These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Dev Blog: CSM 9 Results!

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
#241 - 2014-05-10 20:19:33 UTC
Jethrow Toralen wrote:

For the next CSM if I am still playing, I may not bother to vote. The reason is, I don't need the CSM to represent my playstyle. Market forces do that for me already. I vote with my subscription. If CCP makes changes such that my chosen playstyle becomes unfun or unviable, I will be a bit more proactive than hoping that my elected representative raises my concerns via the CSM.

what a hilariously defeatist position to take

"gee ccp if you don't do exactly as I say I will unsub but there's no way for you to actually know what that is so it is a complete crapshoot"
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
#242 - 2014-05-10 20:22:38 UTC
ccp can't take player feedback from hundreds of thousands of players at once, the signal to noise ratio is too damn bad

using intermediaries is a good way to improve that signal to noise ratio but if you are completely unwilling to participate then of course it doesn't help you
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate
#243 - 2014-05-10 20:27:47 UTC
Promiscuous Female wrote:
ccp can't take player feedback from hundreds of thousands of players at once, the signal to noise ratio is too damn bad

using intermediaries is a good way to improve that signal to noise ratio but if you are completely unwilling to participate then of course it doesn't help you


Pretty much standard fare, isn't it? "I hate what my government is doing and my vote doesn't count so I'll just yap about how I'll vote with my feet." Kind of like those people who say they'll leave the country if so and so wins the election. Oddly, they never do. They just keep yapping.
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
#244 - 2014-05-10 20:29:48 UTC
also this argument that "the csm has too many nullsec candidates and not enough that represent MY PLAYSTYLE" is not something that ccp can actually change

ccp can't force anyone to run for the csm, the wherewithal comes from the players alone

they can't even limit the number of people that come from a particular bloc or gameplay area because the anonymizing nature of the internet lets you hide potential candidates in any bloc in the game

the only failure re: candidate choice comes from within
Dave stark
#245 - 2014-05-10 20:32:01 UTC
Promiscuous Female wrote:
also this argument that "the csm has too many nullsec candidates and not enough that represent MY PLAYSTYLE" is not something that ccp can actually change


also the argument is flawed on the assumption that the csm are there to push people's personal playstyles rather than to ensure ccp makes changes that benefit the health of eve as a whole.
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
#246 - 2014-05-10 20:36:06 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Promiscuous Female wrote:
also this argument that "the csm has too many nullsec candidates and not enough that represent MY PLAYSTYLE" is not something that ccp can actually change


also the argument is flawed on the assumption that the csm are there to push people's personal playstyles rather than to ensure ccp makes changes that benefit the health of eve as a whole.

sure but that is harder to sell, regardless of the fact that it's true

seriously, mynnna is indefatigable in this regard, he casually deflects every stupid idea we tell him
Mike Azariah
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#247 - 2014-05-10 20:42:26 UTC
Promiscuous Female wrote:


seriously, mynnna is indefatigable in this regard, he casually deflects every stupid idea we tell him


He has a lot of practice in a given year.

m

Mike Azariah  ┬──┬ ¯|(ツ)/¯
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#248 - 2014-05-10 20:52:04 UTC
LHA Tarawa wrote:
Weaselior wrote:
if we ever spend 3.15 trillion on extra votes for the CSM i can assure you we will be a lot more obvious about it because it would be one of the most hilarious trolls ever to literally buy a csm seat

like really, doing evil and not taking credit for us isn't our MO


What cost?

Buddy invite, activate the account with a PLEX, get a PLEX from the buddy invite, repeat....


That doesn't work.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
beakerax
Pator Tech School
#249 - 2014-05-10 20:55:41 UTC
DireNecessity wrote:
1) Low turnout may simply mean your customers aren’t particularly upset. Negative emotions are often the most effective way to get people to the polls. Fewer people voting could well mean fewer strong negative emotions swimming about at the moment.

Maybe I'm just forgetful but the only big controversy I can remember this year involved a dev who now works for Riot and a CSM member who decided not to run again.

If CCP wants to politically re-energize its playerbase, they should go back to working on Incarna. That would probably get people fired up.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#250 - 2014-05-10 22:06:55 UTC
beakerax wrote:
DireNecessity wrote:
1) Low turnout may simply mean your customers aren’t particularly upset. Negative emotions are often the most effective way to get people to the polls. Fewer people voting could well mean fewer strong negative emotions swimming about at the moment.

