These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

CSM Campaigns

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
123Next pageLast page
 

Jayne Fillon for CSM9

First post First post
Author
Jayne Fillon
#1 - 2014-03-02 16:39:50 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Dolan
Greetings everyone -

I come to you today, on my second anniversary in Eve, to formally announce my candidacy for CSM9.

In game, my passion is PvP.

I started fleet commanding while still very new to the game, not for any major alliances or coalitions, but with the various open communities that taught me not only how to play the game but how to enjoy it. The people from Bombers Bar and RvB Ganked taught me about the universe, and lead me to create and run "Spectre Fleet" - the most active and rapidly growing open PvP community in New Eden.

Beyond my love for everything PvP, I am a self proclaimed theorycrafter - an "EFT Warrior" if you prefer. The complexities and endless challenges of Eve intrigue and motivate me to learn everything about the universe. Hours of preparation being reduced to split second decisions makes preparing and manoeuvring a successful fleet the most rewarding experience of any game I've ever played. With two years of dedication to this game I still have much to learn, not just in terms of PvP mechanics, but in all the facets of this game.

If elected to the CSM, how will I attempt to improve the game?

I understand that the CSM is a player representative group, and promising specific nerfs to the players or demanding specific changes from the developers is not the purpose of the council. While I may not be a game developer by training, my experience and understanding of certain aspects in the game means that I can and will provide feedback or input for future expansions to Eve, to benefit any pilot who chooses to undock and enjoy the game.

Even without being a member of the CSM I've been attempting to do this already, informing not only the developers but the players about how future expansions will affect them. Examples of this come from my articles that have been published to TheMittani.com, where I use my experience as a trained engineer to analyze current and future updates.

This is most easily demonstrated by my analysis of the then-unreleased RHMLs, which was read and commented on by CCP Rise, before the final iteration was announced.

Beyond helping with mechanics of future updates and current designs, I am a firm supporter of and believer in the communities of Eve. In game and out, these various entities make this game unique and exciting, helping newbies and veterans alike to better themselves within the game. The learning curve or Eve, as with the entire new player experience, is notoriously challenging and is no harder than when attempted alone. The communities of Eve are the driving force behind new players, ensuring their development into long term prospering capsuleers.

Eve is over ten years old, and I have only been playing for a fraction of that time. Had I not found the community within Bombers Bar I would have quit the game a long time ago. I have met many others on the verge of quitting, who would have done so had they not found groups such as Eve University, RvB or Brave Newbies. From highsec industrialists and incursion runners, to lowsec pirates and nullsec residents, Eve is strongest when there is a passionate and involved community - a community that I would be proud to represent on CSM 9.

Can't shoot blues if you don't have any. Long Live NPSI.

Jayne Fillon
#2 - 2014-03-02 16:40:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Jayne Fillon
If you'd like to ask me a question or just chat, don't be a stranger! I'll be keeping an eye on this thread, or alternatively you can come and join us in the "Spectre Fleet" channel - meet people, hang out, join fleets, and have fun!

UPDATE #1
*Snip* Please refrain from discussing forum moderation. ISD Ezwal.
UPDATE #2
CCP Eterne posted a community spotlight on Spectre Fleet, showcasing our history, the community, and explaining what we do and who we are. It's a great read if you're not familiar with the NPSI community and would like to know more. The official Spectre Fleet forum thread can be found here, but I highly recommend joining the channel and saying hello!
UPDATE #3
I’ve had to repost this thread due to the old one being locked – but don’t worry, I’ll be reposting all of the questions from the previous thread here so that they are available and easy to read. Questions that I considered to be personal attacks (see update #1) are not included, neither are posts of support, or responses to my answers that did not contain an additional question.
UPDATE #4
I’ve taken Eve pretty seriously over the last two weeks, starting from when this thread was originally posted and it’s been go go go ever since. After my article on slowcats and the future meta of nullsec warfare was published late last month, I decided remind myself why I enjoy this game, and publish something a little different. Check out my picks for the greatest Eve videos from the last year.
UPDATE #5
I've completed my interview on the CapStable podcast. I really appreciate the work that they are doing in helping inform everyone about the potential CSM candidates, and Hoots was very professional while asking some very excellent (and difficult!) questions. I encourage you to check out my interview here as well those interviews of the other candidates you may be considering.

Questions from the previous post will now be reposted below, note that minor alterations have been made for syntax, grammar and readability however the content and tone has remain unchanged.

Can't shoot blues if you don't have any. Long Live NPSI.

Jayne Fillon
#3 - 2014-03-02 16:40:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Jayne Fillon
Ripard Teg wrote:
What recent ship balancing change did you agree with the most, and why?

There are so many to choose from, and I've been very pleased with the vast majority of balance changes being made. Although not particularly recent, the overall update to T1 cruisers, beams, artillery, and rails did wonders to make fleet combat much more effective and accessible for lower skilled pilots. Demonstrated to be effective by groups like European Goonion and most recently BNI with their Thorax “Pocket Rocket” doctrine – which I designed – T1 cruiser usage has spread to most groups, proving that you can make a cheap doctrine effective in medium size fleet warfare in lowsec and nullsec.

The full list of changes can be found here, here, here, and here.

The following quote from CCP Fozzie is a perfect example of what this update accomplished and why it was good for the game as a whole: "... we've done our job right then when a newer player shows up to your Armour HAC fleet saying "I've got an Augoror how can I help?" the FC will respond with "xxxxx is our logistics channel, the guys in there will get you set up with the cap chain and anchor", rather than "LOLN00B come back with a real ship"."

Of course, the warp speed changes and interceptor balancing was a big hit with everyone, and for good reason. However, I think that the cruiser changes are the unsung heroes of Rubicon, and until people realize that a hoard of interceptors (murderfleet) is not an unkillable doctrine, I'll be content rocking around with new players in cruisers.

Ripard Teg wrote:
What recent ship balancing change did you disagree with the most, and why?

This is a tough one, but after thinking about it I had to go with the Electronic Attack Ships.

My reasoning is simple - I still don't see them being utilized in fleet combat at any scale, small gang, medium gang, or large fleet fights. If I do, they are instantly going to be primary due to the combination of fragility and force multiplication. The high training time into a dead end skill and the comparable utility and power of the T1 disruption frigates, at a fraction of the cost does nothing to justify their use.

For example, the Vigil has a slightly lower bonus to target painters than the Hyena, at 7.5% and 10% respectively. However, the Hyena has one less midslot than the Vigil, yet bonused to webs in addition to target painters. How is this ship intended to fulfill a more meaningful role than the T1 version? It's hard to justify.

