These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Jita Park Speakers Corner

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
123Next page
 

CSM8 First Impressions: I am disappoint.

First post
Author
None ofthe Above
#1 - 2013-05-24 00:27:17 UTC  |  Edited by: None ofthe Above
*poke*

CSM8 has had its first mini-crises: Launchergate 2013.

Maybe I am jumping the gun here, but am frustrated where things are heading at the moment and maybe some blunt feedback can help change that.

Here was an opportunity to establish excellent communication with the playerbase and with CCP.

I understand that CSM can't fix it themselves and that pressuring too hard on CCP during the events can be nonconstructive. But this is definitely part of a larger pattern. Rushed releases with known problems hanging that are being willfully ignored. DUST appears to have had a bit of this recently as well.

CCP needs to be able to back off a release or feature when it is not ready. CSM needs to help them identify when it's not ready (meaning actually listen to people and not just tell them to shut up) and help CCP have the will to step back and take a minute.

This is a perfect time to be talking to CPP about this. A time when they are likely to listen, and will be looking themselves to improve their processes. I don't see any indications that this is happening. If it is -- well, failing on that old communicating with the playerbase task then.

The Odyssey release is right around the corner and there are features there that people are raising red flags about. Is CSM going to stay out of it? Berate the "complainers"?

A closer look at CSM8 through these last couple of days:

First to quote our "activist CSM" Ripard Teg:

Quote:
First, the news of the day. I don't have much to say about the launcher issues that happened today except these things happen. Matter of fact, I had been telling CCP devs this past weekend how nifty I thought the new SSO launcher was on Singularity and playing with it there. It didn't cause any issues getting it installed there and from what I'm seeing in CCP's news briefs today, it looks like the issues today were mostly coincidental. Here's the forum thread if you want to read it. It got to 103 pages in about 16 hours.

Am I going to rage to CCP about it? Nope. I'm sorry about all of the people impacted by this issue. I was impacted by it myself and spent a while on a work-around before figuring it out. Software has bugs and unforeseen problems from time to time. While I understand the anger, I don't share it, and I'm not going to get on CCP's case about it. If you're going to get annoyed with CCP, get annoyed with them for stuff they do on purpose. ;-) Onward.


No follow up after that I can see, even after we learn that the problems were far from coincidental.

Hrmm not sure what activism means anymore.

Malcanis' remarkably tone deaf response to people upset about the problems, the "multi-box" login issues and loss of the login screen art comes down to basically: "You are afraid of change" and "nobody cares" (in spite the 100+ page threadnaught that the launcher release feedback has become).

Mangala Solaris, "Didn't affect me."

No comments from the Chair. The rest of the CSM apparently following his lead.

Add to that our Secretary at last report hadn't even signed the NDA. Seriously if you don't have the time to do the job why are you volunteering? Not impressive.

Luckily this is a stumble while getting your feet underneath you. But its time to get yourselves together. You can't coast on the "this was done on CSM7s watch" line for long.

*poke*

PS - For the record, I am not opposed to the new launcher. I think CCP has done some good work after the fact wising up to the issues they've caused (beyond the bugs even). Launcher and the opening screens are the first impression, they ought to actually impress. There are some nice features like the EVETV link and I like SSO in theory (although less so when I need to deal more with multiple accounts).

PPS - A bit of positive reinforcement: Ripard's largely kept up his blogging output and even been on Podside. I've been enjoying reading Mike's blogs and listening to the Podside appearances. Ali's Blogs and Hangouts have been entertaining and interesting. Mynnna's been active on the feedback threads. I do appreciate every post CSM8 makes to these forums as well, even the Malcanis snarks are better than silence.

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

None ofthe Above
#2 - 2013-05-24 02:37:09 UTC
Grrrr and after fighting with the laggy unresponsive forums and launcher offline again -- a rollback plan! There's an idea.

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

Alekseyev Karrde
Noir.
The Network.
#3 - 2013-05-24 06:21:57 UTC
For the record, this launcher stuff wasn't on CSM7's watch.

Also, EVE Electorate: how all these player communication candidates working out for you? No take backs either; I licked them all so it's too late.