Maybe I'm just forgetful but the only big controversy I can remember this year involved a dev who now works for Riot and a CSM member who decided not to run again.

If CCP wants to politically re-energize its playerbase, they should go back to working on Incarna. That would probably get people fired up.


We (jokingly) suggested that CCP do something like this.

IMO CCP's errors - or perhaps I should better say their dilemma - relate to what they haven't done, rather than what they have. The Great Plan is rational, sensible and if we're honest with ourselves, pretty much inevitable. But that doesn't change the fact that some issues have been neglected for so long that things have come to a crisis state.

I'm thinking of the state of nullsec here: the metagame has evolved to the point where the logical way to play is mostly to not log in. Most of nullsec spends the majority of its play time playing other games; for the few things we need to do, an op will be announced, a ping will go out.

Now it's relatively easy for the CSM to give feedback to CCP about proposed ideas; this ship getting that many launchers; that POS mod getting this bonus to ME research, etc etc. A specific proposal is made, and we can say yeah it's good, or um no that needs more work, or maybe how about this perspective, or when you present the idea to the players, use this launguage or prevent that misunderstanding.

But it's conceptually harder to talk to CCP about things that they haven't done. We can certainly say "Hey, 0.0 people aren't logging in as much; we'd like you to give us more reasons to". But we don't really get to be the ones who come up with ideas to fix that (in fact CCP are pretty averse to "CSM pet projects" in principle; that's one reason why we always ask you to write up your "great idea" and get some player momentum behind it.)

So in short: most or all of the things that CCP have done during CSM8's term have been in the 'OK to excellent' spectrum. There has been very little proposed to us that I could reasonably object to beyond the fine details.

But when CCP Seagull presented her rational, sensible, progressive, inevitable plan to us early last year, my heart sank because I knew that the implication that plan - not fixing sov, not fixing power projection for at least another year - would mean that EVE would suffer damage.

And now we're seeing that damage. It has been 4 years since Dominion. It will be at least another 12-18 months before 0.0 might be reformed. The PCU is going to sink further. Subs are going to decline. And all I, the elected player representative can say is "Well yeah I guess we have to suck it up, because all these other things really do have to be worked out first".

Who the hell wants to vote for that?

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Kusum Fawn
Perkone
Caldari State
#251 - 2014-05-10 22:22:55 UTC
Dave, I was waiting for an explanation of what the CSM, in your mind, what happens with the NDA material and CSM candidates.

also, before you begin writing your reply, I was talking about the perception of CSM by the majority of people that i talk to. None of what i wrote was insider knowledge of what the CSM does. Nor did i claim it to be. I wrote about what the general consensus of the people that i talk to in eve is.
David Stark wrote:
also the argument is flawed on the assumption that the csm are there to push people's personal playstyles rather than to ensure ccp makes changes that benefit the health of eve as a whole.


its the perception of what the CSM does or , rather the lack of what CSM does, that affects voting patterns.
From what I hear , the average casual player does not see the effects of CSM feedback on ideas that strip away the benefits of living in hisec vs nullsec. While it is CCP's stated goal to get more people in nullsec, It is not obvious how CSM are advocating for the average casual player who isnt part of a null block.

Major issues like POS code and Corp roles have not been revisited in any meaningful manner, despite being top of the pile for many players in every sec. Even the most recent Industry overhaul in its initial iteration was full of holes, What was the CSM input on that ? How much can/does CSM actually affect the priories of CCP content development? none of this is obvious on the CCP forums.

Every CSM has their own blog, podcast or whatever but very little presence on the only official forum of CCP. Increasing CSM posting presence on the Official forums will do a lot to change the perceptions of the average player on the actual effect of the CSM and the importance of voting for them.

- Malcanis posted before i finished typing
Malcanis wrote:
But it's conceptually harder to talk to CCP about things that they haven't done. We can certainly say "Hey, 0.0 people aren't logging in as much; we'd like you to give us more reasons to". But we don't really get to be the ones who come up with ideas to fix that (in fact CCP are pretty averse to "CSM pet projects" in principle; that's one reason why we always ask you to write up your "great idea" and get some player momentum behind it.)