Sandwiched between the staying power of recons, and the surprisingly effective T1 disruption frigates, it seems like they've been struggling to find their niche in the current meta of Eve. It’s quite sad for such beautiful ships with awesome bonuses to be so unloved and unused.

Ripard Teg wrote:
What recent change other than ship balancing did you agree with the most, and why?

Omnidirectional Tracking Links

No question in my mind about this one. I never realized just how broken they were until I analyzed the use of sentry drones on HACs and Battleships. This problem was exacerbated by the failure for them to stack with drone scope rigs (optimal range) producing absolutely insane numbers when used on ships like the Ishtar.

Bringing them more inline with the tracking computers is a great move, and the subtle change allowing for overheating and scripting naturally tends towards an active gameplay rather than the AFK nature that drone assist has become known for. Overheating when it's really needed has always been the pinnacle of edge-of-your-seat gameplay and I'm glad to see it come to drones.

Ripard Teg wrote:
What recent change other than ship balancing did you disagree with the most, and why?

Another easy one: Drone Assist Limitation

I understand that CCP is trying to reduce the usage of sentry drones in nullsec warfare, but this does nothing to stop small gang usage in lowsec, or ignoring scan resolution in order to attack a target. It feels like a poorly thought out band-aid for a problem with much deeper problems than just "now you have to assist drones to your squad commander instead of fleet commander."

It's also a completely arbitrary limitation. I hate arbitrary mechanics and restrictions.

There are so many possibilities to change the way these fleets operate, while maintaining the reason this mechanics exists in the first place, such as lightening the load on the already hectic role logi pilots fulfill. Instead of a meaningful change, CCP elected to go for a mechanic that simply made the current iteration of a broken functionality slightly less convenient to use, and even then only on a large scale. I won't say I'm not pleased a change was made, but I am certainly disappointed it wasn't more creative or meaningful.

Can't shoot blues if you don't have any. Long Live NPSI.

Jayne Fillon
#4 - 2014-03-02 16:41:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Jayne Fillon
Ripard Teg wrote:
What did you think about the recent change to moongoo distribution? In the several months since this change has been implemented, do you feel this has been a net positive for the game, or a net negative? Why?

This is another tough one for me to answer for two reasons, first off I have very little expertise in the area of industry, let alone T2 production which to my understanding was what caused the bottleneck and the resulting economic treaty/warfare. Secondly, your use of the term "recent change" is amusing to me since it occurred closer to when I first started playing Eve than today.

But anyway, let's break it down. In terms of the redistribution of moongoo, the change was needed simply because it was a failure of game design at the most basic level. A design that arbitrarily applies value to a certain object or resource is inherently fine so long as outside factors don't shift the real value of those items, which is always going to happen in New Eden.

In this case, geography, bottlenecks, and co-operation increased the price of a single R32 mineral (tech) well above the value of other (supposedly) more valuable R64s. Looking to rectify this discrepancy, CCP made a number of changes that solved this problem and resulted in a product that closer to what they had originally intended.

My only knowledge about the distribution of moon minerals came from the great K162 blog post that did an excellent job of visualizing moon distribution. Unfortunately, that was pre-shakeup and I don't know how they are distributed and grouped anymore.

The introduction of Alchemy is another subject that I've attempted to understand, but achieved little success against those who actually control moons and conduct these reactions. I viewed the entire mechanic as more of a crude balancing tool, or to use an analogy, alchemy was the "relief valve" introduced to take the pressure off the economy, rather than create more content. Another band-aid.

As comes with not being a subject matter expert in this area, I'm going to answer a slightly different question than you asked.

"Do you feel this has been a net positive for the game?"
Is now going to be answered as if you asked me
"what would have made this a net positive for the game?"

The simple answer to what makes this game better is content generation. Reasons for conflict, motivation to invade, and the grass-is-always-greener syndrome. I understand the reasoning behind labeling resources by rarity, however in a game where value is granted to an object by players, it seems odd to force minerals into that archetype. If I had my way, and (forgive me) I'm putting on my game developer hat, I would forgo the R8-R64 system entirely.

Make everything a bottleneck to a different final product, concentrate and distribute these resources to various regions. For example: Alliance A wants to fly Ship X, but to build Ship X you need a certain moon. You either invade and take those resources, ally with the groups that own those resources, or don't fly that ship unless you're importing them for an inflated price. Maybe Alliance B want to fly Ship X, and if Alliance A conquers those resources they can increase the price of their enemies chosen fleet doctrine.

This is the way I see Eve. Everything with a purpose, a potential for narrative and conflict, and a motivation to fight.

Why bother sorting these moon minerals by rarity or value, when that value can be decided by simple supply and demand?

Would my suggestion encourage the blue doughnut? Maybe, I don't know. I'm not a game developed and I'll never pretend to be, but the sentiment still stands. I consider any change net positive that encourages warfare, be it with actual ships, economic warfare on the market, or the war of words in propaganda and the writing of New Eden's history.

Ripard Teg wrote:
If you were in a position to influence a developer regarding PvE in EVE, what changes would you suggest, and why?

Incursions are the first things to come to mind, and this is for a few reasons.

First and foremost, Spectre Fleet ran lowsec incursions on Saturday for the very first time. I took out a fleet of T1 cruisers and battlecruisers with new pilots and ran the fleet much like I would any normal PvP engagement: I had no previous knowledge of what the enemy was going to be. We completed both a vanguard and an assault, it was exciting, and we got paid! What a novel idea. I always thought grinding for ISK in this game was boring.

This got me thinking about the new player experience and the transition from highsec missions, to full fledged fleet combat, hopefully even leading the fleet themselves! The fantastic video by Rooks and Kings discussing and documenting their adventures running lowsec incursions instantly comes to mind. The introduction to this video has a very provocative quote that has stuck with me:

"Highsec incursions give pilots a chance to cut their teeth on fleet combat situations, within a PvE environment, and budding fleet commander get a chance to try their hand at marshaling logistics and organizing their forces under fire. The Sansha invasion plans may not make a lick of sense, as indeed is the case in much of PvE, and yet on a meta level the content has succeeded, since new in game professions, roles and communities were created."

cont.

Can't shoot blues if you don't have any. Long Live NPSI.

Jayne Fillon
#5 - 2014-03-02 16:42:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Jayne Fillon
I have nothing but praise for the Incursion mechanic, and I'm certainly not angry about how much ISK they make or anything like that. I'm delighted to see the numerous communities that have formed and operate in such unique ways. Even hearing about the infighting and politics between the communities when one breaks stride to destroy the mothership early.... wait, what?

Yeah, I always thought that was odd. Incursion runners and their communities have incursions down to a science, not just how to run sites, but how to extend the invasion long enough to maximize profit for everyone and with the least risk possible. Disrupt this calm with a site contest or heaven forbid pop the mothership early and suddenly you have drama, and politics.

