These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

EVE Online Development Strategy (CSM Public)

First post First post First post
Author
CCP Falcon
#121 - 2012-11-25 00:01:53 UTC
SmilingVagrant wrote:
CCP Falcon wrote:
This thread is for discussion of the original post and its content. Keep it on topic.

I've reviewed what's been posted and the posts that were moderated by ISD CCL. The aggressive, insulting, racist, politically charged and troll filled posts stop as of now.

Anyone who wants to break the rules from here onward can feel free to enjoy a long vacation from the forums.

Cut it out.



Falcon would you be interested in doing this for "The Big Lie" thread too? I thought it was an interesting conversation that merited discussion until the same person who crapped up this thread crapped up that one.


There was no saving that one, sadly.


CCP Falcon || EVE Universe Community Manager || @CCP_Falcon

Happy Birthday To FAWLTY7! <3

Trebor Daehdoow
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#122 - 2012-11-25 00:36:35 UTC
Snow Axe wrote:
Alekseyev and Trebor are in merc corps (Noir and DNS).

DNS is not a merc corp. We are a group of aggressive altruists who give involuntary surprise seminars to nullsec and lowsec students in need of stern remedial instruction. And after Retribution hits, we may well be conducting educational outreach operations in hisec as well.

Our tactical tutorial operations are not cheap, and you can help invest in the education of New Eden by sending your endowment contributions directly to me. Much appreciated. Twisted

Private Citizen • CSM in recovery

Arduemont
The State of War.
#123 - 2012-11-25 00:43:24 UTC
First, I want to say thank you to the CSM for putting in the time.

I fail to see how so many people have read that document and seen it as "nerf highsec". There is one sentence that says it may be one alternative option, and there is no other mention of nerfing anything even vaguely.

POSes... Yes, fix them. I have been playing for almost 4 years and have never owned a POS because I can't be bothered with the hassle. A new modular POS system is exactly what the doctor ordered.

Lastly, I am disappointed not to see any mention of WiS content from that document. You said in there that POSes are the most commonly supported iteration in Eve. It's not, what people ask for most, is iteration to WiS.

"In the age of information, ignorance is a choice." www.stateofwar.co.nf

None ofthe Above
#124 - 2012-11-25 01:12:10 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:

Rather than saying "UNANIMOUSLY ENDORSED by the entire CSM" or as you said earlier UNANIMOUSLY ENDORSED by the active members CSM, could you be specific and actually list the names for me.


I am interested in this as well, from a transparency perspective.

The only end-game content in EVE Online is the crap that makes you rage quit.

Mars Theran
Foreign Interloper
#125 - 2012-11-25 01:38:15 UTC
CCP Falcon wrote:
This thread is for discussion of the original post and its content. Keep it on topic.

I've reviewed what's been posted and the posts that were moderated by ISD CCL. The aggressive, insulting, racist, politically charged and troll filled posts stop as of now.

Anyone who wants to break the rules from here onward can feel free to enjoy a long vacation from the forums.

Cut it out.



I hate to say it, but that pretty much leaves out any room for discussion, and gives us only the ability to stand at attention and shout, "Sir, Yes Sir!," while agreeing wholeheartedly with the content of that document for fear of being banned for questioning the intent behind it, the validity of it with regard to other players, (ourselves included), or the content of that document itself.

I don't agree with the CSM on this, even if I agree that this stuff needs to be done. This is not a strategy, it's a list of things some players want and most agree with. I don't see what this has to do at all, with any long term strategy for future development, which is how I understood the intent of CCP in approaching the CSM with this according to the wording documented in the document in question.

Any discussion of this is political, and if you feel strongly, it is almost certainly going to be aggressive. If something is true, or thought to be true by one party, then it is almost certainly going to be insulting to the opposing party in question. Maybe not intentionally insulting and worded to ridicule, but insulting. That's the nature of discourse, and quite often debate.