Alek the Kidnapper, Hero of the CSM

dark heartt
#4 - 2013-05-24 07:44:20 UTC
My big question is where the actual **** is Trebor?

I know it's early days, but man you are the damn chair.

Alekseyev Karrde wrote:
Also, EVE Electorate: how all these player communication candidates working out for you? No take backs either; I licked them all so it's too late.


Lol, thanks for the laugh.
Snow Axe
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#5 - 2013-05-24 11:58:19 UTC
dark heartt wrote:
My big question is where the actual **** is Trebor?

I know it's early days, but man you are the damn chair..


He was vice chair last year and didn't see the need to "step up" when Seleene was on one of his absences. I wouldn't expect much outright from him unless there's a success for him to publicly take credit for.

"Look any reason why you need to talk like that? I have now reported you. I dont need to listen to your bad tone. If you cant have a grown up conversation then leave the thread["

None ofthe Above
#6 - 2013-05-24 15:47:25 UTC
Snow Axe wrote:
dark heartt wrote:
My big question is where the actual **** is Trebor?

I know it's early days, but man you are the damn chair..


He was vice chair last year and didn't see the need to "step up" when Seleene was on one of his absences. I wouldn't expect much outright from him unless there's a success for him to publicly take credit for.


We did hear from Mike on Podside that there have been well attended meetings with CCP, including Trebor. I remain concerned that Trebor thinks his job is primarily about managing his/CSM's relationship with CCP and little else.

In his defense we did get a blog post lately, about as the launcher problems were surfacing although clearly written before:

http://treborofthecsm.blogspot.com/2013/05/csm-update.html

He hasn't picked up on the trick of posting here on the forums that a blog post is available.

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

Mike Azariah
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#7 - 2013-05-24 16:09:48 UTC
For the record, CCP seems a bit surprised at the turnout for meetings we have had with them. We are discovering limits of the communication relays due to number of people in the conversation.

This mornings meeting had 11/14 csm members present to chat with one of the CCP dev teams

The nay-sayers among you will proclaim this the 'honeymoon period and cry that the attendence will drop soon. Maybe so. But for now we are making a good showing. Revel in the now.

m

(No I will not name and shame who did and did not make the meeting)

Mike Azariah  ┬──┬ ¯|(ツ)

Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#8 - 2013-05-24 16:11:49 UTC
dark heartt wrote:
My big question is where the actual **** is Trebor?



Well about an hour ago he was in the meeting with the rest of us.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Ali Aras
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#9 - 2013-05-24 16:12:00 UTC
I'm not exactly sure what you're expecting the CSM to have done here.

I tested the launcher when it was on Sisi by installing it and firing up all three of my accounts and then swapping between them a bit as if I was doing market logistics. Everything worked fine for me, although I did note that the "logout" button missing was weird even though it functionally did nothing at this point.

When the launcher was released and causing all of the difficulties for people, I was at work. I therefore didn't participate in the threadnaught and tried to catch up on what was actually going on. From what I could tell, some of it was CCP's stuff (servers in particular) being broken. That is not something the CSM can fix and it's not something that will be fixed faster by angry CSMers on skype going WHAT HAPPEN THE SKY IS FALLING. If your servers are (metaphorically) on fire, you will be fixing them anyways. Ditto if there are critical bugs in the software.

When I got home and caught up, it looked like CCP had fixed the servers and the launcher was working for most people. The deleting settings thing was unfortunate, but from what I could see a thing that was not fixable or going to be fixed. The workaround (relaunching the client) was easy and functional. Areas of more long-term brokenness (the lack of a splash screen) were being taken into account from player feedback. I'm still unclear on some parts of the multiboxing difficulties, but the "launch EVE directly" workaround is still in until CCP can replace it with something that works. Some multiboxing difficulties come down to "my unsupported client workaround broke when the code changed!" to which I can only point back at the word "unsupported". CCP was in the thread responding to bug reports.