The problem here is that highsec incursions are being treated as end game content. In no PvP situation would you see such blinged out ships, and fleet commanders targeting ships before they even spawn. Incursions are wonderful to the point that they bringing people together, but even that is severely limited, as operating in highsec prevents the formation of a true incursion corporation or alliance for extremely obvious reasons.

So there people are, sitting in a solo corp with 0% tax, running incursions to make more money than they know what to do with, all with no aspiration or motivation to do anything else in the game. Risk is not a thing to these people, whelping a fleet is unheard of, and both these things are central to PvP fleet combat.

So what changes would you suggest? As I mentioned earlier, I'm not a game designer, and try to refrain from suggesting specific changes to mechanics. But the sentiment I would express to the developers would be simply this:

Bridge the gap. You're so close to having a seamless transition between PvE and PvP. Encourage people to take risks in the pursuit of greater rewards, both ISK rewards and the rewards of accomplishing something difficult. Let these people create corporations and alliances instead of existing in a perverted state of mutual distrust solely in the pursuit of ISK.

Ripard Teg wrote:
What has been your favorite EVE expansion, and why?

I haven't been around for many – only 3 that I paid attention too – but my favorite is by far Rubcion.

This could be recency bias, but I doubt it. The balancing of so many different aspects of Eve, not just ships, has kept the theorycrater in me busy and excited about every single change that has been announced. With the mobile structures promising to alter the meta of warfare in Eve forever, I couldn't be more excited.

Ripard Teg wrote:
What has been your least favorite EVE expansion, and why?

Retribution, hands down. Crimewatch was neat and all, but I still don't anyone fulfilling the true bounty hunter role... and locator agents? Why is that STILL the only way to find your targets? It just seems half cooked if not overlooked entirely.

I was disappointed at the time and still am. Seriously. Also, coming from a guy who loves his Widow to death, the trailer was silly, and represents wardecs more than actual bounty hunting. rabble rabble rabble.

Malcanis wrote:
Are you in a position to put in the regular 20 hours per week that being an influential CSM member requires?

Yes. Although I'm military and can be pulled away from the game at short notice, during regular work cycles I easily put in 20 hours a week. This is most easily demonstrated by Jayne's eveboard, where I took this screenshot. Yeah, haha, that shows that since this account was created it has been online an average of 5 hours per day, everyday. Admittedly that is a consequence of AFK cloaking, and having it on in the background while I do real work, I'm almost always plugged in and multi-tasking.

Malcanis wrote:
How will you engage with and communicate with the community?

There's no way to sugar coat this - you have to play the game.

Communities aren't going to come to you; you have to go to them. Find the secret club house that they've built in the tiniest niche imaginable and let you show them what they've created. It's a simple task of getting out there and talking to them, whether it's the teamspeak of an incursion community, brave newbies public channel, guest FC'ing for RvB Ganked, or pre-arranged fights with E-UNI.

I don't blog about this game, I'm not as active on twitter (@BomberJayne) as I would like, and I'm certainly not as e-famous as the rest of you white-tag people in this thread, but I do enjoy talking to people and letting them show me what they do in this game, and why they enjoy it.

Ripard Teg wrote:
What would you say to someone who said "I'm not gonna vote for any TMC writers because you're all CFC hacks and why should I put MORE CFC people on the CSM?"

I deal with that almost everyday!

I'm a true neutral, as I like to call it, having never been involved with any of the nullsec politics despite being intensely fascinated by them. It's not that I don't want to, but after taking the writer position at TMC I saw how people were forced into that mold and I enjoy my neutrality and being able to avoid most of the stereotyping that comes with a never ending war of words and propaganda.

Anyway, the most relevant example I can think of to answer your original questions comes after I published my immensely popular article regarding an officer fit Bomber that was lost in lowsec. I was really proud of this article, and still am.

Can't shoot blues if you don't have any. Long Live NPSI.

Jayne Fillon
#6 - 2014-03-02 16:43:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Jayne Fillon
However when I tried to share this article with Bombers Bar (hey, I thought it was relevant) I received responses that ranged from "stop trying to self promote," or "pastebin that and then maybe I'll read it" and of course "no way I'm clicking that goon trash" or "sold out to the CFC? I thought you were better than that." It was frustrating, and honestly the first time I realized how much real animosity could exist in a digital universe.

I fully understand that if people are fickle enough not to read an article written by a neutral on the "website of their enemy," then I will lose votes to those who think I am a working for the CFC, brainwashed to love the GSF, and will feed NDA secrets to mittens.

At that point, I don't want their vote. Is that shortsighted? Probably.

Put more simply, paranoia isn't anywhere in my platform.
I wouldn't want to misrepresent someone who voted for me.

Malcanis wrote:
The right way to bring an issue like this to CCP is

(1) Identify a problem or an opportunity
(2) Explain what goals the change should achieve
(3) Make an argument for how fixing it would
-i: Acquisition - Help attract new players (or attract old players back)
-ii: Conversion - Help convert trial accounts into subscribers
-iii Retention - Help retain existing subscribtions
(4) Make an example proposal that, ideally, hits all 3 of the ACR targets and achieves your stated goals
(5) Demonstrate that there is significant player demand for this - CCP tend to pay more attention to popular issues raised by multiple players rather than CSM "pet projects.

(Up to this stage, basically anyone can do this)

(6) Keep the issue visible to CCP (this is where CSMs can really add value)
(7) When and if CCP come back with a proposal that addresses your stated goals, give feedback.
(8) Collect, discuss and frame player feedback to CCP (again, this is where CSMs get to wield influence)

Given the above structure, how would you frame a bounty proposal to CCP. What case would you make to give it priority? Remember that there are basically an infinite number of ideas competing for dev resources, but only a very limited amount of those resources.

Okie dokie, here we go. Now this will mostly be hypothetical since I don't view bounty hunting as a priority for CCP, however I'll answer your question as if it were.

