly simpler game design changes that can, if not solve the problem, at least buy us more time in which to deal with it. This is what I'd like to address in this post.
As with the previous post, all the examples given below are very simplified for purposes of explanation. And I want to make it absolutely clear that I am not involved in Sov-warfare, so I am sure that there will be many flaws in the example I give below. This is just an exercise in identifying the problems that need to be solved.
At the most basic level, what causes lag is that everybody has to fight in the same place at the same time. Since every object on a grid can potentially interact with every other object on the same grid, the amount of computation needed to process a fight increases non-linearly -- doubling the number of objects more than doubles the horsepower you need.
The key thing to keep in mind is that the important variable is "number of objects that can interact". For purposes of illustration, let's say that the computation load increases as the square of the number of objects; twice as many objects means four times as much computation.
As is well known, one of CCP's secret weapons is that their servers are powered not by common everyday electricity, but by genetically-engineered hamsters. Let's say that with the hamsters running flat-out in 10% TiDi, CCP's best server can handle 2000 players fighting it out on the same grid. 2000-squared is 4,000,000, so the server can be rated at 4 million hamsterpower.
If you draw a graph with # of players along the horizontal axis, and # of hamsters required along the vertical, you get something that looks like this:
The technical term for this situation is "Hamster Abuse."
Alas, when the line hits the top of the graph, we run out of hamsters even worse, all the hamsters are working so hard that they catch on fire. As the aroma of roasted rodent chokes CCP's server complex, two things happen: soul-crushing lag descends upon New Eden, and tomorrow's lunch menu at CCP gets an additional "meat dish".
But all is not lost; if we could split the fights up into 1000 player battles in the same system, then each battle only requires 1000-squared, or 1 million hamsterpower. Running flat out, the faithful hamsters can handle 4 of these battles simultaneously on a single server.
And even better, if we could spread out the fights to different systems, then each could potentially run on its own server, with its own set of hamsters.
So this is the first thing we need: Sov-warfare should take place on a constellation-wide basis, and require multiple simultaneous fights in multiple systems. And to discourage people from just jumping and bridging around to create local concentrations of force, Force projection by cyno must be cleverly nerfed.
Another thing to consider is that at present, battles are focused not only in space but also in time, thanks to the timer system. This is one consequence of the fact that Sov is a binary state; you either have it, or you don't. So timers have to go, and that means that Sovereignty must become a continuum.
Finally, Shooting structures is boring, so let's get rid of it.
I spent a few hours and came up with a humble suggestion that tries to incorporate all of these concepts:
Sovereignty is determined on a constellation-wide basis. In each system in the constellation, there is a Sovereignty Control Monitor (SCM).
The SCMs give out Political Points (PP) for ratting, mining, and just plain being in space, but they also give points for any kills that took place in the system. These points are given to the player who struck the final blow, and the amount depends on the value of the kill. SCMs that are giving out more than the constellation's average amount of PP reduce their awards, to encourage multiple fights. Obviously, this has to be structured so that sitting in a big blob in one or a few systems while your opponent hangs around in all the other ones is a losing strategy. I'll be the first to admit that figuring out a PP-awarding system that is resistant to abuse is a challenging problem, but I don't think it is an unsolvable one.
During peacetime, and periods when one side has timezone dominance, people can do stuff and get some points, but the real payoff happens when you fight and win multiple fights.
And yes, a super-rich alliance could descend upon a constellation and AWOX themselves to generate PP. Good for them, they are demonstrating their awesome economic might in a massive space Potlach!
Each ship has a PP accumulator. The accumulator records how much PP the ship has, and what constellations they are valid in. Every day at downtime, 25% of your PP drains away, so it's use it or lose it. You can transfer your PP to another ship if you do not have an aggression timer, and you can also siphon PP off a wreck by salvaging it. If you have PP that is valid in a particular constellation, you can go to any SCM in the constellation and deposit them to either increase or degrade Sov, which is now a continuum -- let's say from 0 to 10. If your deposit is the one that drives Sov to 0, then Sov resets to 1 and the entire constellation belongs to your alliance.
Depositing PP takes a little time, and everyone in the system will know you are doing it. Stealing an idea from the ESS, the SCMs have bubbles around them.
When Sov is low, it takes more PP to degrade it than it does to improve it; when Sov is high, it takes more PP to improve it than to degrade it (and a certain amount just to maintain it). The closer you are to either 0 or 10, the harder it should be to push it there. Sov battles become a tug of war, with the emphasis on war.
Finally, we need to nerf force projection. We want to make both caps and subcaps useful and important ships in combat with distinct roles, and in particular, we don't want cynos and bridging to be used to leap around the constellation playing whackamole, because that stresses out the hamsters. So how about this? Ships get a new aggression counter; if they cyno or bridge within an hour of committing an aggressive act, they trigger a cooldown that does not let them cyno or bridge again for an hour or two.
So you can cyno and bridge across the galaxy, and you can cyno and bridge into a combat, and you can cyno and bridge out of that combat, but then things get a little interesting.
As I said before, I am sure there are many awful problems with the above, but perhaps it will inspire someone to come up with something that will work.
The hamsters will thank you!
Sunday, January 19, 2014
The Cold Equations of Soul-Crushing Lag
Yesterday, there was a bit of a commotion in HED-GP. Thousands of pilots attempted to engage in the largest battle in EVE history, and despite the best efforts of CCP, they were devoured by the monster that is Soul-Crushing Lag.