At that point, I as a CSM representative am not needed on this issue right now. CCP knows there's a problem. CCP is working on fixing the problem. CCP is talking to players and taking down bug reports to map out the scope of the problem. No amount of skype pings can make them code faster or turn back time to a pre-launchergate era. I've got "launchergate" on my list of CSM follow-ups and expect to ask CCP in a week or two how that's going. That's when I can actually be *useful*. I'm trying to understand all the multiboxing stuff so if we get a version of the launcher to test, I can test it on a setup that more clearly matches other players', as my own testing turned up nothing relevant.

http://warp-to-sun.tumblr.com -- my blog

mynnna
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#10 - 2013-05-24 17:52:28 UTC
I'm pretty much going to empty-quote Ali here. It worked just fine for us inside, out in the wild the settings thing (worked around it, plan to follow up and ensure it was fixed) is the only hard issue with the launcher itself I can pin down. The rest of the rocky launch is largely attributed to CDN issues rather than the launcher itself, apparently. There's the whole multiboxing thing, but I don't understand that. I can run multiple accounts just fine, thanks to the "Switch User Account" option beneath the play button. Perhaps people mean multiple client installations? Not something CCP supports as far as I'm aware. And if it's related to third party software (eg isboxer) tying into eve to launch multiple accounts, well, that's on the isboxer team to fix, not ccp.

So, yeah. As far as I can tell, lots of smoke for very little fire.What do you want us to do again, exactly?

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal

None ofthe Above
#11 - 2013-05-24 18:43:58 UTC  |  Edited by: None ofthe Above
@mynnna, @ali:

Quote:

#1 Posted: 2013.05.24 00:27 by: None ofthe Above
...

Here was an opportunity to establish excellent communication with the playerbase and with CCP.

I understand that CSM can't fix it themselves and that pressuring too hard on CCP during the events can be nonconstructive. But this is definitely part of a larger pattern. Rushed releases with known problems hanging that are being willfully ignored. DUST appears to have had a bit of this recently as well.

CCP needs to be able to back off a release or feature when it is not ready. CSM needs to help them identify when it's not ready (meaning actually listen to people and not just tell them to shut up) and help CCP have the will to step back and take a minute.

This is a perfect time to be talking to CPP about this. A time when they are likely to listen, and will be looking themselves to improve their processes. I don't see any indications that this is happening. If it is -- well, failing on that old communicating with the playerbase task then.

The Odyssey release is right around the corner and there are features there that people are raising red flags about.
...


So I am hoping CSM can get ahead of problems by listening to people reporting early testing issues, without the "people are just afraid of change if they are waving warning flags" filters on. You can help figure out what problems are real. And coordinate with your additional access to schedules and plans that we mere mortals don't have. (Not that I think you know everything, I know you don't get everything in advance.)

During the event, there's not too much you can do. But it might be a good idea for CSM members not to pour gasoline on the fire. "We'll follow up after the dust settles and we know more" is probably the best thing to say. And try to get to the bottom of issues, as you've been doing, Mynnna. I do appreciate seeing you saying "I do not understand the issue, someone that does please explain?"

In addition, like I've said the door should be open to discuss (with CCP) improving release procedures with eye toward quality control.

Those are the things I would like you to do. The things I would hope I would be doing if I were in your place.

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

rswfire
#12 - 2013-05-24 18:51:51 UTC
mynnna wrote:
So, yeah. As far as I can tell, lots of smoke for very little fire.What do you want us to do again, exactly?


Educate yourself on the things you state you do not understand. It's not just about multibox installations and ISBoxer, as neither are applicable to me. Admittedly, I have more accounts than the average player, but I suspect I'm a part of a sizable minority and saying "the switch account thing" works just fine is just not an answer imho. It's cumbersome and adds more steps to accomplish a task that was possible with less steps previously. Fewer steps equals better user experience. Also, in cases like mine, where we have more than 7 accounts, we're forced to repeatedly re-enter our usernames as they fall off the drop-down list and re-accept the EULA over and over again (yet another two steps, actually three the way it's set up). This might seem like minor stuff to a lot of people, but we're basically having functionality replaced with something that takes more effort. That is not the correct direction to go if you want to create a good user experience.
None ofthe Above
#13 - 2013-05-24 18:53:11 UTC
rswfire wrote:
mynnna wrote:
So, yeah. As far as I can tell, lots of smoke for very little fire.What do you want us to do again, exactly?