1) The problem with the bounty hunting system is that it does nothing to promote actual bounty hunting - in highsec you can't kill an individual who you've hunted down, and in lowsec or nullsec you often have other reasons for wanting to kill them then the bounty system. First and foremost, they probably want to kill you with some sense of urgency and joy. Furthermore, the highest bounties in the game belong to people like MarkeeDragon, Boom Boom Longtime, and Erotica 1, who are all individuals who either never undock or are simply a political figure placing their name at the top of a "leaderboard". The list of most successful bounty hunters? All listed as having a security status of -10.0 or a part of a highsec wardec group. It takes no great leap of faith to assume these people are simply lowsec pirates who happen to kill A LOT of people who, as a happy coincidence, happen to have bounties on them.
2) Any change made to the bounty hunting system should provide a unique gameplay niche, where people can act as a bounty hunter and serve a meaningful purpose, either keeping those with large bounties out of highsec, constantly on the run, or paying for their "crimes". It is the narrative that drives the involvement in this game, and giving capsuleers the tools to make a difference, with motivations outside regular bloodlust would be a great accomplishment.
3a) Publicity drives subscriptions, as we can see from large events such as B-R and Asakai. This topic was even the mainstay of the retribution expansion's trailer, but was never actualized to the point where you could mimic. This provides an opportunity for communities to arise, and for players to find their claim to fame in the universe. Maybe there's a criminal who none of the bounty hunters can catch, or maybe there's a bounty hunter that has single handily made empire safer? A safe empire alone would help those who make their living there, which is of course the majority of new players.
3b) Give players a goal: if a player has something to strive towards, they will stay in the game. So many people join this game and are lost in the immensity of the sandbox; maybe they were ganked during their trial while trying to mine in their venture - what can he do? In the current mechanics, HTFU and get a new ship, but there are so many possibilities for this event to shape that pilot's path in the game, from either placing a bounty on the ganker, his corporation, or his alliance, all the way up to becoming a bounty hunter himself so he can protect other like him and exact vengeance for his fallen venture.
3c) See above. As I've gotten more experienced in this game, the intricacies and politics have become more and more fascinating to me. Meaningful content, actions that have consequences, and enabling a person to exact vengeance makes people involved with the sandbox and compelled to be a part of it - changing it forever in the process.

Can't shoot blues if you don't have any. Long Live NPSI.

Jayne Fillon
#7 - 2014-03-02 16:44:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Jayne Fillon
4) So hard to keep this part brief, but I'll cut it down to just three points:

• Encourage PvP for reasons outside of the joy of PvP itself and griefing, bounty hunting should be separate from piracy.
• Change the bounty office and locator agents to actual enable dedicated and devoted bounty hunters a way of hunting.
• Change the bounty system to be more personal, profitable, and meaningful. Bounty payouts shouldn't be an afterthought.

(Bounty types, maybe? Such as a person placing a bounty specifies, highsec only, in a battleship, etc.)

5) Hard to demonstrate quantitatively, however the bounties on the top ten most wanted total 354B in bounties. That's just individual players, not to mention the corporations and alliance that have bounties.

The following steps, 6-8 would come after, and would rely heavily on both players input and developer input.

Mynnna wrote:
If, as you say, you "don't like pretending to be a game designer", how do you feel you can effectively provide feedback to CCP?

I guess I just need better phrasing. I love tinkering with mechanics, am obsessed with trying to find the best way to accomplish things, and in doing so have developed some very entrenched opinions about how the game should work. I've expressed these opinions, too, from the rapid launchers review I did to my more recent and controversial work on sentry drones. I'm not afraid of sharing my opinion, but when it comes to CSM I feel like a different approach is required.

When I say I don't like playing game designer, I mean that I don't like to operate under the pretense that if I'm elected to CSM I'll waltz into the CCP main office, kick a programmer out of his chair and code in specific features personally. This is not a solo job. There are people out there who know more about this game than I do, and (I assume) there are many people like that in CCP. I view CSM as not a one way street, where I read CCP the riot act, why they're stupid and wrong, and what exactly to do in order to fix it. God no.

I view the CSM-CCP relationship (and I could be wrong, I'm an outsider) as a team working together trying to find the best solution to a problem. Although I've made it sound like my intent is to say "this is broken, fix it, I'm not going to tell you how" my intent is to say "this is broken because of this, I think the final product should accomplish this, I have some ideas for what can be done but what can we do to get there?"

This is to say I value the input of others, and don't claim to know everything. I'm an open minded individual who will change his mind if you show me why I'm wrong.

Hope that clarifies things.

Anna niedostepny wrote:
Do you have any opinions on current null sec sovereignty mechanics? If so what are they?

I have many opinions on the matter, in fact too many to share at once simply due to your question being so broad.

My main sentiment towards sov mechanics is shaped by the vast majority of space nearly completely empty, which is a direct consequence of the Dominion sov system since owners don't actually have to live in their "homes" to protect it or benefit from it. This leads to the vast majority of space being boring and devoid of content (read: player interaction) with only few hotspots in the entire universe enjoying PvP, but even then only on a scale inaccessible to those not involved with major coalitions.

I am a supporter of the "farms and fields" sovereignty model for Eve.

Further reading can be found here and here.

Gully Alex Foyle wrote:
What's your take on capital force projection? Do you think a nerf would improve EVE gameplay in general? If you do, is there a specific mechanic, among the many being discussed that you would support?

If you haven't read it yet, I just released an article covering the use of carriers and supercarries in nullsec warfare. Although it is focused on the Archon and the Aeon specifically due to the political debates that have been swirling, I touch on other topics as well. I bring this up, because after discussing the topic with Grath Telkin of Pandemic Legion, this same topic that you ask now was raised.

"Any [power projection] nerf must ensure it isn't just a new mechanic that restricts players arbitrarily. Making this game more frustrating and painful to do the same things we could yesterday is not the right way to start balancing. Beyond that, I am in total agreement. When you're able to teleport thousands of battleships wherever you wish, that's the only way that battles are going to be fought. Can you blame them? It just makes sense."

This is to say that I believe a power projection nerf, or alteration, would be a good for the game. However, I am in no way of supporting a change that imposes arbitrary restrictions on players; a better path would be to encourage the use of fast warping or more manoeuvrable ships, to pick two examples from many. However, to change this would require a complete overhaul of the sov system, which some argue is already overdue.

Some people see the ability to move entire fleet of capitals across the universe as a problem. I see it as a symptom of a much greater problem, and that problem comes in the form of sovereignty mechanics. So to answer your question if I agree with any of the proposed fixes, the answer is no, I do not.

Can't shoot blues if you don't have any. Long Live NPSI.

Jayne Fillon
#8 - 2014-03-02 16:45:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Jayne Fillon
Knezzy wrote:
As a part-time hi-sec incursion runner, previous pilot for Bombers Bar, and current FC for Spectre Fleet, I've grown very fond of the "open community" aspect of these and other groups. The pick-up-group style comradery formed in these fleets and channels provides a lot of content and is a great gateway for new and old players alike to expand their skill sets, especially in combat situations. One major drawback to this is, for instance, a hi-sec incursion runner whose corporation/alliance is routinely involved in wardec's and won't be allowed into any of the major incursion fleets as a result. That pilot then has to forego a part of the game's content to commit to the wardec, or commit to the hassle of moving his character to a different corporation to continue running.