Perhaps we can look at it as a project consigned to completion and submitted to CCP without raising question about it, even though it involves us and presumes to express our opinions and interests as presented by our representatives, the Council of Stellar Management. The fact is though, no one was asked; or if they were, they were selectively asked.

That is obvious if you read any of the portions of the document that are representative of implying permissions from or agreement of the playerbase as a whole with regard to the contents of that document. I wasn't even aware of this until I saw this thread, even being an individual who spends time on these forums. How is it that they gained my permission or agreement on this, or anyone else's?

I don't disagree with the need for these changes; I simply disagree that they should be the sole focus of development for the next 2-3 years. That's 2-3 years of my life, sitting here, subscribing to this game, that I will have to wait for further development on things I am interested in aside from this, assuming it is taken as such a strategy for that term by CCP.

This is where I identify that I am not good with that, and maybe that's political, aggressive, and insulting to some, but I mean to identify it.
zubzubzubzubzubzubzubzub
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#126 - 2012-11-25 01:41:20 UTC
Mars Theran wrote:
CCP Falcon wrote:
This thread is for discussion of the original post and its content. Keep it on topic.

I've reviewed what's been posted and the posts that were moderated by ISD CCL. The aggressive, insulting, racist, politically charged and troll filled posts stop as of now.

Anyone who wants to break the rules from here onward can feel free to enjoy a long vacation from the forums.

Cut it out.



I hate to say it, but that pretty much leaves out any room for discussion, and gives us only the ability to stand at attention and shout, "Sir, Yes Sir!," while agreeing wholeheartedly with the content of that document for fear of being banned for questioning the intent behind it, the validity of it with regard to other players, (ourselves included), or the content of that document itself.

I don't agree with the CSM on this, even if I agree that this stuff needs to be done. This is not a strategy, it's a list of things some players want and most agree with. I don't see what this has to do at all, with any long term strategy for future development, which is how I understood the intent of CCP in approaching the CSM with this according to the wording documented in the document in question.

Any discussion of this is political, and if you feel strongly, it is almost certainly going to be aggressive. If something is true, or thought to be true by one party, then it is almost certainly going to be insulting to the opposing party in question. Maybe not intentionally insulting and worded to ridicule, but insulting. That's the nature of discourse, and quite often debate.

Perhaps we can look at it as a project consigned to completion and submitted to CCP without raising question about it, even though it involves us and presumes to express our opinions and interests as presented by our representatives, the Council of Stellar Management. The fact is though, no one was asked; or if they were, they were selectively asked.

That is obvious if you read any of the portions of the document that are representative of implying permissions from or agreement of the playerbase as a whole with regard to the contents of that document. I wasn't even aware of this until I saw this thread, even being an individual who spends time on these forums. How is it that they gained my permission or agreement on this, or anyone else's?

I don't disagree with the need for these changes; I simply disagree that they should be the sole focus of development for the next 2-3 years. That's 2-3 years of my life, sitting here, subscribing to this game, that I will have to wait for further development on things I am interested in aside from this, assuming it is taken as such a strategy for that term by CCP.

This is where I identify that I am not good with that, and maybe that's political, aggressive, and insulting to some, but I mean to identify it.


You are perfectly capable of making a constructive post about this topic without resorting to yesmanship like many others already have in this thread.

This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133

Frying Doom
#127 - 2012-11-25 02:34:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Frying Doom
Seleene wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
Snow Axe wrote:
So you're saying that fixing a segment of the game that is literally broken is a waste of company resources?

No not at all, I am saying that an area with 20% of the games population is not worth 100% of the companies resources for an entire year.


**** is broken and needs to be fixed; it's not just the 'null sec' people that believe this - the document was UNANIMOUSLY ENDORSED by the entire CSM. I don't care what percentage they spend on it so long as the broken and abandoned stuff gets fixed. After being on the CSM for two terms, and a Dev for three years before that, I've given voice to quite a few balanced proposals and game play changes. Now, at this moment in time, it's time for the people who help keep the game in the real world news to be able to play a game that isn't a hacked together, soul sucking, time vampire structure bash.