Educate yourself on the things you state you do not understand. It's not just about multibox installations and ISBoxer, as neither are applicable to me. Admittedly, I have more accounts than the average player, but I suspect I'm a part of a sizable minority and saying "the switch account thing" works just fine is just not an answer imho. It's cumbersome and adds more steps to accomplish a task that was possible with less steps previously. Fewer steps equals better user experience. Also, in cases like mine, where we have more than 7 accounts, we're forced to repeatedly re-enter our usernames as they fall off the drop-down list and re-accept the EULA over and over again (yet another two steps, actually three the way it's set up). This might seem like minor stuff to a lot of people, but we're basically having functionality replaced with something that takes more effort. That is not the correct direction to go if you want to create a good user experience.


He is asking the right questions at least. And thanks for the write up. Much better than mine on that particular aspect.

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

Rengerel en Distel
#14 - 2013-05-24 19:52:06 UTC
rswfire wrote:
mynnna wrote:
So, yeah. As far as I can tell, lots of smoke for very little fire.What do you want us to do again, exactly?


Educate yourself on the things you state you do not understand. It's not just about multibox installations and ISBoxer, as neither are applicable to me. Admittedly, I have more accounts than the average player, but I suspect I'm a part of a sizable minority and saying "the switch account thing" works just fine is just not an answer imho. It's cumbersome and adds more steps to accomplish a task that was possible with less steps previously. Fewer steps equals better user experience. Also, in cases like mine, where we have more than 7 accounts, we're forced to repeatedly re-enter our usernames as they fall off the drop-down list and re-accept the EULA over and over again (yet another two steps, actually three the way it's set up). This might seem like minor stuff to a lot of people, but we're basically having functionality replaced with something that takes more effort. That is not the correct direction to go if you want to create a good user experience.


The EULA changed, that's why you had to accept it again.

There were many posts about work-arounds for launching many accounts bypassing the launcher altogether.

Still not sure what you expect the CSM to do that wasn't done by the "sizable minority" that posted the problems in the thread. I don't think Mynnna saying that multiboxers find the new launcher cumbersome will add more authority to the issue.

If a month from now, and CCP has been silent on the launcher, with no further iterations, then you can push the CSM into doing something.

With the increase in shiptoasting, the Report timer needs to be shortened.

Issler Dainze
Tadakastu-Obata Corporation
The Honda Accord
#15 - 2013-05-24 19:55:21 UTC
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:
For the record, this launcher stuff wasn't on CSM7's watch.

Also, EVE Electorate: how all these player communication candidates working out for you? No take backs either; I licked them all so it's too late.


Just want confirm the launcher thing not being a thing the CSM 7 was aware of. Sort of surprised to see it personally.

As for the player communications comment... sort of waiting to see that campaign issue promise "wall of awesome improvement" kick in...

To be fair, the behind the scenes during the hand off the CSM 8 was amazingly active and I left impressed, but I haven't seen that external change in public facing communication that many claimed needed to happen post CSM 7.

Issler
Dersen Lowery
The Scope
#16 - 2013-05-24 19:56:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Dersen Lowery
mynnna wrote:
Perhaps people mean multiple client installations? Not something CCP supports as far as I'm aware.


Multiple Clients on the Mac made easy - Introducing the EVE Clonemaker.

The EVElopedia entry on multiple clients.

If you want to say that it's something they more-or-less support for want of a better solution, that's a fair cop. They recognize the need; they're trying to develop a tool to satisfy that need. This is what people have improvised in the mean time, sometimes with CCP's help, and other times with their acknowledgement.

Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.

I voted in CSM X!

Snow Axe
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#17 - 2013-05-24 20:10:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Snow Axe
None ofthe Above wrote:
We did hear from Mike on Podside that there have been well attended meetings with CCP, including Trebor. I remain concerned that Trebor thinks his job is primarily about managing his/CSM's relationship with CCP and little else.

