These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Jita Park Speakers Corner

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Trebor Daehdoow for CSM8 - The Proven Performer - http://bit.ly/vote-trebor

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#121 - 2013-02-27 11:34:40 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
rodyas wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:

I think "As CCP Xhagen has made the position clear; this thread is now locked." really sums up CCPs customer service skills.


Well, they are a company, so you shouldn't expect any more really. But it is kind of sad too though.

I would love to do their employee evaluations.
"Attendance, good"
"Attitude: Great"
'Team work: could use some improvement"
"Customer Complaints / Interactions: You're Fired"Lol


Personally, I've generally found CCP's blunt communication style to make a refreshing change from the bland, anodyne, responsibility-evading, passive-voiced, corporate-approved bullshit we see from most companies.

While I will agree some of there public relations can be fun but on the other side of that coin having petition handled in ways that could only be considered mocking, having quite often just out right rude or insulting statements or for that matter and one I have fired people over the old "Sorry that's not part of our job"

But the "As CCP Xhagen has made the position clear; this thread is now locked." was a really good example out of CCP we have had that they might be legally vulnerable if they try to conceal the people names and something happens. Yes correct they can be, in some jurisdictions. While releasing the payers names can only lead to serious criminal charges if something really bad happens in others.

So in the cases of actual player safety where we have already had death threats, stalking, people attempting to get CSM members fired ect... I just find "As CCP Xhagen has made the position clear; this thread is now locked." does not cut it.


Companies who communicate that way simply wouldn't have a CSM in the first place.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Snow Axe
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#122 - 2013-02-27 11:54:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Snow Axe
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
Your eloquence is, as always, an inspiration to us all.


What else was there to say? You literally said that you went for vice-chair specifically so that Two Step (aka the guy who should have been chair had CCP followed their own rules) could be Secretary instead of backing him for vice-chair, and what's worse, you said this as if it should reflect positively on you.

So to sum up your CSM 7 run, you eve-mail spammed half of Eve to get elected, politicked the true chair into a busy work position (and patted yourself on the back about it), tried to make bloc votes objectively less valuable than anyone else's, and then tried to derail actual discussion about whether or not to reform CSM rules by saying "the politics ends when the voting ends".

What better response to such arrogance and delusion than to laugh at it?

"Look any reason why you need to talk like that? I have now reported you. I dont need to listen to your bad tone. If you cant have a grown up conversation then leave the thread["
Trebor Daehdoow
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#123 - 2013-02-27 11:56:22 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
I just find "As CCP Xhagen has made the position clear; this thread is now locked." does not cut it.

I believe that nobody reading this thread is laboring under any misconceptions about your opinion in this regard. As such, perhaps it is time to move on to another topic.

Frying Doom wrote:
But the other reason I mentioned customer service was that we were once again told that before any changes were made to the CSM their would be a lengthy public discussion.

I'm sorry that you think that 2 major threadnaughts on voting systems and a summit session and associated thread was insufficient. We shall try harder in the future to meet your exacting requirements.

Frying Doom wrote:
My biggest dislike is that this new voting system is less likely for people to vote so any awareness campaign they run now has a large anchor.

I suppose we shall have to wait and see what the results are, won't we? I could argue that the exact opposite might happen, that a system that better represents the voting community and lets candidates support each other might well have the opposite effect. In particular, having actually done some research into STV voting systems and ballot interfaces, I am not persuaded that they will decrease turnout.

But we shall see soon enough.

Private Citizen • CSM in recovery
Trebor Daehdoow
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#124 - 2013-02-27 15:49:18 UTC
Mallak Azaria wrote:
CCP's main recurring problem is that they aren't really involved in the varying aspects of the game. ... As someone that has served on the last 3 CSM's do you feel that CCP will turn this around any time soon, or are we likely to continue receiving half completed content, or no content at all when it's deemed too difficult?

I am guardedly optimistic that the people currently in charge of EVE (most notably Unifex and Seagull) have the right philosophy and seem to be making the right calls. The summer expansion is a fair bit more ambitious than the last two, but you'll have to wait until PAX East at the end of March to learn more about that.

That said, there are still quite a few hurdles to past before I would be confident in saying that "happy days are here again". CCP has to:

* execute on their release plan for the next expansion.

* lock down a compelling long-term vision for the game.

* demonstrate they can plan and deliver subsequent expansions that build on the previous ones in the manner CCP Seagull described in her devblog last month.

But bottom line, I think they're making reasonable decisions, an assessment that should either fill you with hope or plunge you into the pits of despair, depending on your opinion of my judgment.