CCP had better take note of this as well because with games like Star Citizen on the horizon, I can guarantee you that their monopoly on the time of people that enjoy this kind of game is going to start being challenged.

Ok I would like to break down what from EvE makes it to the real world news, followed by a direct breakdown of the parts of this document that are ill conceived.

First the news going to the first non-eve news site that shows up, unfortunately this is MMORPG and clicking news.

The first few pages of news includes such wonderful articles on Null

  • Glenn Beck: Goonswarm a CIA Front
  • The End of The Mittani Era
  • The Rise and the Fall
  • War Rages On
  • Blood on the Snow
  • The Grind


While in the same space the CSM is only mentioned

  • The Silver Lining
  • The End of The Mittani Era (also a CSM mention as well as a Null)
  • CSM Chairman Announces Resignation, Issues Apology
  • CSM Candidates Revealed
  • A Truly Stellar Council


So in the last 12 months the CSM has been reported on almost as much as Null sec. There were also news on burn jita but not really a Null thing as it was done in Hi-sec and could no have occured without a hi-sec market hub.

Ok on to the document.

While I definitely agree with "An Important Note on Rebalancing: As stated above, the pace and process of ship and module rebalancing should continue. Balancing in the following examples focuses on non-ship opportunities."

I do find issue with specifically the following
"These examples center on themes and concepts widely considered by existing subscribers as significantly broken and would likely need to be spread out over two expansions/12 months."

Critical Issue: Mining and Industry

"Create new asteroids which either yield massive amounts of low-end minerals (i.e. Tritanium), or significant amounts of low-end minerals along with high-end minerals, for use with the new Group Mining mechanic. The yields of conventional asteroids should be reexamined. This will help address high sec/null sec risk vs. reward veterans are concerned with and, when taken with station upgrades, enable a 0.0 industrial environment which will draw in new players."

While the group mining mechanic sounds like a good one this will allow the larger alliances to be completely free of Hi-sec, while hindering the smaller alliances abilities to function on level ground. So much like the Tech welfare pay outs, this will allow a small number of alliances to move forward in huge bounds making the smaller ones even more vulnerable. The other part of this being a massively reduced demand to the Hi-sec markets and prices of Hi-sec minerals going into free fall.

Now while an Alliances size should matter it should not completely trump skilled pilots, but with the above plus the Tech, we will be and in some extent already are at a point where one alliance can throw an almost unlimited supply of ships at an opponent and the cost would be of little importance.

But the biggest problem I have about all this is of course the resource loss that did not occur in the last patch as their was no Null sec involved, but the preceding 5+ expansions where resources have been wasted on Null as work is constantly done without properly working out a road map for the whole of EvE but especially Null.

TiDi was a useful function but besides that how much effort has been wasted on just supers, they have been created, nerfed, altered and are now down to the point of having no clear path at all.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!

Frying Doom
#128 - 2012-11-25 02:34:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Frying Doom
Then we have sovereignty, the current brought in during Dominion with the words "

Sovereignty Evolves

The system of territorial control in EVE advances, providing more tactical, capture-based gameplay. Alliances both large and small will find more opportunities within their grasp and an engaging conquest system in place to seize them. Rulers will now have to actively defend space they have claimed. "

I just love the "actively defend space they have claimed.", not use the space at any point just defend it, so now we have massive empty space held by a few alliances..

December 2009 was a huge amount of resources thrown at Null.
While I agree Null needs fixing how about they just set aside a team to specifically study Null and come up with a real plan rather than just saying "I don't care what percentage they spend on it so long as the broken and abandoned stuff gets fixed."

As to "CCP had better take note of this as well because with games like Star Citizen on the horizon, I can guarantee you that their monopoly on the time of people that enjoy this kind of game is going to start being challenged."
Yes Star citizen and all the other cool games coming out will cause CCP some heart ache and long nights but this is exactly the reason to actually plan rather than do, we have all seen where just do has gotten us, massive resources used on WiS and now it has been shelved.