So in short: most or all of the things that CCP have done during CSM8's term have been in the 'OK to excellent' spectrum. There has been very little proposed to us that I could reasonably object to beyond the fine details.

But when CCP Seagull presented her rational, sensible, progressive, inevitable plan to us early last year, my heart sank because I knew that the implication that plan - not fixing sov, not fixing power projection for at least another year - would mean that EVE would suffer damage.


Its this exactly. We the players know what we'd liek tot get fixed, but talking to even the CSM members we know isnt going to do any real good on getting it fixed. What am i Voting for again?

Its not possible to please all the people all the time, but it sure as hell is possible to Displease all the people, most of the time.
Kusum Fawn
Perkone
Caldari State
#252 - 2014-05-10 22:24:10 UTC
Promiscuous Female wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Promiscuous Female wrote:
also this argument that "the csm has too many nullsec candidates and not enough that represent MY PLAYSTYLE" is not something that ccp can actually change


also the argument is flawed on the assumption that the csm are there to push people's personal playstyles rather than to ensure ccp makes changes that benefit the health of eve as a whole.

sure but that is harder to sell, regardless of the fact that it's true

seriously, mynnna is indefatigable in this regard, he casually deflects every stupid idea we tell him


just pointing out that deflecting every stupid idea that you guys have isnt the same as not pushing his particular play style.

Its not possible to please all the people all the time, but it sure as hell is possible to Displease all the people, most of the time.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#253 - 2014-05-10 22:35:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Malcanis
Kusum Fawn wrote:

Its this exactly. We the players know what we'd liek tot get fixed, but talking to even the CSM members we know isnt going to do any real good on getting it fixed. What am i Voting for again?


Well it's not like we've been idle. Work was done; benefits were achieved. The CSM is worth opening the voting page and choosing some people to help CCP with what they're doing on the basis that they're more able to achieve that help than some other guys.

It's just that the core issue is that CCP have a metric ****-ton of work to do before they can do the stuff EVE really needs. We can't even argue that they're doing it in the wrong order. They aren't. Everything about the plan pretty much makes sense. If it helps. think of it like this: CCP are making EVE II, and meanwhile we're incrementally playtesting it for them while still playing EVE I, and there's a built in transition plan for our characters and assets. A new MMO takes about 3-4 years to write; they're about half way through the project.

If you can't see the value of having player representatives embedded as deeply as possible in that process then I don't even know what to say to you.

EDIT: And we most certainly can and did flag and champion player suggestions.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Kusum Fawn
Perkone
Caldari State
#254 - 2014-05-10 23:21:58 UTC
Malcanis wrote:

If you can't see the value of having player representatives embedded as deeply as possible in that process then I don't even know what to say to you.

EDIT: And we most certainly can and did flag and champion player suggestions.



That's not what im trying to say.

Im saying its hard to see the effect of the CSM in the process.

Its not possible to please all the people all the time, but it sure as hell is possible to Displease all the people, most of the time.
Sturmwolke
#255 - 2014-05-11 04:11:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Sturmwolke
Dirk MacGirk wrote:

yeah really, take the votes out of voting and we'll all be better off. I'm not a big fan of STV, more from a philosophical standpoint tied to European socialism than anything else, BUT, it has generated CSM's with better overall representation than the old, traditional method. It has allowed some candidates with less well-organized voters from smaller groups to get elected or at least make a showing. That would not have happened under the old method. If what you are looking for is someone to get a spot "just because" rather than as a the result of garnering sufficient backing from the community i.e. votes, well, you are probably setting yourself up for being disappointed and nothing in the world is going to change that.

Why do people get worked up when someone decides not to vote? The entire system is setup for a fail when it relies on the number of votes to set the threshold for votes. Want to manipulate it? Deliberately promote apathy through various means, create chaos or distraction that leads to low voter turn out, run deliberate shenanigans that makes future voters opt out and so on so forth. Of course, this won't show up if you're looking from a purely mathematical perspective, naively hypothesizing or projecting that a larger pool of voters would dilute the effects of individual power blocs. The reverse is easy to gloss over.

The STV system inherently promotes conglomeration or consolidation of candidates into loose association. A loose knit alliance between candidates (with voting power to back them up) not unlike the Japanese keiretsu. There is also saying, "I wash your back, you wash my back". Has it generated a CSM with better overall representation (as you claim)? Yep sure. Picture is still the same even if you look at it upside-down. The Mona Lisa still isn't smiling.