Private Citizen • CSM in recovery
Frying Doom
#125 - 2013-02-27 21:46:27 UTC
Ok well as to the discussion lets look at some of CCP Xhagens public comments

CCP Xhagen wrote:

I don't see the engaged population of EVE as a problem. Far from it. What I want to try and achieve is a fair representation of all EVE players. It is however difficult to represent someone that doesn't want to participate in choosing the representation - I freely admit that.

So the discussion seems to have gone to the direction of the current voting system being usable, if the ballot is trimmed beforehand, and that the problem lies in low voter turnout.

Is this a fair summary of the discussion so far?

CCP Xhagen wrote:
Konrad Kane wrote:
Firstly I would really like CCP to define what they want the CSM to do, it's not really clear to me. We vote, they talk about stuff that may or may not happen. CCP saying what they need to CSM to do may help progress this.

Anyway, I think you have two choices.

1. The CSM is a collection of individuals elected on whatever platform they choose. This is the current model and I can't see why you'd change the voting method.

2. The CSM represents predefined gaming styles. In this system you have - for example - two seats per game style and use either first past the post or some other system to elect them.

Frankly I don't care either way, I don't think the CSM voting system is a problem. The problem I have with the CSM is I really wouldn't miss it if it wasn't here. I don't know what it's doing and I'm not sure it actually achieves anything. Given a choice between reading a dev blog or the CSM minutes most people would read the blog.

That's not to say that the people are the CSM aren't working hard, but I personal don't see how they have any impact on the game I play: positive or negative. I'd say that's your problem.

Message received.

CCP Xhagen wrote:
And please don't read my previous reply as 'WE ARE GOING TO IMPLEMENT A NEW ELECTION SYSTEM' - I'm a reformist, not a revolutionist and while the current election system produces 'A RESULT', most people agree that it is sufficient but not the best system there is. So we _can_ still use it, but I'd like to upgrade it (despite the objections of 'if it ain't broken don't fix it' - no one (including me) has showed that it is broken and I fully acknowledge that).


So yeah great public discussion, he states that there is no real support for changing the voting system and his last post in the thread after he has spoken about other voting methods was to say that he would like to upgrade the voting system even though he cannot show that the old one is broken.

Not really public discussion when it seems most of the public is against it and he cannot justify the reason for the new one.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Trebor Daehdoow
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#126 - 2013-02-28 00:08:06 UTC
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:
Hello there!

Hi yourself. With respect to your concerns:

* If we can't get a POS rewrite underway in the near future, then clearly some tweaks to make POSes less horribly painful would be good. What you advocate would be a likely first step in a POS rewrite, however.

* Cloaking / Local, etc., are all issues that tie into the general topic of "Intel". I am in favor of revamping intel in a way that touches all of these issues, and separates the intel and communications functions of local.

* Ring Mining. I would love to see something like this, not just as a new extractive game, but also as a new environment where conflict can occur.

* The problem with missions is that there are huge amounts of sunk costs in them. Making some tweaks to make them a bit more dynamic is not a bad idea, but a complete rewrite just doesn't have the bang-for-buck needed to make them a viable development choice. Note that providing a new environment where the PVE achieves your goals is probably going to be a lot easier.

* I am not an Incursion runner, so I cannot really comment about their current state.

* I do however fly logis from time to time, and it would certainly be nice if there were some situational awareness tools available. However, AFAIK there are some technical limitations that make some of your proposed solutions infeasible. That said, there are probably some cheap things that can be done to make life easier.

* Logi on killmails? We only ask CCP for that every other week, so maybe we should get off our asses and ask for it every week.

Private Citizen • CSM in recovery
Endeavour Starfleet
#127 - 2013-02-28 02:22:13 UTC
I thank you for replying to my questions!

I would also like to see local switched to chat as long as the full functionality of knowing who is in system with you is maintained in the new system. I know the moment CCP says they are starting on it. The topics will be filled with people saying "Make it delayed!" Or other crap so they can get easy kills.

Cloaking however needs something done quickly. And thus please go into further detail on your thoughts on it. Especially in the context of.

#1 Streaming enemy systems in Twitch.tv. With the right X264 settings you can get the FPS so low that a crappy cell phone can view it. And that is BEFORE H265 which will potentially half it.

#2 Black ops jumping range boost providing even more incentive to cloak and wait to hotdrop with zero risk. (I don't think there is much else in EVE that can cause such in game damage by keeping a computer on and connected to the internet)

I understand that any changes to cloaking will be quite controversial even if active cloaking is virtually untouched. However I need to know that CSM8 is going to actively push this issue and determine why CCP remains silent on the issue.


