Tuesday, 24 February 2015

CSM X Candidate Analysis: Sabriz Adoudel

Sabriz is the CODE CSM candidate for this year, so highsec is his primary area of operation.  It's quite surprising that CODE is actually putting forward a serious candidate considering their history, but supposedly he's being serious about it.

Sabriz's campaign is focussed around conflict, though I'm not entirely convinced he's clear on how.  In his campaign thread and his CSM page, he lists conflict as being inherent within EVE.  Everything you do is conflict, be it mining, missioning, trading, or any other activity.  As he puts it, "Every interaction in EVE is about conflict".  The problem arises however though his ideas.  Many of them are about driving players to have to shoot each other, primarily by incentivising shooting back, and punishing evasion.  This is at odds with his prior statement about everything being conflict, as clearly this indicates that the conflict he wants to drive is shooting.  If he wanted to drive all conflict, then there are much better ways to encourage it rather than pushing people to play in ways they have no interest in playing.

Now I'm not against people shooting each other, it's definitely something that EVE needs a lot of, but I can't help but feel that many of his ideas are geared towards encouraging players to offer themselves up as content to groups like his own.  You can shower a PvE group with as much isk as you want, but that's not going to make them good at PvP, and so fighting back is almost always going to be futile.  All in all, a lot of his suggestions seem to be about feeding CODE members content, but then that's probably not a surprise considering what CODE thinks of the majority of the highsec community.

Now in addition to pushing a PvE group to engage with a dedicated PvP groups being a pretty one-sided battle, it also undermines the entire playstyle of the PvE players.  They play, unsurprisingly, to engage in PvE.  They don't want to engage in PvP.  Sure, you can go and blow them up and that should always be an option, but why should their benefits only come from shooting back?  That would be the equivalent of encouraging a PvP group to mine rocks when they are attacked by offering them increased yield.  Sabriz seems to have a hard time understanding that PvE players really do enjoy their playstyle.  They aren't playing the game wrong just because they aren't engaging with PvPers in direct combat.

Much like Tora, Sabriz seems to want to push for benefits to his group at the detriment of other players, and proposes token changes which would realistically have little effect.  For example he suggests altering the way concord works so that gankers can be freely attacked with a higher sec status.  This is pretty much irrelevant, since using alts to scout, insta docks and undocks, and dirt cheap ships, you're almost never going to get caught outside of a gank, and very rarely are you going to care when you do, so it's an idea he can offer up to appear to be balanced in his views without endangering his playstyle.

During his Cap Stable interview, one thing that struck me was when he stated that the majority of CODE members would like to live in lowsec if it were viable.  Now while I don't believe that to be entirely accurate, I do wonder what exactly it is that makes stops it from being viable.  Plenty of players do in fact live in lowsec, albeit less than anywhere else, so why is it something just can't be done, and perhaps making it more viable should be more of a focus than trying to scrape together some easy to kill fodder from high sec corporations to shoot at.

Another was his response to the awox changes.  He seemed to believe that these will have a huge negative effect on wormhole space, and clarified this by saying:
“It’s the indirect effect of increased safety in highsec, because right now someone that intends to run incursions or missions in high sec has to worry about the potential of an awoxer and as a consequence that’s one vector though which they’re unsafe.  Mission runners are very difficult to attack in any other means at the moment and so this will dramatically increase the safety of mission runners and as a consequence will just simply make the isk/hour better in high security space than wormholes currently are because in wormholes you do lose ships frequently and so I think you will start to see as I said the trend of people leaving wormholes and coming back to high security and running incursions will become worse with this change, and that’s why I think it will do so much damage to the wormhole community.”
This strikes me as a particularly large warning sign, as it fundamentally misses the mark.  There's absolutely no reason to assume that a highsec incursion runner would need to be in a normal highsec corporation and more often than not is in their own corporation where no recruiting will ever be done.  With no recruiting, there is no awoxing, and therefore the awoxing change would not increase incursion income vs wormhole income at all.  Even before the awox change, if a wormhole player wanted to get their income from incursions, they could have done so with no worries about awoxing.  So there would be no impact on wormholes.

The one thing he had going for him in the interview was that he sounded fairly well spoken and educated.  He tended to run on a little, but don't we all at times?  Overall though, I don't think Sabriz would be a good fit for most players.  If you're a ganker in highsec he's probably your ideal candidate as he wants to promote that playstyle, but anyone else will probably want to look elsewhere for a candidate that either suits their needs or is objective enough to serve a variety of players without the underlying desire to serve themselves.  If you're a highsec player who enjoys any level of PvE playstyle, you'll definitely want him off of your list.

1 comment:

  1. http://www.minerbumping.com/2015/01/theres-always-excuse.html

    This must be what James315 means by bring dignity the miners. For CODE a player with cancer is somehow funny and should be shared for every bodies amusement. In the next story a player has a physical handicap, open day for trolling. A bereaving player should be shamed and humiliated. Of course the Nuremberg Defence may well be that Sabriz did not actually post this disgrace. Sabriz made the claim that they convinced CODE to take take CSM seriously and not troll. By this light Sabriz has some sway over the organisation. But evidently not enough to provide any moral compass. Not sure how effective such lack of persuasion will impact CCP should they actually table a nerf at a summit.

    These players were asked why they were breaking the Code and AFK. Perhaps they should not share life's misfortunes. But Two Wrongs do not make Right - by reposting either. Meanwhile even the Goons have provided support to players in dire straits.

    For some time players in this style go lengths to re-assume the rest of the community that; it's all just a game, playing as intended and that they are not sociopaths. We can finally lay that to rest, and not in a positive way.

    This is one time, there is no excuse, certainly not from Sabriz.

    To the electorate; so you want to be a party to something this inhuman?
    Other Candidates; would you share the table at the summit with gutter level trash?
    Code Sponsors; is this really what the isk you pay is intended for?

    This the hole CODE has dug for themselves, by posting on their own website.