Will you give everyone your opinion on how these kinds of communities and pilots' involvement in them could be made more independent of their corporations/alliances/coalitions - or would any changes actually hinder these communities' development and operation?
Furthermore, can you please give us your impression of the current wardec mechanics and your ideas for how they could be improved?

I think I rambled about Incursions earlier in this thread, but you bring up a good point about wardecs and how they've influenced the creation and growth of these communities. You actually have to make a distinction here between the communities that run incursions primarily, and those that run combat fleets. While open combat fleets are generally formed with altruistic intent, such as to help newbros (Agony, Flying Dangerous), or just a simply love for PvP (RvB Ganked, Spectre Fleet), incursion communities are created in an environment of mutual distrust. This is fueled entirely by corporation mechanics.

If a PvP pilot is in a corporation or alliance, he is able to access and participate with content beyond what an open fleet community can provide - drop capitals, suicide gank, or maybe even wormhole diving. However, an incursion pilot who is in a corporation is doing himself a disservice and putting himself at risk. Legal inter-corp aggression in highsec makes new recruits to a theoretical incursion corp very dangerous for potential awox. Even if said corp managed to find a core group of active and passionate incursion pilots, they will inevitably be forced to either drop corp or drop incursions. It's no surprise that people pick the former.

Although NPC corporations can't be wardec'd, the tax makes for an unsuitable home, and these people are forced by no desire of their own to create one man solo corps of isolation just to enjoy their content of choice. This is the sense of mutual distrust and vulnerability that causes incursion communities to be a necessity, rather than combat communities providing an infrequent indulgence into their content of choice. Whether this is a fault of the wardec mechanics or corporation and alliance mechanics is up for debate, but in this case, I have to side with the wardecs being the cause of the problem.

This is for one reason. Features within the game are meant to create content - all kinds of play styles and niches for pilots to enjoy. The ever present threat of wardecs is preventing the creation of anything beyond communities of mutual distrust, with no content created for or by the wardec group. This is something that needs to be changed. Nullsec and Lowsec shouldn't be the only place for corporations and alliances.

BBQ FTW wrote:
I don't want this interpreted as a killboard trolling post, but do you have any substantial experience in small gang pvp, preferably in outnumbered engagements? I would think that most of the people that prefer it would say that its an entirely different beast from 20+ sized gangs, and probably the type most affected by individual balance changes.

Why does actual experience matter? It's impossible to experimentally simulate every possible fight matchup, so when we make balance judgments, we have to rely on our experiences to fill in the gaps. Theorycraft isn't an acceptable substitute in many cases. After all, the 2012 nanodrake (most defined by HML, dual web, dual nano) and the current popular single-AAR pulse navy omen have what appears to be awful deficiencies on paper, yet the former was one of the most influential ships in the meta and the latter is currently one of the most popular small-gang nano ships.

In your RLML analysis, you seriously underrate the crippling nature of the lack of ammo switching flexibility. I give you credit for acknowledging that the issue exists, but without experience, how can you actually assign its actual importance? I'll freely concede that two experienced players can differ on the ultimate conclusion of RLML viability in the small gang meta, but using copious amounts of EFT warrioring as a substitute for actual flying is problematic. And I don't think its unreasonable to expect a pvp-focused CSM to be able to intelligently evaluate proposed balance changes...

I'll accept that you are pretty experienced with black ops style stuff, but let's be honest - in nearly all cases, when your lone hostile or couple hostiles are saturated with ECM / other EWAR, you could fit triple sensor boosters to your manticore and it would hardly change the outcome of the engagement. When you're fighting with even or against the odds - then these differences matter, and that's when flaws in your theorycraft are revealed.

Can't shoot blues if you don't have any. Long Live NPSI.

Jayne Fillon
#9 - 2014-03-02 16:46:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Jayne Fillon
That's fine - I know that the killboard on Jayne looks weak. That's due in no small part to this character being exclusively used for black ops and bomber engagements. With no cruiser or battlecruiser skills, I use my other characters to FC from, most commonly I've used "Aristo Moon" and have been doing so ever since I purchased the character specifically for this reason. My favorite size of gang to FC, and those that I run most often, are in the 20-40 man range.

Yes, it appears that the only thing that I do is black ops and bomber engagements.
That's because on this character, it's the truth.

As for ammo switching, IIRC my analysis came before CCP Rise actually assigned the massive reload to the launchers themselves. Being able to comfortably switch and select ammo types in battle is a huge asset, and something that any missile-spewing frigate pilot is intimately familiar with. That said, frigate pilots will also know how scary front loaded DPS really is, regardless of damage type.

You said: ... you could fit triple sensor boosters to your Manticore and it would hardly change the outcome of the engagement ...

This is a great point, and something I repeat on a regular basis to all of my pilots. For example, those who have flown with me know that I hate using Falcons in my fleets, simply because it encourages complacency and removes any necessity for pilot skill in piloting or fitting. Too often I've heard "if only that jam had landed...!" as justification for a loss of ships or entire fleets. Using ships like the Rapier or the creative application of sensor dampeners can be just as effective if not more, and still teach your pilots about damage mitigation and application instead of "LOL jammed". Same thing with blob warfare, your mistakes and your inadequacies can be hidden by the sheer numbers surrounding you. I don't find that type of PvP enjoyable.

Ironically, my current obsession in Eve is actually trying to fight severely outnumbered. This little goal of mine started when I forced myself to learn Solo PvP - look up any Stabber, Moa, or Vexor, loss on Aristo Moon. I knew I would encounter gate camps or small gangs, and I had to be able to hit well above my weight class if I wanted to survive, or at least succeed ISK efficient. Thankfully, that wasn't too hard, given how brazen interdictor and interceptor pilots are these days.

This is to say I know where you're coming from, and I understand that EFT doesn't have all the answers.

... but I have more experience in space than you give me credit for.

Hello Monument Visitor wrote:
Hi Jayne, I've read a fair bit of your stuff. Some of it is pretty good, but I recall being annoyed and disgusted a while back when you decided to make some stuff up about a CSM8 and iScorps.

You essentially made stuff up about someone and posted it straight to a public forum. You didn't even display the integrity to do some rudimentary fact checking first.

Obviously, this is not a quality I desire of a CSM9 delegate. They need to be a good communicator between the player base and CCP. The basics of this start with good information that is fact checked, not the polar opposite which is making stuff up and posting it. So... what major positive aspect have you got that will outweigh your huge negative "I make stuff up and post it to the player base as fact" propensity?


The post you're referencing can be found here.

This was, admittedly, a mistake on my part.
Thankfully, I never deleted it, and you can view my glorious failure in full above.