For Logi would you push CCP to make a dev blog or otherwise detailed post on what they can and can't do in regards to logi? How active would you push for changes even if they involved longer development time?
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
#128 - 2013-02-28 04:59:56 UTC  |  Edited by: rodyas
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:

That said, there are still quite a few hurdles to past before I would be confident in saying that "happy days are here again". CCP has to:

* execute on their release plan for the next expansion.

CCP has shown they already know how to execute, so no worry here about that part.

Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
* lock down a compelling long-term vision for the game.

Do you really think that is feasible, since every long term prototype they usually lock down, and say they are not ready for it. Then usually just promise smaller changes to make life easier?

Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
* demonstrate they can plan and deliver subsequent expansions that build on the previous ones in the manner CCP Seagull described in her devblog last month.

Seems like they only do that for features, that lack complexity. Even now with their ships balancing feature, they shifted it to be more basic and linear then anything else. So even if CCP does plan and deliver subsequent expansions building on previous ones, they will only get watered down and made more linear over time really.

Is that what you hope for with future building?

Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
But bottom line, I think they're making reasonable decisions, an assessment that should either fill you with hope or plunge you into the pits of despair, depending on your opinion of my judgment.

I think they have been reasonable as well, but that word wasn't included in your past statements. Should those statements be changed to, reasonably executed expansions, reasonably well long term planning and a reasonable expansion that builds on prior ones?

Signature removed for inappropriate language - CCP Eterne
Mallak Azaria
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#129 - 2013-02-28 08:28:15 UTC
mynnna wrote:
It's not "The CSM" that's selecting those five that go, it's "the CSM and CCP", and you're hilariously naive if you think that CCP a) won't have a clue who the hard workers are or aren't and b) won't have or won't use veto power if the CSM were to try to send some non-contributor.


The issue I have with CCP having a hand in choosing the CSM's is at that point, CSM's are no longer player elected, but hand picked by CCP.

This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee, Grammar Gestapo & #1 Official Gevlon Goblin Fanclub member.
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
#130 - 2013-02-28 08:44:22 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:

So yeah great public discussion, he states that there is no real support for changing the voting system and his last post in the thread after he has spoken about other voting methods was to say that he would like to upgrade the voting system even though he cannot show that the old one is broken.

Not really public discussion when it seems most of the public is against it and he cannot justify the reason for the new one.


Well to be fair, I think the main reason the voting changed was the 2+5 rule as well as perhaps primary and general election they will hold.

Of course the 2+ 5 rule, probably came from CCP and not so sure about the two part election process.

So since CCP created the idea and it sounded like a good one, that made CCP Xhagen change his mind or to change the election rules, it would be hard to make it a public discussion.

If the players came up with a good idea, then it would be easier to make it a more public discussion. Or an idea that originated in the threads.

There is also CCP Fozzie who keeps the details to the ships a secret then releases them for player feedback in a thread when he is ready.

I suppose CCP could have introduced the ideas, they came up with: 2+5 and perhaps the two part election before hand, like fozzie would do. But I suppose most of CCP already felt the plan they had was solid enough, and tweaks wouldn't really change much.

All I am saying in the election example. CCP was open and wanted a player discussion. Not enough of it was exciting or new enough, to make them feel to change their mind.

Then CCP came up with ideas, outside the election thread, that did make them change their minds, so they changed the election rules.

Because of that scenario, it would be very hard for CCP to be as open and discussified as you would want them to be.

Just wanted to say, the ideas CCP comes up with, that causes them to implement changes to the game are probably very hard to have in the public or hard to have discussions over. Since they didn't come from the public areas, or from players.

Or course I am not CSM, so this is just spit balling. Trebor might have more ideas on this.

Signature removed for inappropriate language - CCP Eterne
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
#131 - 2013-02-28 08:58:06 UTC
Mallak Azaria wrote:
mynnna wrote:
It's not "The CSM" that's selecting those five that go, it's "the CSM and CCP", and you're hilariously naive if you think that CCP a) won't have a clue who the hard workers are or aren't and b) won't have or won't use veto power if the CSM were to try to send some non-contributor.


The issue I have with CCP having a hand in choosing the CSM's is at that point, CSM's are no longer player elected, but hand picked by CCP.


Are you really that sad, Darius won't be going to Iceland anytime soon?

Signature removed for inappropriate language - CCP Eterne
Mallak Azaria
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#132 - 2013-02-28 09:32:35 UTC
rodyas wrote:
Are you really that sad, Darius won't be going to Iceland anytime soon?