Null needs a road map, that will not destroy Hi-sec and that will work as an over all plan, for the game.

Edit: Oh I should also add that as the CSM needs credibility in that it is not just a Null Sec lobby group, posting a document stating that huge resources be spent on Null does not really help its credibility and allow it to move out of a minority groups votes for the council and into the main stream.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!

LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#129 - 2012-11-25 05:52:35 UTC
This document shows me that the CSM is too heavily loaded with 0.0 alliance leadership, and is totally out of touch with one of the largest subscriber bases of EVE, the casual players... we high sec carebears, with no desire to fly with goons, no desire to deal with the hassles of 0.0's afk cloakies, that got tired of the 300 member fleet conga lines around the titan.... bah

The needs of a 50 year new player are the same as those of the 21 year old new player. You could not be more wrong!


RATHER than dividing people into new players and bitter vets, CCP would do much, MUCH better to divide the player base into:

"carebears" and PVPers.
"hard core gamers" and "causal gamers"
"have a life" and "EVE is my life"
"People that want to work together to build" and "sociopaths that pull the wings of butterflies and salt snails, just to feel they have some power".


Make the game appeal to all of these players and playing styles.



"Incomes and Security Levels (Balance): A vibrant, dynamic, and accessible sovereignty system affords CCP an opportunity to finally address the risk/reward imbalance between 0.0 and empire"


Screw you CSM!!!!!!

The rewards of 0.0 are the same as high sec, because you have made your 0.0 space as safe as high sec. CCP did not drive down the value of ABC ores via game mechanic. 0.0 drove down the value of these ores by mining too many of them.

CCP had to nerf the 0.0 anoms after dominion, because 0.0 has been made so safe that people ran them 23-7 with impunity escalating ISK inflation drastically.

How are you going to create this "balance". Reduce the rewards in high sec? Drive the casual players out of the game?

Again attempt to increase the rewards of 0.0, only to see the wallets of the 0.0 nullbears cause massive ISK inflation?


"This will help address high sec/null sec risk vs. reward veterans are concerned with and"

Correction... A certain sub-section of veterans are concerned with.

CSM needs to get it through their skulls, that many, many, MANY players HAVE no interest in playing the 0.0 game. There is nothing that CCP can, not should consider doing, that will suddenly turn the hisec, casual gamer, carebears into 0.0, hard-core, flaming local with text-fallic, blobtastic, titan conga-lining, PVPers.

What one bitter vet considers "fixing the game" another giant chunk of bitter vets consider reason to, not walk, but run away from this game.
Johan Civire
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#130 - 2012-11-25 07:09:46 UTC
* eve got to many players thats what happend to many "new stuff new things" if people leave again we get what we want.

Thats what everyone is thinking thats whats everyone is hoping for.

* CCP year 2013 no new expane no new stuff just bug fixs balance everything dont nerf dont buff just ignore it. Thats what 90% of the people want.

Lets be honnest eve is to big now. To many "new players that change eve" but is it needed? thats the question my opionen i like change i like new stuff to play with, but with everything new there is always something broken. Thats the world of every mmorpg out there.
Nexus Day
Lustrevik Trade and Travel Bureau
#131 - 2012-11-25 07:39:41 UTC
So I have a business and I have two types of customers:

Customer A has been a long time customer, mostly because they have learned how to game the system and play for free. More people contract ebola than the number of these customers leave the game each year.

Customer B actually pays me for my product. The problem is it is hard to keep Customer B for two reasons; my product is hard to learn and even harder to master. It takes time for Customer B, much like in life, to discover how they fit in. My second problem is Customer A spends alot of time telling Customer B "YOU ARE DOING IT WRONG!" instead of giving Customer A the time they need.

CCP has patiently built this game into what it is. I hope they maintain their patience and objectivity.

Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#132 - 2012-11-25 09:47:26 UTC
CCP Falcon wrote:
SmilingVagrant wrote:
CCP Falcon wrote:
This thread is for discussion of the original post and its content. Keep it on topic.