However, the "rudimentary fact checking" wasn't something I could personally verify, although I regret not being more prudent before calling foul. At the time, my information came from a published article that contained the same claim, which was also later revised to reflect the truth. In my defense, up to that point Ripard Teg had never mentioned that members of his corporation had received the IScorps, nor had he denied ever receiving one personally. That was suspicious and screamed of conflict of interest to me, something that I wanted to share with others. I have nothing against Ripard, but in this case I could not have disagreed with his position more.

So despite your question being rather abrasive, I understand where you're coming from. I had the best of intentions with sharing what I thought was a very relevant piece of information in a raging debate, and the "cherry picking" of quotes that I was accused of was an unintentional side-effect of trying to share only the relevant portions of two long posts from two different sources. It was poorly received, and for good reason.

So finally.... What major positive aspect have you got that will outweigh your huge negative

I'll reiterate that I never intentionally spread or post lies to the player base. Even ignoring everything else I've posted in this entire thread, I don't have to look very far for a positive that would outweigh what you consider as a huge negative. Quite simply, the post is still there - I didn't delete it, or hide from it. As with any subject on any aspect on this game, I will always admit when I am wrong.

Can't shoot blues if you don't have any. Long Live NPSI.

Jayne Fillon
#10 - 2014-03-02 16:47:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Jayne Fillon
Dersen Lowrey wrote:
How are you planning to contribute to something actually getting done? Clearly, it's not on CSM to do it, but the will has been there for years on both sides of the table. There is no shortage of ideas. There's been no shortage of debate. How do we get to implementation, and what sort of timeline do you think we might be realistically looking at (yes, that will be a pure guesstimate, and I promise to not hold you to it!). How do you see the ESS, and the new anchorables, contributing to a new system? What if there's more than one way to do sov?

Let's say that CSM 9 has exactly the same impact on nullsec that previous CSMs have had: much discussion, some good ideas, some bad ideas, and some new shinies, but at the end of the day it's still IHUBs and TCUs and SBUs as far as the eye can see. What will you tell the people who are now hoping that you, or someone, will fix sov?

I've been putting off on answering your question because it's probably the hardest one I've been asked so far.... but here goes. Quite simply, as a CSM member I think this relies heavily on the design direction that CCP is currently undertaking. Although there have been hints as to the direction we're heading with the post-Rubicon expansions, it's a tossup whether or not you interpret these hints as having anything to do with the sov system. A complete redesign of one of the core mechanics in the entire game is a difficult investment in both resources and time for CCP to justify, regardless of player desire when no new features or content would be created.

As a single member of the CSM, there is simply no way for me to force CCP into redesigning sov, if CCP doesn't have the desire (or the ability!) to do so. How do we get to implementation? A really, really good question... and not one I'll have the answer to until I'm on the CSM at which point it would probably fall under the NDA.

As for mobile structures, I see this as a huge positive which hints towards a desire for a more dynamic sov system with temporary and semi-permanent structures dictating the mechanics, benefits, and functionality of not only systems but specific locations within systems.

What will I say when CSM9 comes to a close and the sov system remains unchanged?

..... I don't know.

The only sentiment that I could hope to express is one of optimism, and that it's best to take the time to do somthing right, rather than rush a design and have something worse than we already have. Devil you know versus the devil you don't. Is that a total deflection of your question? Yeah, totally, but there are so many things that could happen between now and then I simply don't have any satisfactory answer, beyond optimism. If it does happen, and sov is fixed, I hope to have been a part of it.

Dersen Lowrey wrote:
Would you be willing to start a process of potentially disrupting nullsec over a period of (likely) years in order to start a steady trickle of features that will eventually coalesce into a new system? Would you rather try to hammer out a major release, with plenty of notice to interested parties, and accept that its release would not happen in your term, and possibly not for some time after that?

Yes. Not just yes, but hell yes.

The job of the CSM isn't to sing the praises of CCP regardless of their actions, it's to ensure that whatever actions CCP does take is worthy of praise. Eve is a ten year old game, and I have no doubt that it will be around in ten years from now. It's odd for a game to consider one year as a short period of time, but in terms of altering the mechanics of a persistent universe, things must be approached with care. Beyond the importance of respecting the lore, it's simply impractical to hit the reset button on sov and tell these established groups to start again from scratch.

Ship rebalancing alone has taken over a year now, and we haven't even discussed half of the T2 ships or any of the capitals. Sov is going to be infinitely harder to change, especially if we want to change it in a regard that doesn't make people legitimately infuriated with the outcome. To be explicit with my answer this time instead of deflecting: Yes, I am completely fine with temporarily disrupting nullsec in order to make the main driver of conflict, content and narratives more enjoyable and playable. It will probably suck at times, but cutting out a tumor is just as painful as it is necessary.

Bertrand Butler wrote:


  1. What is your opinion regarding a probable re-balance to the T3 strategic cruisers? Do you feel that the hulls and mechanics (subs, SP loss) in question are fine in the current meta, or there are things to do to make them better/more balanced? What would you do if you were in charge of a re-balancing pass (hypothetically of course)?
  2. It can be argued by some that one of the biggest challenges for a game like EvE online in this phase of the product cycle is new player retention. QoL, UI and learning curves inevitably play a big role in it, but other than that, how do you think CCP should achieve that?
  3. In the last expansions we have mainly seen a focus in vertical expansion, integration and refinement of the game feature set. Do you believe that EVE online is feature (not content, feature) complete?

Can't shoot blues if you don't have any. Long Live NPSI.

Jayne Fillon
#11 - 2014-03-02 17:43:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Jayne Fillon
1. As for strategic cruisers, CCP has thankfully stated exactly what their intentions and goals are here. This response comes from players being angry that the ship rebalance chart looked like this instead of this. Although I in no way agree with a loss of SP being a legitament balancing tool or mechanic in anyway, I do agree with the stated intent for strategic cruisers:

"Tech3 vessels were initially meant to be extremely flexible with adaptable roles due to sub-system configurations. In practice, they currently overlap in stats with other, more specialized ship classes, which create problems."

The ability to change a T3's subsystem while in wormhole space or using a mobile depot was a great step in making this goal a reality, and something that should have been implemented long ago. There are some great examples of T3's using their unique ablities in the current meta, such as the use of slippery petes, which is a delightful example of creative fleet combat. However, the combination of low mass, low sig, and high resists that have made the classic Proteus-Loki-Guardian combo so powerful is not something I agree with. T3's should not be the foundation for an end-game fleet doctrine, as far as subcapitals are concerned, while their are other T2 ships that are specifically meant to fulfill those roles and are being overshadowed.