In his defense we did get a blog post lately, about as the launcher problems were surfacing although clearly written before:

http://treborofthecsm.blogspot.com/2013/05/csm-update.html

He hasn't picked up on the trick of posting here on the forums that a blog post is available.


I'm not even attacking him really, just pointing out that he's not what you would call a vocal participant in external things. Largely inactive twitter, blog that is more or less neglected outside of election season, not all that active on the official forums either. That's how he's been before this CSM, not much of a reason to think that'll magically change.

Whether that's a problem to you or not depends who you are, I guess. Clearly wasn't a problem to either the people who voted for him despite it, or the CSM members who chose him to be chair. Only thing left to do is adjust your expectations accordingly, otherwise you'll find yourself disappointed more often than not.

"Look any reason why you need to talk like that? I have now reported you. I dont need to listen to your bad tone. If you cant have a grown up conversation then leave the thread["

Alphea Abbra
Project Promethion
#18 - 2013-05-24 20:27:07 UTC
Rengerel en Distel wrote:
There were many posts about work-arounds for launching many accounts bypassing the launcher altogether.
CCP in their wisdom has promised to remove that bugfix at a later, undefined date.
As for the EULA, I had to accept it 6 times in total, that is twice the amount of accounts I have active.

In general, I'd say the release was tainted with the regular CCP anthem of "this is a downgrade right now, but in 18 months IT WILL ALL BE WORTH IT", coupled with a number of stupid bugs, a total disregard of the issues here on the forums, questions from the dev.s that showed the dev.s had no idea how it worked before (use-case testing), and a disregard of the SiSi testing feedback done before.
I had hoped that the last two summers had at least taught them that QA, use-testing and keeping functionality was important.

Furthermore, I thought the duelling mechanic they introduced was actually a sign of this. Crimewatch remake had taken that functionality out, they acknowledged it before, and included it in a point release. CCP, mark the calendar, lesson learned, right?
Current evidence to the contrary, sadly.

I'm disillusioned because I've seen CCP promise to learn from this kind of mistake at least twice major times before.
This time around, they're just trying to bribe us to keep silent.

Newsflash, I won't.
Che Biko
Alexylva Paradox
#19 - 2013-05-24 20:29:08 UTC
I'm not so much dissapointed in the CSM as a whole, as I didn't vote for most of them, but Malcanis is a different story, as he actually got my vote on my very short ballot.
Some of his comments are of the type Mittens used to make, and they don't encourage players to voice their concerns.
mynnna
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#20 - 2013-05-24 20:54:39 UTC  |  Edited by: mynnna
rswfire wrote:
mynnna wrote:
So, yeah. As far as I can tell, lots of smoke for very little fire.What do you want us to do again, exactly?


Multiboxing

Fair point. I've got 11 accounts myself but only ever run more than a few at a time, so it hadn't really occurred to me. Blink

Did the old launcher remember an "arbitrarily long" list of login names?

Dersen Lowery wrote:
mynnna wrote:
Perhaps people mean multiple client installations? Not something CCP supports as far as I'm aware.


Multiple Clients on the Mac made easy - Introducing the EVE Clonemaker.

The EVElopedia entry on multiple clients.

If you want to say that it's something they more-or-less support for want of a better solution, that's a fair cop. They recognize the need; they're trying to develop a tool to satisfy that need. This is what people have improvised in the mean time, sometimes with CCP's help, and other times with their acknowledgement.


Right, okay. And yeah, I've seen that entry, which is where I pulled the "not really supported" from. However, I also saw(I can't recall where, I'd have to dig it up from the blue post tracker) one of the devs asking after someone about what they chose to run multiple clients for, so it does seem to be something CCP is pursuing.

Issler Dainze wrote:
Just want confirm the launcher thing not being a thing the CSM 7 was aware of. Sort of surprised to see it personally.

As for the player communications comment... sort of waiting to see that campaign issue promise "wall of awesome improvement" kick in...

To be fair, the behind the scenes during the hand off the CSM 8 was amazingly active and I left impressed, but I haven't seen that external change in public facing communication that many claimed needed to happen post CSM 7.

Issler

By the standard you set almost everyone looks awesome right now on the communication front, whether it was part of their campaign or not.

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal

123Next page