I've reviewed what's been posted and the posts that were moderated by ISD CCL. The aggressive, insulting, racist, politically charged and troll filled posts stop as of now.

Anyone who wants to break the rules from here onward can feel free to enjoy a long vacation from the forums.

Cut it out.



Falcon would you be interested in doing this for "The Big Lie" thread too? I thought it was an interesting conversation that merited discussion until the same person who crapped up this thread crapped up that one.


There was no saving that one, sadly.




Sad

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Benny Ohu
Chaotic Tranquility
#133 - 2012-11-25 10:03:38 UTC
Nexus Day wrote:
Customer A has been a long time customer, mostly because they have learned how to game the system and play for free. More people contract ebola than the number of these customers leave the game each year.

Customer B actually pays me for my product. The problem is it is hard to keep Customer B for two reasons; my product is hard to learn and even harder to master. It takes time for Customer B, much like in life, to discover how they fit in. My second problem is Customer A spends alot of time telling Customer B "YOU ARE DOING IT WRONG!" instead of giving Customer A the time they need.

You just made up two entire groups of people.
Seleene
Body Count Inc.
#134 - 2012-11-25 10:06:50 UTC
Fractal Muse wrote:
My concerns in the document remain the same in that this is meant to have been strategic level input on the direction of EVE Online. Within that framework, the document splits out each individual element and suggests improvements that leave each element further individualized from the rest. A few sentences at the end would have encapsulated everything within an overall context of interdependency but, unfortunately, this did not make it into the document. It is that omission and my mistaken understanding of what the document was meant to be that I noticed and wanted to give voice to.


Okay, this is much easier to clarify. I'm not sure why so many people seem to assume that a document like this represents the total amount of communication that goes on between CCP and the CSM. That simply is not the case. We are not putting together documents like this (with or without CCP's request), firing them off and then .... silence? No. Smile

This sort of thing actually happens quite often and is bracketed by continual interaction over Skype or email with whatever elements of CCP we are working with. This particular document was the result of an ongoing series of discussions many communication channels over several weeks. This led to a series of voice meetings, culminating in one where CCP Ripley was present (which is also not unusual) and we offered to try to summarize many of our long-running points into a cohesive document. That was on a Friday. By the following Monday, CCP had this document and began passing it around internally. More discussion followed, again followed by more meetings.

In essence, your concerns about any omissions or shortcomings in a document like this are being addressed by the overall process. I hope this helps. Smile

2004-2008: Mercenary Coalition Boss

2007-2010: CCP Game Designer | 2011-2013: CSM6 Delegate & CSM7 Chairman

2011-2015: Pandemic Legionnaire

2015- : Mercenary Coalition Boss

Follow Seleene on Twitter!

Seleene
Body Count Inc.
#135 - 2012-11-25 10:09:58 UTC
Mars Theran wrote:
Not that I agree with the guy, but I'd hesitate to say that they weren't petty and myopic. Actually, they are extremely myopic; it's just that they also happen to be right in that Nullsec needs a self-sustaining player economy, rather than getting these infuriating penalties to supply and manufacture that occur the farther you go from NPC domains in Highsec.

That just happens to be a very real problem, when the highest investment from a player can't even come close to what you get for--very nearly--free from an NPC. It's, quite frankly, stupid.

..on the other hand, I'm pretty sure that CCP wasn't asking for that specifically, when they approached the CSM with this. Actually, I believe they were looking for something completely different.


What you are talking about is pretty much a constant, ongoing conversation with CCP. It's something they are well aware of both our and the community's feelings on. The document we wrote was just one more piece of the overall problem.

2004-2008: Mercenary Coalition Boss

2007-2010: CCP Game Designer | 2011-2013: CSM6 Delegate & CSM7 Chairman

2011-2015: Pandemic Legionnaire

2015- : Mercenary Coalition Boss

Follow Seleene on Twitter!

