Jita Park Speakers Corner

It was cancelled because CCP didn't have much to share with us. I agree that corp management is bad, but I happen to think CCP isn't ever going to get it right, and I think the only good solution is via CREST, where players can get it right.

Could you please also add in another post with the dates that people completed their sections of the minutes, when they are submitted to CCP for review and when they are returned for further alteration or as marked ready for release. This way we can accurately know where the delays are occurring.

Thanks.

Oh I am very aware that it is the holidays, it was not so much as a question of HOLDING THE CSM RESPONSIBLE but holding the right people responsible. If it all has the words "First draft Completed" on it but we still have to wait 2 months, it is nice to know that the hold up is on CCPs end. And yes family should always come first which is why I like others were surprised by




Nor do I expect the release on individual sections as per the last set of minutes you produced were all interwoven.

I have a funny feeling the axe I will be grinding will be more to do with

and the statement

As it more looks like some members of the CSM are representing CCPs interests to the players and not the other way around.

But either way around I look forward to the minutes, yes I will perfectly well admit I am hard on the members of the CSM I perceive as aiding a minority rather than the majority of the games players.

As it is "The purpose of the CSM is to represent society interests to CCP.", I see nothing in the statement about people who vote or those who did not but the community as a whole.

Anyway sermon finished, thank you for your hard work over these holidays in attempting to get these minutes to us early enough to be of use before the commencement of the CSM 8 process.

And happy holidays to all.

Only to those that are being completely dense.

Remember, we submitted our development strategy document because we were concerned about a perceived lack of focus/direction in 2013, and a lack of proper balance being given to the diverse amount of player types and player interests that exist within the EVE community. The TL, DR was that they needed to come up with a system that allows them to build expansions that serve veterans AND noobies, carebears AND PvPers. Expansions needed to solve problems, and needed to have things that appeal to everyone.

The offer we made to CCP was that we’d submit our version of a development document first, to let them know what we believe, and that they’d than show us their own thoughts in return. After CCP Ripley disseminated our document throughout the company (upper management as well as down the chain to the line developers) we were presented with CCP’s own approach at the summit.

To be good and proper “yes men”, as you are suggesting, these events would have had to have happened in reverse order. The fact that they didn’t, and yet our development strategies still ended up remarkably similar in purpose and value, shows that CCP is indeed listening to the players’ representatives these days after all.

If CCP wants you to deliver on *48h*, then they should do the same.
I won't forget that if they don't release it in time :P

Updated first post, we are now down to 6 sessions, 2 of which were supposed to be done by CCP, so the CSM is holding up our side of the bargain pretty well. Most CCPers are still away for the holidays, but all the sessions marked "First Draft Done" have been submitted to them for approval. Right now, none have been approved. Note that the CSM also needs to go through the drafts to make sure Trebor didn't slip in some hilarious misquotes of Hans and that sort of thing.





We had a corp management session last time, we already told them all the things that are terrible about it. There is no point to talking to them about it unless they have decided to dedicate resources to fixing it. Convincing them of that is just as much your job as it is my job. The CSM summit is literally packed full of sessions, we had to do some of them over lunch, and I would much rather spend my time talking about things CCP is already planning on doing.

Firstly, not all devs are on Skype with us. Secondly, face to face communications is very important, and can communicate a lot more and of a much higher quality than semi-realtime chat. Thirdly, why on earth would you conclude we had no idea what they thought about nullsec from what Hans said?

On Dr. Eyoj, running stuff like new expansion plans past him is for CCP to do internally. My opinion is that they don't often consult him before they do stuff, but you would have to ask him about that.

I am also very confused why on Earth you think an economist would be good at game design. I had a very interesting exchange with him during the economy session that I think should shed some light on what the differences between RL econ and EVE econ are. I will make sure it is in the minutes, and I am sure we can have a fascinating thread about it on here afterwards.

Completely missing the point. facepalms

The document was about development strategy - not a specific set of game design proposals. That is why we included three -examples- and not "CCP: Here's what you need to work on next to fix the game good, thanks."

The three examples were interchangeable, modifiable, and could be replaced completely, that wasn't the point of the document. The document was about learning from the lessons of Incarna and subsequent expansions - it was about CCP not chasing Jesus Features, and not ignoring the need for new content in favor of purely iterative releases. It was about balance. It was about diversity in player needs. It was about sustainability in their long-term release plans.

If you took that as "CCP you need to fix mineral compression" or "CCP you need to do ring mining next" you've completely missed the point of our document. It was about how to build expansions, not which things to put in the next expansion. Likewise, the discussion at the summit was about how to build expansions, not which things will be put in the next expansion. We'll be figuring that out in January. Why do you think we're racing to get the minutes out?

Thank you for your frankness

The confusion seems to be in the fact that some members of the CSM are stating that those ARE the ideas that the CSM is putting forwards and that they are exactly the same as what CCP is following.

If they are merely example guides with no relevant filling per say then that is a good thing. As a pure template document it is a good one.

But that still leaves the fact that CCPs concept of Null is apparently what CCP is proposing so I must once again ask Has Dr.Eyjog seen CCPs proposal for Null and what does he think?

And thank you for working so hard on the minutes. I like many others look forward to them.

So I must have misinterpreted this.

So what your saying is that even though your ideas for Null in the template document that was only about how to build an expansion and not to be in any way shape or form for the content of those examples, even though one was marked Critical Issue: 0.0 and Sovereignty and even though you have stated that CCPs ideas are remarkably similar, there is in fact no "CCP's proposal for Null".

And I wonder why I am getting confused here.