The dreaded Lag Monster has returned to New Eden more and more often in recent months, and it will continue to do so with increased frequency in the months and years to come. This post is my attempt to explain why I believe that even heroic technical achievements like Time Dilation will only put Lag into remission; to cure it requires some fundamental changes to the core game design of EVE.
As befits players of a game that has been described as Spreadsheets in Space, let us begin with some mathematics, to explain why lag can't be conquered by technical means. For most of you, especially those who are computer programmers, this will be basic stuff but bear with me. All the numbers given below were chosen simply to illustrate the problem.
The basic problem is this: "doubling the number of people in a fight more than doubles the amount of work the server needs to do."
To give a horribly simplified example (forgive me, anyone who's taken a 200 level CS course), consider a fight with 100 people; for each person in the fight, the server needs to update their position, execute their commands, and so on. That part of the computational load is roughly linear, so adding another 100 ships would roughly double the amount of work. But then the server has to tell everyone how the universe has changed, and everyone can potentially have a different view of the universe (consider: cloaked vs. uncloaked; information about the ships you have locked; watchlists; etc). So now instead of 100 ships each getting info about 100 ships, you have 200 ships each getting info about 200 ships; that's 4 times as much information. If you have 500 ships, that's 25 times as much; 1600 ships requires 256 times as much. All that data has to be organized and sent to the clients. Things get very bad, very fast; then they get even worse, even faster.
Now in the real world of extremely clever programmers, of which CCP has more than their fair share, there are a lot of things you can do to make things (to use the technical term) "less horrible". But what you can't do is get linear scaling; doubling the number of people in a fight will always more than double the amount of work the server needs to do.
So what can be done to address this problem? Well, there are several basic approaches, and CCP can use any or all of them; they are not either-or choices:
The dreaded Lag Monster has returned to New Eden more and more often in recent months, and it will continue to do so with increased frequency in the months and years to come. This post is my attempt to explain why I believe that even heroic technical achievements like Time Dilation will only put Lag into remission; to cure it requires some fundamental changes to the core game design of EVE.
As befits players of a game that has been described as Spreadsheets in Space, let us begin with some mathematics, to explain why lag can't be conquered by technical means. For most of you, especially those who are computer programmers, this will be basic stuff but bear with me. All the numbers given below were chosen simply to illustrate the problem.
The basic problem is this: "doubling the number of people in a fight more than doubles the amount of work the server needs to do."
To give a horribly simplified example (forgive me, anyone who's taken a 200 level CS course), consider a fight with 100 people; for each person in the fight, the server needs to update their position, execute their commands, and so on. That part of the computational load is roughly linear, so adding another 100 ships would roughly double the amount of work. But then the server has to tell everyone how the universe has changed, and everyone can potentially have a different view of the universe (consider: cloaked vs. uncloaked; information about the ships you have locked; watchlists; etc). So now instead of 100 ships each getting info about 100 ships, you have 200 ships each getting info about 200 ships; that's 4 times as much information. If you have 500 ships, that's 25 times as much; 1600 ships requires 256 times as much. All that data has to be organized and sent to the clients. Things get very bad, very fast; then they get even worse, even faster.
Now in the real world of extremely clever programmers, of which CCP has more than their fair share, there are a lot of things you can do to make things (to use the technical term) "less horrible". But what you can't do is get linear scaling; doubling the number of people in a fight will always more than double the amount of work the server needs to do.
So what can be done to address this problem? Well, there are several basic approaches, and CCP can use any or all of them; they are not either-or choices:
- Use faster computers (aka "If brute force isn't working, you aren't using enough"). Unfortunately, because of design decisions made back in the early days of EVE development (decisions that I think were made for very good reasons, btw), computers are not getting faster in a way that benefits EVE as much as everyone would like. Time Dilation is actually an example of this approach -- when TiDi hits 10%, the server has 10 times as much time to process each tick of the game clock, so it's like it's running 10 times faster.
- Make the code more efficient, so that it scales better. In our simple example above, 2x the number of ships meant 4x the work; if that gets reduced to 3x the work, then handling 1600 ships is only 81 times more difficult instead of 256 times as hard, and that turns out to roughly double the number of people that the server can handle before the lag monster appears. A lot of work -- extremely difficult work -- is being done in this area, and IMHO CCP needs to put even more resources into it (and not just because of lag, either).
- Change the game so that fight sizes are naturally limited to sizes the servers can handle. By "naturally limited" I mean make changes such that effective fleet commanders will have sound tactical and strategic reasons to limit their fleet sizes and/or divide into sub-fleets with different objectives.
Let's examine these possibilities in more detail.
Time Dilation was introduced about 3 years ago, and has been in-game for just over 2 years. As explained above, it basically speeds up a server by a factor of 10. Yet in only 2 years, lag is back. Why? Well, to quote that original devblog, "Here's how I envision this working for a large engagement (say, 1600 or so)". Yesterday, there were over 3400 ships in HED-GP. Even worse, the meta has changed and the type of ships being used likely made the load even worse.
TiDi sped things up by 10x, and EVE players chewed through that in 2 years. While I expect that making the code more efficient will reap great benefits, particularly in chopping the peaks off lag spikes that occur when very "expensive" events occur (such as bridging), I don't think it's going to bring a further 10x improvement. If Team Gridlock proves me wrong, then I will be very impressed and will nominate them for the Galactic Institute's Prize for Extreme Cleverness, but even so, that's just another 2 years or so before EVE players start whining about lag again.