Seleene
Body Count Inc.
#136 - 2012-11-25 10:14:25 UTC
MotherMoon wrote:
also going to wait on news about the WiS prototype


There has already been news about this and it's not good. I can't look up the thread(s) atm, but the basics of it are that Incarna / WiS / Spacedolls / Interactive Environments, etc... are all on hold until CCP can figure out what the hell they want to do with the feature & what kind of game content is involved.

This is not due to a lack of action by the CSM. In point of fact, myself and a few of the others have pointedly asked after what the heck is going on here. What has become clear though is that this isn't a matter of applying pressure or rioting - CCP just doesn't know what to do with this and until they do, we aren't going to see many updates or progress reports.

Don't shoot the messanger, that's just how it is. What?

2004-2008: Mercenary Coalition Boss

2007-2010: CCP Game Designer | 2011-2013: CSM6 Delegate & CSM7 Chairman

2011-2015: Pandemic Legionnaire

2015- : Mercenary Coalition Boss

Follow Seleene on Twitter!

Seleene
Body Count Inc.
#137 - 2012-11-25 10:20:17 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
Seleene wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
Snow Axe wrote:
So you're saying that fixing a segment of the game that is literally broken is a waste of company resources?

No not at all, I am saying that an area with 20% of the games population is not worth 100% of the companies resources for an entire year.


**** is broken and needs to be fixed; it's not just the 'null sec' people that believe this - the document was UNANIMOUSLY ENDORSED by the entire CSM. I don't care what percentage they spend on it so long as the broken and abandoned stuff gets fixed. After being on the CSM for two terms, and a Dev for three years before that, I've given voice to quite a few balanced proposals and game play changes. Now, at this moment in time, it's time for the people who help keep the game in the real world news to be able to play a game that isn't a hacked together, soul sucking, time vampire structure bash.

CCP had better take note of this as well because with games like Star Citizen on the horizon, I can guarantee you that their monopoly on the time of people that enjoy this kind of game is going to start being challenged.

Rather than saying "UNANIMOUSLY ENDORSED by the entire CSM" or as you said earlier UNANIMOUSLY ENDORSED by the active members CSM, could you be specific and actually list the names for me.


No. The people on the CSM that aren't being an active part of the process are the ones that you never hear from, either within your alliance, on the forums, twitter, your favorite podcast, whatever. I know some folks love it when we throw each other under the bus but I really don't need to when a minimal amount of detective work allows you to answer the question yourself (if you really want to).

Frying Doom wrote:
Yes and I agree Null is horribly broken and so many resources have been wasted on NULL over the last 5+ patches, not including inferno as that did not seem to have anything for Null. Don't you think proposing that CCP gets a road map on what they are doing would be a better idea than spouting out theories that would destroy the rest of the game and once again just get Null nerfed back to where it was or worse off again.


Actually, that is EXACTLY the point of this document. It is very much a, "We will show you ours if you will show us yours." thing. CCP needs to finalize their internal road map internally and make it public as soon as possible. Have no doubt that war drum is beating beaten loudly every day by the CSM. The community deserves to know what is or is not on the horizon.

2004-2008: Mercenary Coalition Boss

2007-2010: CCP Game Designer | 2011-2013: CSM6 Delegate & CSM7 Chairman

2011-2015: Pandemic Legionnaire

2015- : Mercenary Coalition Boss

Follow Seleene on Twitter!

Seleene
Body Count Inc.
#138 - 2012-11-25 10:32:48 UTC
Mars Theran wrote:
I don't agree with the CSM on this, even if I agree that this stuff needs to be done. This is not a strategy, it's a list of things some players want and most agree with. I don't see what this has to do at all, with any long term strategy for future development, which is how I understood the intent of CCP in approaching the CSM with this according to the wording documented in the document in question.


Read some of my previous replies on this - as I've said, it's one piece of a much larger conversation about multiple issues.

Mars Theran wrote:
Perhaps we can look at it as a project consigned to completion and submitted to CCP without raising question about it, even though it involves us and presumes to express our opinions and interests as presented by our representatives, the Council of Stellar Management. The fact is though, no one was asked; or if they were, they were selectively asked.