One other thing. The hidden social aspect. If you are the minority, peer pressure or more vocal opinions will ensure that you are neutralized, forcing yourself to conform to consensus or be treated as an outcast. So really, the big fishes won't worry how many small fishes is in their pond as long as they hold the majority.

Dirk MacGirk wrote:
Wall Street isn't part of our voting. Money isn't buying votes or influencing elections. In that regard, we're pretty lucky. Influence does occur but that influence is based on social influence. Don't fault people with charisma just because you don't like the outcome of that influence.

You're misunderstanding the Wallstreet context. It's not about money (and yes, candidates do buy votes, hello Earth to Dirk MacGirk? ... but we're not concerned about that). I should have chosen a different word.
Think, what else does Wallstreet do over there?

To end this, the old voting system isn't perfect. The problem here is that the replacement is the same or worse, while being more tedious and complex.

P.S. I debated whether to post that original post. Cba to argue on the internet forums for something inconsequential, getting too old for this sheet.
Consider this my last post on this thread. EVE beckons.
Frying Doom
#256 - 2014-05-11 05:37:01 UTC
Personally I think the voter turn out relates very well to how people feel about the relevance of the CSM now.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Jethrow Toralen
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#257 - 2014-05-11 06:00:12 UTC
Promiscuous Female wrote:
Jethrow Toralen wrote:

For the next CSM if I am still playing, I may not bother to vote. The reason is, I don't need the CSM to represent my playstyle. Market forces do that for me already. I vote with my subscription. If CCP makes changes such that my chosen playstyle becomes unfun or unviable, I will be a bit more proactive than hoping that my elected representative raises my concerns via the CSM.

what a hilariously defeatist position to take

"gee ccp if you don't do exactly as I say I will unsub but there's no way for you to actually know what that is so it is a complete crapshoot"


I expected a more intellectually robust response from a Goonswarm person, but perhaps I have been spoiled by the Economic Warfare members. What you are deriding as 'hilariously defeatist' is simply an expression of what it means to be a rational consumer. I won't respond to your interpretation that what I wrote means 'if you don't do exactly as I say I will unsub' because that is just hyperbole and no reasonable person would extrapolate that from my post.

In terms of 'CCP having no way to know what that is' if I don't participate in the CSM (ie. for CCP to know which things will keep me engaged with their game) - it is not my job to do free market research for CCP. There are many meta-games in EVE, but customer feedback is not one of the meta-games I am willing to play. And that is what I am being asked to do, if I have to participate in a voting arrangement to make concerns regarding my particular playstyle heard.

As I understand it, CSM originally was set up to counter lost player confidence in CCP following exploits affecting the game by a CCP employee ie. a damage minimisation and PR vehicle. I'm happy for it to be that - but in terms of player feedback - I would rather the whole CSM were disbanded and the resources used to employ more people whose sole jobs were to garner and analyze that feedback.
Josef Djugashvilis
#258 - 2014-05-11 06:08:46 UTC
Malcanis, you post - number 250 - amounts to, but I am a special snowflake and I want my bit fixed now or I will not log in and play.

There are a lot of things CCP need and want to do, the order they do them in has to be determined by them.

This is not a signature.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#259 - 2014-05-11 07:09:28 UTC
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:
Malcanis, you post - number 250 - amounts to, but I am a special snowflake and I want my bit fixed now or I will not log in and play.

There are a lot of things CCP need and want to do, the order they do them in has to be determined by them.



How on earth you got that from my post I truly have no idea. How do you derive "special snowflake" from a tl;dr of 'I guess we have to suck it up and wait yet another year or two?'?

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Darin Vanar
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#260 - 2014-05-11 08:30:40 UTC
LHA Tarawa wrote:
Weaselior wrote:
if we ever spend 3.15 trillion on extra votes for the CSM i can assure you we will be a lot more obvious about it because it would be one of the most hilarious trolls ever to literally buy a csm seat

like really, doing evil and not taking credit for us isn't our MO


What cost?

Buddy invite, activate the account with a PLEX, get a PLEX from the buddy invite, repeat....


I don't think accounts can be activated with a PLEX. They have to buy the base game first, which is 19.99, then they can activate it. As far as I understand it.