Four years ago, when I first ran for CSM, one of the planks of my manifesto concerned Lag. Here is what I wrote at the time:
Anyway, the tl/dr is that technical fixes, while wonderful and needed, just address the symptoms; they don't tackle the disease. The disease itself is simple: in EVE, like Soviet Russia, quantity has a quality all its own.
So what game design changes could be made to address this? Figuring that out is why CCP devs get paid the big bucks. But until they do, lag will never go away.
Four years ago, when I first ran for CSM, one of the planks of my manifesto concerned Lag. Here is what I wrote at the time:
While there are clearly many cute hacks that can (and will) reduce lag, the blunt fact of the matter is that such fixes are at best temporary fixes, because as soon as you defeat the lag-monster for N-player battles, the current design of the game encourages bringing extra people to the fight -- which means you have N+500-player battles, and lag returns. In other words, "Fleets expand to fill the lag available". As the EVE population grows, the problem will only get worse.And it's even worse than what I said back then, because since the introduction of TiDi, the size of "large engagements" has increased much faster than the number of EVE subscribers.
Anyway, the tl/dr is that technical fixes, while wonderful and needed, just address the symptoms; they don't tackle the disease. The disease itself is simple: in EVE, like Soviet Russia, quantity has a quality all its own.
So what game design changes could be made to address this? Figuring that out is why CCP devs get paid the big bucks. But until they do, lag will never go away.
Saturday, August 31, 2013
The Gods Smile Upon the CSM
As I stepped out of the Nora Bar with CCP Dolan, having just said my farewells to my fellow CSMs and various CCP devs, we were treated to a spectacular display of the Northern Lights above Reykjavik. The word quickly spread and the bar emptied.
Truly a fitting end for the most satisfying CSM summit of my career -- and it explained the problems we were having with the teleconferencing equipment all during the summit, which was clicking like a geiger counter. Clearly someone at CCP had modified it to be a coronal mass ejection detector.
I won't spend a lot of time recapping summit sessions -- for that, Ripard Teg's series of blog posts. This is just a quick summary before I head off to the airport.
This summit was the smoothest one ever. The hard work of previous CSMs has resulted in a smooth working relationship between CSM and CCP, and CSM8 is reaping the rewards of that foundational work.
We got completely briefed on the plans for Winter and how they tie into the long-term vision for the game CCP Seagull presented at FanFest. We had productive meetings with all the feature teams working on the next expansion, and look forward to providing them with more feedback in the coming months.We also had a ton of meetings with teams working on projects like language support that were very interesting.
As soon as we get back to the US, we'll start work on the minutes. The plan this time is to stream them out in small chunks as individual sessions are completed, and I personally hope you'll see the first set of them in about 2 weeks.
I'll close this short note with some thank-yous:
Truly a fitting end for the most satisfying CSM summit of my career -- and it explained the problems we were having with the teleconferencing equipment all during the summit, which was clicking like a geiger counter. Clearly someone at CCP had modified it to be a coronal mass ejection detector.
I won't spend a lot of time recapping summit sessions -- for that, Ripard Teg's series of blog posts. This is just a quick summary before I head off to the airport.
This summit was the smoothest one ever. The hard work of previous CSMs has resulted in a smooth working relationship between CSM and CCP, and CSM8 is reaping the rewards of that foundational work.
We got completely briefed on the plans for Winter and how they tie into the long-term vision for the game CCP Seagull presented at FanFest. We had productive meetings with all the feature teams working on the next expansion, and look forward to providing them with more feedback in the coming months.We also had a ton of meetings with teams working on projects like language support that were very interesting.
As soon as we get back to the US, we'll start work on the minutes. The plan this time is to stream them out in small chunks as individual sessions are completed, and I personally hope you'll see the first set of them in about 2 weeks.
I'll close this short note with some thank-yous:
- To my fellow CSMs, both those in Iceland and those who Lync'd in (we usually had 10 CSMs in the meetings). You done good.
- To the CPM, several of whom joined us for most sessions as observers, and provided us with a lot of support and insight behind the scenes.
- To CCP Dolan, who clearly did a ton of work preparing for the summit.
- And to CCP, for being gracious and attentive hosts.
Tuesday, May 21, 2013
CSM Update
I confess to being a bit remiss in writing this update, but in addition to being quite busy on CSM business, I spent two weeks after FanFest fighting a nasty case of the Viking Death Flu, followed by a secondary infection and a less-than-pleasant reaction to the antibiotics intended to treat that.
I had a wonderful time at FanFest, despite having to manfully endure numerous devs coming up to me and making cryptic comments intended to mislead me about the election results. I would like to particularly commend CCP Explorer for his highly refined sadism.
Regarding the elections, as you know I have long championed election reform, and I could not be more pleased with the results. The change to STV and the modification to the method of choosing Summit delegates had exactly the effect I was hoping for -- it attracted a bunch of well-qualified candidates, and elected a diverse and (so far) hard-working set of delegates. The uneven distribution of the workload in previous CSMs (with 5-7 people doing most of the work) has been a pet-peeve of mine, but I expect that the CSM8 crew will be able to contribute at least 50% more man-hours than CSM7.
I greatly enjoyed the politics of the election this year, and the change to STV meant that I could devote more of my electoral resources to helping other good candidates. My "Evil CSM Cabal of Evil" group had 11 candidates in it, of which 8 were elected -- more than I expected.
Getting elected Chairman was the icing on the cake. It is a great honor to be entrusted with the position by my colleagues, and I will do my best to be their "fleet booster" during the CSM8 term, using what I've learned over the past 3 CSMs to help them be more effective.