It was put together over a weekend. As with many interactions with CCP, there wasn't time to take it to the community and watch everyone argue over it. v0v

Mars Theran wrote:
That is obvious if you read any of the portions of the document that are representative of implying permissions from or agreement of the playerbase as a whole with regard to the contents of that document. I wasn't even aware of this until I saw this thread, even being an individual who spends time on these forums. How is it that they gained my permission or agreement on this, or anyone else's?


I'd imagine that many people who either don't vote in elections or watches their candidate lose feels similar. The thing is though, with the current workings of the CSM, you have 14 chances to have a 'voice' on the elected council. That's why we have elections, so that when it's time for something like this to be done you can rest assured that the best people are on the job. If you feel that your personal message is being lost, then talk to us and let us know and we will try to explain things. If that fails, stand for election yourself or support a candidate you think would do a better job. Smile

Mars Theran wrote:
I don't disagree with the need for these changes; I simply disagree that they should be the sole focus of development for the next 2-3 years. That's 2-3 years of my life, sitting here, subscribing to this game, that I will have to wait for further development on things I am interested in aside from this, assuming it is taken as such a strategy for that term by CCP.

This is where I identify that I am not good with that, and maybe that's political, aggressive, and insulting to some, but I mean to identify it.


It's awesome that you have done so and I have no issue with how you've presented your argument. It's just flawed in that you are assuming that a six page blah blah to CCP represents the total of the conversations we are having about ALL aspects of EVE. At the same time, to a member, we all feel that the areas indicated are some of the longest suffering and broken in the game. They should not be the SOLE focus, but should certainly be a primary one (in our elected opinion). Smile

2004-2008: Mercenary Coalition Boss

2007-2010: CCP Game Designer | 2011-2013: CSM6 Delegate & CSM7 Chairman

2011-2015: Pandemic Legionnaire

2015- : Mercenary Coalition Boss

Follow Seleene on Twitter!

Frying Doom
#139 - 2012-11-25 10:35:37 UTC
Seleene wrote:

No. The people on the CSM that aren't being an active part of the process are the ones that you never hear from, either within your alliance, on the forums, twitter, your favorite podcast, whatever. I know some folks love it when we throw each other under the bus but I really don't need to when a minimal amount of detective work allows you to answer the question yourself (if you really want to).

While I can understand your hesitance not to throw people under a bus, in this case where you have stated that the document was "Unanimously supported by by the active members of the CSM", my definition of active may be different to yours as I was surprised to learn of a member of the CSMs sudden activity even though nothing has been heard from him the entire term until recently.

So in this case I will not ask you who the inactive members are but specifically what members endorsed this document?

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!

Seleene
Body Count Inc.
#140 - 2012-11-25 10:40:58 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
Seleene wrote:

No. The people on the CSM that aren't being an active part of the process are the ones that you never hear from, either within your alliance, on the forums, twitter, your favorite podcast, whatever. I know some folks love it when we throw each other under the bus but I really don't need to when a minimal amount of detective work allows you to answer the question yourself (if you really want to).

While I can understand your hesitance not to throw people under a bus, in this case where you have stated that the document was "Unanimously supported by by the active members of the CSM", my definition of active may be different to yours as I was surprised to learn of a member of the CSMs sudden activity even though nothing has been heard from him the entire term until recently.

So in this case I will not ask you who the inactive members are but specifically what members endorsed this document?


On this particular document, as far as I am aware, everyone had a chance to read / chime in and did so except for Darius III, who has been absent from any CSM activity of note since election day. Based on emails and following chats in Skype, everyone else approved.

2004-2008: Mercenary Coalition Boss

2007-2010: CCP Game Designer | 2011-2013: CSM6 Delegate & CSM7 Chairman

2011-2015: Pandemic Legionnaire

2015- : Mercenary Coalition Boss

Follow Seleene on Twitter!