I couldn't care less about Darius III, but that's not the issue at hand. With this voting system player votes don't really count for anything, since CCP can say they don't want a particular person because "Insert some reason here". In that case why bother having votes at all? Just have people run for the CSM & have the current CSM & CCP pick from the pool. At least it's a more honest expectation of what we'll get.

This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee, Grammar Gestapo & #1 Official Gevlon Goblin Fanclub member.
Frying Doom
#133 - 2013-02-28 09:35:09 UTC
rodyas wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:

So yeah great public discussion, he states that there is no real support for changing the voting system and his last post in the thread after he has spoken about other voting methods was to say that he would like to upgrade the voting system even though he cannot show that the old one is broken.

Not really public discussion when it seems most of the public is against it and he cannot justify the reason for the new one.


Well to be fair, I think the main reason the voting changed was the 2+5 rule as well as perhaps primary and general election they will hold.

Of course the 2+ 5 rule, probably came from CCP and not so sure about the two part election process.

So since CCP created the idea and it sounded like a good one, that made CCP Xhagen change his mind or to change the election rules, it would be hard to make it a public discussion.

If the players came up with a good idea, then it would be easier to make it a more public discussion. Or an idea that originated in the threads.

There is also CCP Fozzie who keeps the details to the ships a secret then releases them for player feedback in a thread when he is ready.

I suppose CCP could have introduced the ideas, they came up with: 2+5 and perhaps the two part election before hand, like fozzie would do. But I suppose most of CCP already felt the plan they had was solid enough, and tweaks wouldn't really change much.

All I am saying in the election example. CCP was open and wanted a player discussion. Not enough of it was exciting or new enough, to make them feel to change their mind.

Then CCP came up with ideas, outside the election thread, that did make them change their minds, so they changed the election rules.

Because of that scenario, it would be very hard for CCP to be as open and discussified as you would want them to be.

Just wanted to say, the ideas CCP comes up with, that causes them to implement changes to the game are probably very hard to have in the public or hard to have discussions over. Since they didn't come from the public areas, or from players.

Or course I am not CSM, so this is just spit balling. Trebor might have more ideas on this.

Considering these changes do not effect the game its self but the players representatives don't you think a wiser course of action would have been to follow the wishes of the players?

Lets face it CCP choosing who goes to ice land and a complex voting system where the majority don't vote hardly adds up to the CSMs scope
"The purpose of the CSM is to represent society interests to CCP. This requires active engagement with the player community to master EVE issue awareness, understanding, and evaluation in the context of the “greatest good for the greater player base”. The scope of issues is restricted only to EVE, its ongoing development, and limited meta (out-of-game) issues which have direct relevance to the EVE universe. It is important to keep in mind that the CSM will not have formal powers within CCP, they will have a voice inside CCP. "

To represent the interests of the society is hardly having CCP pick who they should meet face to face.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Trebor Daehdoow
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#134 - 2013-02-28 12:49:21 UTC
rodyas wrote:
Trebor: * execute on their release plan for the next expansion.

CCP has shown they already know how to execute, so no worry here about that part.

The next expansion is more ambitious than the past few, and it will have to integrate with future expansions which should be even more ambitious; thus, it's more risky. One thing I like about the plan for the next expansion is that the features support each other, but it has some resiliency. So from a player perspective, if one component doesn't make it, it could still be considered a success. While I think this is wise, I would obviously like to see them hit it out of the park, because I want them to be even more ambitious in the future.

rodyas wrote:
Trebor: * lock down a compelling long-term vision for the game.

Do you really think that is feasible, since every long term prototype they usually lock down, and say they are not ready for it. Then usually just promise smaller changes to make life easier?

Having a longer-term vision is high on CCP Seagull's to-do list, and I think it's important because it will not only help improve release planning, but also be an important signal to the community that their continued investment in the game is going to be worthwhile. That said, it means they are going to make some significant commitments and then have to start delivering on them.

rodyas wrote:
Trebor: * demonstrate they can plan and deliver subsequent expansions that build on the previous ones in the manner CCP Seagull described in her devblog last month.

Seems like they only do that for features, that lack complexity. ... So even if CCP does plan and deliver subsequent expansions building on previous ones, they will only get watered down and made more linear over time really.

I'm a little more optimistic than you, perhaps -- and part of the role of CSM is to be a voice against such complacency. We will know a year or so from now how well the new development model worked. Raging cynic though I am at times, if I had to bet, I'd bet that they can pull it off.

Private Citizen • CSM in recovery
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
#135 - 2013-03-01 05:30:40 UTC
Well thanks for everyone's replies, gonna start off chronologically.