As to what CSM is up to right now, we're focusing on helping CCP process all the Odyssey feedback, handling the CSM7/CSM8 transition, and starting our planning for the first summit (expect some public threads about that as soon as we have a date). We're also continuing our biweekly Skype conferences as a team Stakeholder.
PS: To those who so vocally opposed my candidacy for CSM8, allow me to express my undying gratitude. I couldn't have done it without you!
Saturday, April 6, 2013
Every Vote is sacred, Every Vote is Great...
There are Traders in the world, there are Miners.
There are Carebears and Pirates and then,
There are those that follow The Mittani, BUT
I've never been one of them.
Every Vote is Sacred,
Every Vote is Great!
If a Vote gets Wasted,
Seagull gets quite Irate!
Every Vote is Sacred,
Every Vote is Great!
If a Vote gets Wasted,
Soundwave gets quite Irate!
Let the bittervets waste theirs
By staying unsubscribed.
Fozzie will buff a ship for
Each Vote that's well applied!
Every Vote is Wanted,
Every Vote is Good,
Every Vote is Needed,
karkur says vote you should.
Scammers, Gankers, Botters,
Cast theirs just anywhere.
But Punkturis loves those who treat their
Ballots with more care.
Every Vote is Sacred,
Every Vote is Great!
If a Vote gets Wasted,
Masterplan gets quite Irate!
Every Vote is Wanted,
Every Vote is Good,
Every Vote is Needed,
Dolan says vote you should.
Every Vote is Useful!
Every Vote is Fine!
Veritas counts everybody's...
Mine... and mine... and mine!
Let the Spam Alts spill theirs,
O'er Jita, Curse, and Domain,
Stillman shall strike them down for
Each Vote that's cast in vain.
Every Vote is Wanted,
Every Vote is Good,
Every Vote is Needed,
Explorer says vote you should.
Every Vote is Sacred,
Every Vote is Great!
If a Vote gets Wasted,
Unifex gets quite Irate!
Remember folks, No Votes Nerf Boats... so vote in the CSM elections!
There are Carebears and Pirates and then,
There are those that follow The Mittani, BUT
I've never been one of them.
Every Vote is Sacred,
Every Vote is Great!
If a Vote gets Wasted,
Seagull gets quite Irate!
Every Vote is Sacred,
Every Vote is Great!
If a Vote gets Wasted,
Soundwave gets quite Irate!
Let the bittervets waste theirs
By staying unsubscribed.
Fozzie will buff a ship for
Each Vote that's well applied!
Every Vote is Wanted,
Every Vote is Good,
Every Vote is Needed,
karkur says vote you should.
Scammers, Gankers, Botters,
Cast theirs just anywhere.
But Punkturis loves those who treat their
Ballots with more care.
Every Vote is Sacred,
Every Vote is Great!
If a Vote gets Wasted,
Masterplan gets quite Irate!
Every Vote is Wanted,
Every Vote is Good,
Every Vote is Needed,
Dolan says vote you should.
Every Vote is Useful!
Every Vote is Fine!
Veritas counts everybody's...
Mine... and mine... and mine!
Let the Spam Alts spill theirs,
O'er Jita, Curse, and Domain,
Stillman shall strike them down for
Each Vote that's cast in vain.
Every Vote is Wanted,
Every Vote is Good,
Every Vote is Needed,
Explorer says vote you should.
Every Vote is Sacred,
Every Vote is Great!
If a Vote gets Wasted,
Unifex gets quite Irate!
Remember folks, No Votes Nerf Boats... so vote in the CSM elections!
Thursday, April 4, 2013
Voting is a Drag(fest), man...
The polls are open in New Eden, and I hope you'll click this link and vote for me!
When you do, you'll see something a bit unexpected -- a little voting assistant script I have written. It helps address a big problem with the ballot.
It's a drag.
Or more precisely, it's up to 14 drags. In order to vote a complete 14-candidate ballot (which you should be doing), you have to locate each candidate from a list of 30-odd, and then drag them into your ballot.
This is made worse by the fact that it's hard to find your candidates in the list; I have problems finding my own name! At least I don't have 10 accounts...
Update 2: CCP has added the ability to double-click candidates instead of dragging them, and if you have multiple accounts, after you've voted once your ballot will be stored in a cookie. However, the Bookmarklet trick no longer works, so parts of this post are no longer relevant and have beencrossed out.
Some months back, I got interested in the physical process of casting ballots, and did some human-factors experiments, even going so far as to create a ballot UI mockup to test various options. I became convinced that a quick ballot entry system was absolutely essential, even something as simple as a text field you could use to enter a candidate list.
Unfortunately, it appears that CCP doesn't agree. While I can understand that they may not want people to blindly vote slates, I had no doubt that there are some experienced web-programmers out there who will have no problems putting together something that will add this functionality. And guess what...
I have checked with CCP Dolan and for now, using a Javascript Bookmarklet to fill in your ballot is allowed. They may however do something to stop it working in the future.
Which brings us back to my voting link. What I've done is whack together a simple script that makes it easier for you to vote:
If you're just voting one account, it may be simpler to enter your ballot by hand. In this case, the script displays the CCP voting page in a frame, with a checklist of candidates to vote for, and a resizable thumbnail image that shows what the ballot will look like when it is completely filled out.
But it also has a link to a page that will automatically create a Javascript Bookmarklet, and has instructions on how to use it. I would like to publicly thank those great benefactors of New Eden, the Goons, and in particular the estimable Jumanji (who should drink for free at FanFest), for their kind permission to use their code as a template.