2. The UI is certainly the aspect of NPE and QoL that would have the biggest impact on not just new players but veterans - and thankfully their already working on this very concept. Although I wasn't able to find the link for you, I remember seeing concept art for some new versions of the overview and various infotab setups in space. The challenge here is giving the player all the relevant information they need to play the game, while making it look as beautiful as it does when you press ctrl+f9.

The ISIS and mastery systems are great steps in the right direction, and I can't wait to see what they have in store next.

3. A sandbox can never really be "feature complete," but if you're asking me whether we need more shinies or further iterating passes on existing mechanics, I'd have to lean towards the later. There are aspects in the game which would make all facets more enjoyable if they were altered, such as wardecs, bounty hunting, and sov. Vertical expansion is nice, but a good foundation is always a pre-req. The ship rebalancing has been huge for the game, and from the player responses to all aspects, I don't think they would object to further refinement on an incredibly complex universe.

The Ironfist wrote:
Why should anyone vote for you after your show of incompetence with that 7 Page Mittani article on slowcats? If that article was supposed to gain you favor with the CFC granted well done. But other than that it was a pile of **** void of actual facts.

Hmmm, it seemed to have been rather well received by most, including Grath himself. Everything in that article was either sourced, or demonstrated to be accurate through various methods. Just because the results don't align with your beliefs or training plan doesn't mean that it's a show of incompetence or inherently untrue. Although feel free to actually critique my analysis with specific points and counter arguments - I'll explain and defend my rationale to anyone who asks.

Vayeate Marquise wrote:
Do you think that your experience in Bombers Bar and Spectre Fleet has taught you anything useful for your CSM run?

If it hasn’t benefited me directly, then it has certainly done so indirectly from those who I have flown with and learnt from. Dealing with people in a public setting when feelings get hurt or things go wrong is never fun, but somebody has to do the dirty work to keep things running. In terms of being useful to my CSM run, the easiest take away I have from flying previously with Bombers Bar and now with Spectre Fleet is that I've found my passion and what I enjoy in the game. There are many others who enjoy this game much in the same way, whether their choice of activity is incursions, griefing, or open fleets. That's a part of the game I think I can provide valuable insight on, beyond my understanding of PvP mechanics.

Hendrick Talladar wrote:
In regards to the recent deployable units, specifically the ESS, how do you feel these have affected the gameplay in EVE? Do you believe them to be appropriate and meeting the goals CCP stated publicly for them to server or do you feel they are lacking?

Can't shoot blues if you don't have any. Long Live NPSI.

Jayne Fillon
#12 - 2014-03-02 17:44:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Jayne Fillon
Not going to lie, I tried to find the “the goals CCP stated publicly" and couldn't - if you have a link I'd appreciate it.

Anyway, I'm enjoying the release of the deployables so far a couple reasons: first, I see this trend as CCP trying to promote a "farms and fields" concept to sovereignty by providing new and very dynamic mechanics that can change from system to system, or even from different areas within a system. This focus on easily destroyed and anchored structures add a lot of utility not just in sov, but in a lot of other aspects of the game limited only by the creativity of the player. The ESS specifically has added a brand new incentive not only for PvE pilots, but for PvP pilots of all varieties. Anything that motivates a player to engage in an activity that encourages combat - or any other type of multiplier activity - is a good thing in my book.

This is what I was hoping to find when looking for an official statement from CCP. It's obvious from the mechanics of the ESS that it's meant to be encouraging and enabling piracy, from the share/take options to the warp disruption effect. Even so soon after the ESS was deployed we've seen ratting carriers actively warping to their ESS to defend it, or pirates setting up traps with Marauders and other ridiculous escalation. All of these events were born from an activity that was previously isolationist in nature. Now people are encouraged to defend a single system with an ESS in order to reap the rewards, and everything falls in line after that.

So whether or not I can find the exact intent of CCP when producing this module, I think they've done a great job in encouraging interaction between players, both cooperatively and antagonistically.

Hendrick Talladar wrote:
Assuming you are elected, how do you feel your contributions to the EVE community outside of your CSM role will be affected? For example, you write for an EVE centered video game news site, do you plan to use your CSM status to promote various things CSM are attempting to accomplish (assuming it were permitted under the NDA) or do you plan to maintain a tight lip while allowing for others around you to discuss the topic you may be working on with CCP? Arguably one of your CSM mentors Ali Aras doesn't tend to output much in the way of articles, mostly due to her role as an editor for the same publication, on the subject of EVE and the mechanics therein. I'm curious how you'll address that sort of situation if it were to arise. Would we expect to see your take on such a publication or would it be on a non-polarized location such as a CSM9.org website? One could say it is better for "politicians" to be insulated from news sources, though that's more so about real politics and not internet spaceship pixel land dreamed up by some alcoholic Icelandic guys in the early 2000s.

... and it's a good question to boot.

So far, the majority my articles have been based on things I'm interested in personally or that have been the source of great controversy. I doubt this would change post-CSM, although I would obviously be unable to publish any work on NDA projects, which will probably those still broken/unaltered and in most need of said articles. If I have an opinion on a subject, I will still share my opinion with those who are interested, and I don't see any reason to move my point of publication away from TMC.

As for those currently on the CSM, such as Ali, I've heard that the reason they publish less is the difficulty in discussing a topic currently of public interest while purposefully stunting your article or analysis because you know more than you're allowed to let on. In this case, even if you are unbiased, the CSM title lends just as much suspicion as it does credibility to the words you commit to print. I don't envy the position, but being elected to the CSM won't change my passion, my opinions, or my desire to share with those who are interested.

TL;DR - I'm still going to post what I think about the game on TMC, I just might have to be more delicate.

Can't shoot blues if you don't have any. Long Live NPSI.

Jayne Fillon
#13 - 2014-03-02 17:46:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Jayne Fillon
... and that's it!

Updates will be placed in post #2, so check there for updates. Otherwise, I'm ready to field your questions!

Can't shoot blues if you don't have any. Long Live NPSI.

Mike Azariah
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#14 - 2014-03-02 17:52:55 UTC
Good job, getting the thread back on track.

Do you see what has gone on in the previous thread to be a speed bump in your campaign or something to give you a higher profile than you might otherwise have?

m

Mike Azariah  ┬──┬ ¯|(ツ)

Hendrick Tallardar
Leessang.
#15 - 2014-03-02 18:07:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Hendrick Tallardar
Carrying this over from the other thread.


Quote:
Quote:
Jayne Fillon wrote:
More questions! I didn't see this one until now.

Quote:
Hendrick Tallardar wrote:

Back on topic, I have another question for you Jayne.