This script can be used by anyone who wants to distribute a recommended ballot list or create a Bookmarklet. All you have to do is generate a URL in the following format:
http:///www.animeigo.com/CSM/ballot.php?c={list of candidates, separated by commas}&u={optional url of your completed ballot image, without the http:// part}
If you just want to create a Bookmarklet, you can access that part of the tool via this URL:
http:///www.animeigo.com/CSM/ballot-auto.php?c={list of candidates, separated by commas}
These URLs are very long, of course, so I suggest using a service like bit.ly to whack them down to size.
Update: I tweaked the tool so you can also just paste your picks into a text field and generatethe bookmarklet a framed ballot assistant page. Just load the ballot tool page without a list, as follows:
http:///www.animeigo.com/CSM/ballot.php
When you do, you'll see something a bit unexpected -- a little voting assistant script I have written. It helps address a big problem with the ballot.
It's a drag.
Or more precisely, it's up to 14 drags. In order to vote a complete 14-candidate ballot (which you should be doing), you have to locate each candidate from a list of 30-odd, and then drag them into your ballot.
This is made worse by the fact that it's hard to find your candidates in the list; I have problems finding my own name! At least I don't have 10 accounts...
Update 2: CCP has added the ability to double-click candidates instead of dragging them, and if you have multiple accounts, after you've voted once your ballot will be stored in a cookie. However, the Bookmarklet trick no longer works, so parts of this post are no longer relevant and have been
Some months back, I got interested in the physical process of casting ballots, and did some human-factors experiments, even going so far as to create a ballot UI mockup to test various options. I became convinced that a quick ballot entry system was absolutely essential, even something as simple as a text field you could use to enter a candidate list.
Unfortunately, it appears that CCP doesn't agree. While I can understand that they may not want people to blindly vote slates, I had no doubt that there are some experienced web-programmers out there who will have no problems putting together something that will add this functionality. And guess what...
I have checked with CCP Dolan and for now, using a Javascript Bookmarklet to fill in your ballot is allowed. They may however do something to stop it working in the future.
Which brings us back to my voting link. What I've done is whack together a simple script that makes it easier for you to vote:
If you're just voting one account, it may be simpler to enter your ballot by hand. In this case, the script displays the CCP voting page in a frame, with a checklist of candidates to vote for, and a resizable thumbnail image that shows what the ballot will look like when it is completely filled out.
This script can be used by anyone who wants to distribute a recommended ballot list
http:///www.animeigo.com/CSM/ballot.php?c={list of candidates, separated by commas}&u={optional url of your completed ballot image, without the http:// part}
These URLs are very long, of course, so I suggest using a service like bit.ly to whack them down to size.
Update: I tweaked the tool so you can also just paste your picks into a text field and generate
http:///www.animeigo.com/CSM/ballot.php
Tuesday, April 2, 2013
The Politics of POSsibility
Many pixels have died in vain in recent weeks as various pundits have pronounced with great positivity that CSM7 was pathetically pointless.
But now that CCP Fozzie's devblog about the Improvements to POSes in Odyssey has been released, I'm able to provide a little insight on how it came about, and how CSM was able to work on the community's behalf.
Our tale begins well before the Winter Summit. CSM definitely had POSes on our agenda for what would become the Odyssey expansion, but we weren't overly optimistic. CSM was supposed to be a stakeholder on one of the development teams in the fall, but due to some misunderstandings at CCP, this experiment was not a success. We were seriously considering "going to the matresses" and expressing our concerns publicly, but after much debate, we decided to hold off and see what CCP had to say at the summit.
As it happened, the summit was a great success, and CCP made some unprecedented promises about CSM input in the planning of future expansions, starting with the next one in early January.
Fast forward a few weeks until the start of the planning process, which I've described in a previous post. In their possible features presentation, one of the teams stated that they wanted to work on improvements to the current POS system.
Our initial feedback to CCP was an executive summary rating that various feature ideas, which I've talked about in a recent post. POSes were one of the 4 "big" items we gave a perfect 10.0 score to (3 of the 4 are in Odyssey). We also created a "POS Wish List" report as a guide to what features would be well received by the community; this ended up being used as one of the starting points for the design.
Next, in mid-January, the Winter Summit minutes were released, and lots of people were concerned because there wasn't substantial discussion about POSes. This presented us with a dilemma. Hopefully CCP would be delivering on POSes in Odyssey, but what if things messed up again? We knew that if we started a POS discussion thread on the forums it would get a lot of attention, and while it would be useful to be able to point to as evidence that POSes were deserving of high priority, it might also get out of hand and backfire.
This was a particular concern because during this time, most of us were putting together our own themed expansion packages, just as the CCP teams were doing (you will not be surprised to learn that POSes were key elements in our themes...). So lighting a fire in the forums at exactly the time when CCP might already be doing exactly what we wanted them to be doing could be counterproductive.
This question was the only one in our entire term that CSM7 could not reach consensus about. Finally, Two step broke the deadlock by posting the POS thread on his own initiative, an act that upset several of his colleagues, notably Seleene.
When we learned what was in the final package, we were very happy that POS fixes were a major component. And to add icing to the cake, CSM was assigned to act as a Stakeholder for the team doing the work, so we'll continue to monitor the situation and do our best to help make sure that as much of the plan gets done as POSsible.
So to the Nattering Nabobs of Negativity, I say, Nuts!