Assuming you are elected, how do you feel your contributions to the EVE community outside of your CSM role will be affected. For example, you write for an EVE centered video game news site, do you plan to use your CSM status to promote various things CSM are attempting to accomplish (assuming it were permitted under the NDA) or do you plan to maintain a tight lip while allowing for others around you to discuss the topic you may be working on with CCP? Arguably one of your CSM mentors Ali Aras doesn't tend to output much in the way of articles, mostly due to her role as an editor for the same publication, on the subject of EVE and the mechanics therein. I'm curious how you'll address that sort of situation if it were to arise. Would we expect to see your take on such a publication or would it be on a non-polarized location such as a CSM9.org website? One could say it is better for "politicians" to be insulated from news sources, though that's more so about real politics and not internet spaceship pixel land dreamed up by some alcoholic Icelandic guys in the early 2000s.


... and it's a good question to boot.

So far, the majority my articles have been based on things I'm interested in personally or that have been the source of great controversy. I doubt this would change post-CSM, although I would obviously be unable to publish any work on NDA projects, which will probably those still broken/unaltered and in most need of said articles. If I have an opinion on a subject, I will still share my opinion with those who are interested, and I don't see any reason to move my point of publication away from TMC.

As for those currently on the CSM, such as Ali, I've heard that the reason they publish less is the difficulty in discussing a topic currently of public interest while purposefully stunting your article or analysis because you know more than you're allowed to let on. In this case, even if you are unbiased, the CSM title lends just as much suspicion as it does credibility to the words you commit to print. I don't envy the position, but being elected to the CSM won't change my passion, my opinions, or my desire to share with those who are interested.

tl;dr - I'm still going to post what I think about the game on TMC, I just might have to be more delicate. Big smile



Splendid. Do you then feel that perhaps CSM members in CSM 9 should work with such publications to put out their statements and/or opinions on changes CCP are making, so long as they are not in violation of the NDA? Much like how Two-Step commented on CCP's actions numerous times, and so forth?

Although it was previously asked, with how you plan to continue communication. What do you feel CSM 8 did wrong in the way of communicating with the player base? What do you feel they did correct?

As an EVE player do you look towards any person and/or group as inspiration? As a potential "politician" do you have any real world experience in managing a community and the communications therein that would apply to your role on CSM? (not so much as a game designer etc. but as a "people person")
Anya Klibor
Blitzkrieg.
Manifesto.
#16 - 2014-03-02 18:14:48 UTC
Mike Azariah wrote:
Good job, getting the thread back on track.

Do you see what has gone on in the previous thread to be a speed bump in your campaign or something to give you a higher profile than you might otherwise have?

m


Agreed, good job getting it back on track!

With that being said, you didn't get the chance to respond to my question (and I didn't see you post it and respond to it at the beginning of the new thread, so I'll take a moment to rewrite it.

In the last three years, two major developments have really shaped the views of the players regarding CCP. I speak of Monoclegate (the rolling out of the NEX during Incarna) and more recently, CCP's reaction to the players' uprising against the apparent favoritism towards SOMER. Blink. In both instances, CCP attempted to ignore the players who were upset for weeks at a time, and no one was really ever held accountable for allowing things to get out of control (note: 20% of the community team was released by CCP a month after Monoclegate was resolved; however, Hilmar made it clear they were released because they couldn't shut the players up, and in fact attempted to make it seem like the players were to blame for the firing--CCP Pann was one of them). Now, while Monoclegate was a legitimate concern for the playerbase, the SOMER issue was a lot more controversial because of the apparent favoritism shown to one group at the expense of others, much like how the T20 incident was favoritism (only this time, it was corporation-sanctioned favoritism for SOMER).

In both instances, however, the CSM did not weigh in until the proverbial political winds started to shift and the uproar looked to be set in one direction: against CCP. Because of this, the CSM wasn't involved until really the end of both instances, and also appeared to try to take credit for the fixes (in fact, many of the returning CSMs played off like they were the reason CCP responded to the playerbase during the next CSM election).

On top of that, CCP Rise and CCP Fozzie have a habit of ignoring critical feedback concerning ideas and decisions with regards to design and balance, and have been instrumental in completely messing up systems without informing anyone (such as the fitting changes to RHMLs and RLMLs that came out literally the night BEFORE the patch went live).

My question is simple: given that CCP has a habit of flat-out ignoring the playerbase when the tide turns against them regarding decisions, what do you think you can do to make sure that the players are taken seriously and we get responses instead of more silence in the future when things liek this creep up, as they inevitably will? More to the point, do you think it's fair for the CSM to parade around as if they've just won a massive war when they have done little to draw attention and get a response from CCP?

Leadership is something you learn. Maybe one day, you'll learn that.

Vorn
EldarRiders
Domain Research and Mining Inst.
#17 - 2014-03-03 05:42:09 UTC
Anya Klibor wrote:
Because of this, the CSM wasn't involved until really the end of both instances, and also appeared to try to take credit for the fixes (in fact, many of the returning CSMs played off like they were the reason CCP responded to the playerbase during the next CSM election).


Didn't CCP fly CSM out there during the issue (of Monoclegate), and as such CSM was (in part) the reason why/how CCP responded to the playerbase?
Hendrick Tallardar
Leessang.
#18 - 2014-03-03 16:15:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Hendrick Tallardar
Yes, that is how I remember those situations going down. However Anya does have a point that the CSM seem to be very reactive in how they respond to some issues and only do so when community outcry over something becomes deafening. I would like to hear Jayne's take on it.
Anya Klibor
Blitzkrieg.
Manifesto.
#19 - 2014-03-03 19:26:06 UTC
Vorn wrote:
Anya Klibor wrote:
Because of this, the CSM wasn't involved until really the end of both instances, and also appeared to try to take credit for the fixes (in fact, many of the returning CSMs played off like they were the reason CCP responded to the playerbase during the next CSM election).


Didn't CCP fly CSM out there during the issue (of Monoclegate), and as such CSM was (in part) the reason why/how CCP responded to the playerbase?


In part, yes. However, you'll recall that aside from one member of the CSM actually getting in the thread on the first page that was started by CCP, no other member of the CSM was willing to get involved until it was clear there was enough outrage, and that it would be a hot button topic for the next CSM election (in indeed it was).

Note: I just went through the old forums threadnaught, and after five pages I did not see a "CSM" tag on any portrait. So unless my memory isn't serving me properly and the old forums--which were switched around the time this happened--didn't save for posterity sake the CSM at the time then there were no CSM posts with-in the first five pages.

Leadership is something you learn. Maybe one day, you'll learn that.

Atrol Nalelmir
Sanctuary of Shadows
Triumvirate.
#20 - 2014-03-04 01:56:15 UTC
Great to see the forum thread is back on track, as stated before you have my votes Big smile
123Next pageLast page