But now that CCP Fozzie's devblog about the Improvements to POSes in Odyssey has been released, I'm able to provide a little insight on how it came about, and how CSM was able to work on the community's behalf.
Our tale begins well before the Winter Summit. CSM definitely had POSes on our agenda for what would become the Odyssey expansion, but we weren't overly optimistic. CSM was supposed to be a stakeholder on one of the development teams in the fall, but due to some misunderstandings at CCP, this experiment was not a success. We were seriously considering "going to the matresses" and expressing our concerns publicly, but after much debate, we decided to hold off and see what CCP had to say at the summit.
As it happened, the summit was a great success, and CCP made some unprecedented promises about CSM input in the planning of future expansions, starting with the next one in early January.
Fast forward a few weeks until the start of the planning process, which I've described in a previous post. In their possible features presentation, one of the teams stated that they wanted to work on improvements to the current POS system.
Our initial feedback to CCP was an executive summary rating that various feature ideas, which I've talked about in a recent post. POSes were one of the 4 "big" items we gave a perfect 10.0 score to (3 of the 4 are in Odyssey). We also created a "POS Wish List" report as a guide to what features would be well received by the community; this ended up being used as one of the starting points for the design.
Next, in mid-January, the Winter Summit minutes were released, and lots of people were concerned because there wasn't substantial discussion about POSes. This presented us with a dilemma. Hopefully CCP would be delivering on POSes in Odyssey, but what if things messed up again? We knew that if we started a POS discussion thread on the forums it would get a lot of attention, and while it would be useful to be able to point to as evidence that POSes were deserving of high priority, it might also get out of hand and backfire.
This was a particular concern because during this time, most of us were putting together our own themed expansion packages, just as the CCP teams were doing (you will not be surprised to learn that POSes were key elements in our themes...). So lighting a fire in the forums at exactly the time when CCP might already be doing exactly what we wanted them to be doing could be counterproductive.
This question was the only one in our entire term that CSM7 could not reach consensus about. Finally, Two step broke the deadlock by posting the POS thread on his own initiative, an act that upset several of his colleagues, notably Seleene.
When we learned what was in the final package, we were very happy that POS fixes were a major component. And to add icing to the cake, CSM was assigned to act as a Stakeholder for the team doing the work, so we'll continue to monitor the situation and do our best to help make sure that as much of the plan gets done as POSsible.
So to the Nattering Nabobs of Negativity, I say, Nuts!
Sunday, March 31, 2013
Fourteen in a Bed
In compiling these recommendations, I am not giving any weight to how the candidates play EVE, how much they agree or disagree with me, and whether or not they are also supporting me. My major criteria is "do I think this person will do a good job if they are elected?" I expect that all of these candidates will be hard-working team players who will strongly but fairly advocate for the entire community.
None of my recommendations are bloc candidates. This is not because there aren't excellent bloc candidates this year, it's simply that their blocs will ensure they get elected, and supporting them isn't tactically wise under STV. I want a diverse CSM that represents all areas of the game.
My recommended ballot for CSM8 (Version 1.0)
1. Trebor Daehdoow. My polling indicates that 35% of my voters are voting for me because I'm experienced, 31% because I work hard and get results, 18% because they are old and/or bald like me, and 16% because they want to annoy Poetic Stanziel.
2. Tie: Ripard Teg is knowledgeable, hard-working, and a great writer, while Malcanis is probably the all-time champion goodposter on EVE-O -- he's been around forever and nobody has a bad word to say about him.
4. corebloodbrothers impressed me when he ran for the first time last year, but the voting system conspired against him. With any luck, the change to STV will mean the second time will be the charm.
5. Tie: Nathan Jameson and James Arget would be great voices for Wormhole residents. If the stars align, both of them will be.
7. I have served on CSM with both the major Russian candidates, and I like both of them personally, which makes choosing between them painful. However, I think Korvin is the better choice given the challenges and opportunities that CSM 8 will face.
8. Ali Aras is a rare bird, the experienced newbie. I want CCP to put more resources into making EVE more newbie-friendly, and her voice will help convince them to do that.
9. Mangala Solaris brings yet another important perspective to the table, and is well-respected in his community.
10. Given how much crap I've taken from his supporters, you may be surprised to learn that Psychotic Monk is going to be on my ballot. I disagree with some of his positions, but he argues them fairly -- and anything we do agree on is likely to be correct. I am hoping he will be CSM 8's Alekseyev Karrde.
11. Unforgiven Storm is a good industrialist candidate who has the bad luck to be a Goon who is running as an independent. That means he probably won't get much love from bloc voters, and a lot of other people won't vote for him because he's a Goon. If he doesn't make it, I hope he does well enough to try again next year. If so, he could be the corebloodbrothers of CSM 9.
12. Roc Wieler will either be a decent CSM, or he'll be able to role-play a decent CSM. Either works for me.
13. Mike Azariah wants to represent the casual player, and has shown he can work hard on community-related projects.
14. To Be Determined. I am really undecided about who to put in my final slot, and I want to sleep on it. Think you know who it should be? If so, post in my EVE-O thread and tell me why. Or perhaps another candidate will make me an offer I can't refuse.
After all, as we all know, politics makes strange bedfellows.
Wednesday, March 27, 2013
Lack of Quantity has a Quality all its own
Oh frabjous day, Mittens has launched another salvo in his attempt to depress non-bloc turnout in the CSM election (aka the "War Against Turnout").
This time he's taking the fact that there are only 35 candidates and trying to spin it into an alleged crisis of confidence in the community. Go read it and play "count the logical fallacy".
The most important one is, of course: Quantity does not imply Quality. A much more reasonable explanation for the reduced number of candidates is simply this: CSM7 and CCP have made it abundantly clear that CSM is :srsbsns: that requires a significant time investment, and the rules of the CSM and the election system were updated to encourage serious candidates to run.
If you look at the 35 candidates running for CSM this year, there are significantly more high-quality candidates than in any previous CSM election. Ask yourself, why did guys like Malcanis and Ripard Teg run this year and not last year?
Better yet, go ask them in their campaign threads. Then pop by my thread and give me a bump, and check out the threads of other serious first-time candidates like Nathan Jameson, James Arget, Mangala Solaris, Psychotic Monk, and corebloodbrothers, just to name a few non-bloc guys who are likely to get on my recommended ballot (more on that soon).
PS: I confidently predict that every serious CSM candidate will pass the threshold within the first couple of days.
This time he's taking the fact that there are only 35 candidates and trying to spin it into an alleged crisis of confidence in the community. Go read it and play "count the logical fallacy".
The most important one is, of course: Quantity does not imply Quality. A much more reasonable explanation for the reduced number of candidates is simply this: CSM7 and CCP have made it abundantly clear that CSM is :srsbsns: that requires a significant time investment, and the rules of the CSM and the election system were updated to encourage serious candidates to run.
If you look at the 35 candidates running for CSM this year, there are significantly more high-quality candidates than in any previous CSM election. Ask yourself, why did guys like Malcanis and Ripard Teg run this year and not last year?
Better yet, go ask them in their campaign threads. Then pop by my thread and give me a bump, and check out the threads of other serious first-time candidates like Nathan Jameson, James Arget, Mangala Solaris, Psychotic Monk, and corebloodbrothers, just to name a few non-bloc guys who are likely to get on my recommended ballot (more on that soon).
PS: I confidently predict that every serious CSM candidate will pass the threshold within the first couple of days.
Tuesday, March 26, 2013
2013: A CSM Odyssey
CCP has just teased the contents of the next expansion, Odyssey, so finally CSM members can start discussing some of the details -- but only some of them, since we can't discuss details that have not already been made public due to the NDA.
So this first post on Odyssey will focus on how much of the CSM's agenda got reflected in the final result. If you've read my previous posts (here and here) on CSM's involvement in the release planning process, you already know that CSM got an unprecedented opportunity to provide input to the process.
A quick recap: First, all of the various teams at CCP made presentations about things they could contribute to the expansion. Then the teams (and CSM) took all these ingredients and developed recipes for themed expansions. The final theme was a synthesis of the best ideas, tempered by the realities of the development process.
After these presentations, CSM ranked the various ingredients based on how important we thought they were, and how much bang-for-the-buck we thought they provided.
Of the 5 items we ranked 10/10, 3 are addressed in Odyssey. Of the 12 items we ranked 9.0-9.9, at least 6 made it. Of the 8 items we ranked 8.0-8.9, 4 made it. Of the 4 items we ranked 7.0-7.9, 2 made it.
We also labeled 17 features as "big ticket" items. At least 9 of them are in Odyssey.
Finally, we identified 6 "core crucial" elements that most of the recipes incorporated. 4 of them made it into Odyssey in some form.
Odyssey is significantly more aggressive than the last couple of expansions, which IMHO is the right direction. The task of the CSM over the next few months, as a stakeholder for a team working on some of the headline features, is to do everything we can to make the expansion as successful as possible, because I want CCP to take even larger bites from the apple in the future.
PS: CSM Pre-Elections have started. You can endorse me here.
So this first post on Odyssey will focus on how much of the CSM's agenda got reflected in the final result. If you've read my previous posts (here and here) on CSM's involvement in the release planning process, you already know that CSM got an unprecedented opportunity to provide input to the process.
A quick recap: First, all of the various teams at CCP made presentations about things they could contribute to the expansion. Then the teams (and CSM) took all these ingredients and developed recipes for themed expansions. The final theme was a synthesis of the best ideas, tempered by the realities of the development process.
After these presentations, CSM ranked the various ingredients based on how important we thought they were, and how much bang-for-the-buck we thought they provided.
Of the 5 items we ranked 10/10, 3 are addressed in Odyssey. Of the 12 items we ranked 9.0-9.9, at least 6 made it. Of the 8 items we ranked 8.0-8.9, 4 made it. Of the 4 items we ranked 7.0-7.9, 2 made it.
We also labeled 17 features as "big ticket" items. At least 9 of them are in Odyssey.
Finally, we identified 6 "core crucial" elements that most of the recipes incorporated. 4 of them made it into Odyssey in some form.
Odyssey is significantly more aggressive than the last couple of expansions, which IMHO is the right direction. The task of the CSM over the next few months, as a stakeholder for a team working on some of the headline features, is to do everything we can to make the expansion as successful as possible, because I want CCP to take even larger bites from the apple in the future.
PS: CSM Pre-Elections have started. You can endorse me here.
Wednesday, March 20, 2013
Table Pounding: An Early Analysis
The Mittani published an interesting article today, entitled "THE CSM8 ELECTION: AN EARLY ANALYSIS".
It's a wonderful example of Mittens trying to shape the narrative, and he deploys a variety of rhetorical tactics in support of this goal. So I thought it would be enlightening to deconstruct it a bit, and show it for it probably is: the first salvo in a campaign to depress non-bloc turnout.
Mittens begins with some "realtalk". As anyone who knows him well will tell you, this is code for "propaganda". For example, he implies that because I'm the only incumbent running for re-election (which is not quite correct; I am the only incumbent who has declared that they are running), CSM7 has been a failure, and the CSM/CCP relationship has deteriorated.
Neither are true: the real reason the active members of CSM7 aren't running again is that their personal and professional circumstances make it impossible for them to put in the hours that they know CSM8 will demand. One consequence of CSM7's hugely successful push to get earlier and more detailed access to CCP's planning and production processes is that being an active member of CSM8 will require 10-20 hours a week of work, plus burning 2 weeks of vacation time (ie: all of it, if you're an American) to attend summits. Heck, I'm semi-retired and I thought hard about it.
The argument that things are "toxic" (either internally or between CSM and CCP) is highly amusing. CSM7 has significantly more influence with CCP than any previous CSM, and when CCP announces what's going to be in the Summer expansion at PAX East, I think people are going to be pretty happy with what we managed to do -- and the "lame ducks" of CSM7 will keep on working as a CCP stakeholder (working directly with one of the development teams) until the day they leave office.
Props to CCP Dolan for doing a huge amount of organizational work to ensure that all of this activity is smoothly coordinated, by the way.
Mittens next turns to the issue of the Single Transferrable Vote. He first claims it is a huge win for nullsec blocs, and that he would have been able to dictate 4 CSM slots if it had been used in the previous election. He is mistaken: under STV, his vote total (assuming perfect ballot coordination) would have enabled him to elect two candidates and heavily influence a third. He got about 20% of the vote, and would have gotten about 20% of the seats.
What he fails to mention is this: under the old system, only highly organized blocs could coordinate well enough to efficiently split their votes and optimize their voting, but under STV, everyone automatically has that ability, simply by voting for the candidates of their choice. And he also fails to mention that the CFC had the infrastructure to do this during the CSM7 elections, but chose not to do so.
His point that nullsec voters will vote long ballots, and non-bloc voters will vote short ones is based on a big assumption, but for the purposes of argument, let us assume he is correct. Under the old system, the non-bloc voters could only vote for one candidate. Under the new system, each additional candidate they vote for increases the chance their vote will help elect someone. Last year, about 25% of the ballots were cast for candidates that did not get elected. This year, the number of wasted ballots will be significantly less.
Next, Mittens argues that the forums and other messaging don't matter. While he has a point that get-out-the-vote efforts are a big factor in winning elections, for independent candidates who don't have the luxury of an organized bloc voting for them, forums, Twitter, blogs, and podcasts are a key part in both defining your candidacy and getting other people to help you get out the vote.
Furthermore, he failed to recognize a very important difference this time around: under STV, independent candidates are no longer forced to compete for votes. Instead, they can cooperate to increase turnout and recommend each other to their supporters, secure in the knowledge that if they don't get elected, the votes they generate will help elect someone likely to share their views.
As for The Mittani's analysis of the candidates, he is of course entitled to his own opinion. However, I was surprised that he seems to think that there are still "Alt" slots in the CSM, especially since we more or less ignored that distinction in CSM6, completely ignored it in CSM7, and it was written out of the White Paper for CSM8. Under STV, you either get a seat or you don't; the successful candidates don't have a meaningful ranking.
So what was the point of The Mittani's analysis? Well, LOLs for one thing; he has a wicked sense of humor that I personally find most entertaining. But I suspect that a major reason for posting it was to try and induce some apathy in the non-bloc population and reduce their turnout -- because he did get one thing right: representation on the CSM depends on how much of the vote you and your friends get, and depressing the non-bloc turnout might result in an extra seat for his friends.
As a lawyer, Mittens is surely aware of the old trial lawyer's adage: "If the facts are against you, pound on the law. If the law is against you, pound on the facts. If both the facts and the law are against you, pound on the table."
Expect more table pounding in the days and weeks to come... and then ignore the "realtalk" and get out there and vote for the candidates you think are the best.
Friday, February 22, 2013
Election Evolution
CCP has just announced big changes to the way the CSM elections work. The CSM elections will now use the Single Transferrable Vote system, and EVE players will be able to vote for more than one candidate. If their preferred candidate can't get elected or doesn't need all of their voting power, all or part of it will transfer to other candidates on their ballot.
In the last CSM election, almost 25% of the votes went to candidates who didn't get elected. This time around, that percentage will be much lower. If you vote in the election, and vote for more than one candidate, you can be pretty sure your vote will help elect someone you like -- and you can vote for up to 14 candidates.
No more excuses like "The guy I like can't get elected". Now he, or someone else you like, has a much better chance. So go and make your voice heard - and encourage others to do the same.
Oh, and if you've thought about running for CSM but decided not to because "I can't get enough votes" or "I might just siphon off votes and cost another guy like me a seat", now you have to think about it again.
And finally, if your excuse was "No way I can get into the top seven and get to go to a summit", that's been fixed too. If you get on the CSM and work hard, you will be on a plane to Iceland at some point during your term.
It's going to be fun watching how all of this unfolds. I hope you'll take the time to get involved... as an informed voter... and maybe, as a candidate.
Tuesday, February 19, 2013
Once more unto the breach, dear pods, once more!
After much consideration, I've decided to run for CSM8. You can read more about my platform on my campaign page and EVE-O forum thread.
I expect the CSM8 election campaign to the most intense yet -- should be a lot of fun, for certain values of fun.
I expect the CSM8 election campaign to the most intense yet -- should be a lot of fun, for certain values of fun.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)