Well Malak, those problems have been with the CSM, at least for my short playing time.

You could vote for at least 14 candidates, but not all of them would go to iceland and such or get much time with the devs, so your vote was wasted.

Luckily the Mittani, started skype so even if your representative couldn't go to iceland, they still go face time and could communicate. Then they allowed people to skype in during the iceland summit even though they couldn't attend.

Even if CCP did decide to play favorites, of course it would suck, but your candidate could still do all that skyping and get your point of view into the conversation.

With my example of Darius, The Evil CCP could keep the troll away from iceland, like ya said, but he would still have the opportunity to skype, or skype during the summit, or post in the CCP & CSM forum. Sadly I do not think Darius took advantage of any of these opportunities, so he did worse damage to himself, then CCP could.

Worst case scenario, CCP makes a Guard music video, making fun of you since they intentionally, kept your candidate from coming to Iceland, but he could still skype probably.

Signature removed for inappropriate language - CCP Eterne
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
#136 - 2013-03-01 05:38:34 UTC  |  Edited by: rodyas
To Frying Doom,

Well I think CCP wanted the election to be respectful and work well as well. They could always go with player ideas, since this is suppose to be for the players. But it might not meet those standards. All that would happen then, is the players getting embarrassed and lose interest in the elections.

Their are a lot of views to why, the CCP discusses with CSM to pick the candidates going to iceland. But the reason I thought it was included came fromm Hans, with how much he knew about faction warfare and the upcoming expansion to it, he would be needed.

So CCP knows the top 7 candidates from the last election might not always fit the content, so they wanted flexibility to pick other CSM people to send to iceland if that happened again.

So with my view, I worry not, since its mostly about expansion content and trying to get it right, then CCP playing politics and trying to keep Frying Doom up at night with worry, so that he will get tired and stop trolling them so much.

But anyhow, do you really view it as pure CCP meta gaming, and not them trying to pick the candidate that relates most to the content at all?

Lets say, you ran for CSM Frying Doom, and got 13th place. But CCP said they wanted to focus on customer service at the summit. Would you think it unwise to send you to the summit, with you only taking 13th place even though you might know customer service best? Or would you prefer a null sec candidate going there instead of you? That way CCP doesn't look like it is just meta gaming only.

Sincerely Yours,

Rodyas

Signature removed for inappropriate language - CCP Eterne
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
#137 - 2013-03-01 06:13:43 UTC  |  Edited by: rodyas
Last but not least, and with it taking so much time to get to him, I see why he is the oldest person running for CSM.

I keep forgetting you are in communication with CCP even now and know more about what they are doing and what the future hints at more then I do. Making it very hard to turn you to the dark side, Trebor.

One day I will find the way to make you so angry, so vengeful even being in the aura of CCP will turn you totally.

You probably are more optimistic then I am sadly. I put all my eggs in one basket, and they got smashed. Smashed Trebor, smashed.

Besides my eggs being smashed, I noticed you seem to think CCP would only help the game, and even if mistakes were made nothing critical would be hurt, and for the most part I think that is true.

Well some parts are not that nice, but since I don't know everything, I try to give some leeway and hope things work out well.

I think the only thing I would be angry at CCP for, besides smashed eggs, would be when they get too caught up on good ideas and when they notice they can't keep the change fair, they don't stop and reconsider, just try to push on anyways.

I mean I always liked CCP since, It seemed they tried hard to keep things fair, or kept that as a priority, but sometimes it looks like. Some things are big enough for them, they get tempted to not keep things fair, and go ahead and do them anyways. I think I just got too depressed at a recent Dev's comments towards people being hurt by a change, and the dev said, there is no way to help them out, so CCP will just go ahead and do what they want to anyhow and not worry about them.

They seem to feel, as long as they help who they can to keep things going, that is enough to justify a change, and its no big deal to roll over other people. But who knows really, I suppose. Your view would be appreciative.

Signature removed for inappropriate language - CCP Eterne
Frying Doom
#138 - 2013-03-01 07:30:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Frying Doom
rodyas wrote:
To Frying Doom,

Well I think CCP wanted the election to be respectful and work well as well. They could always go with player ideas, since this is suppose to be for the players. But it might not meet those standards. All that would happen then, is the players getting embarrassed and lose interest in the elections.

Their are a lot of views to why, the CCP discusses with CSM to pick the candidates going to iceland. But the reason I thought it was included came fromm Hans, with how much he knew about faction warfare and the upcoming expansion to it, he would be needed.

So CCP knows the top 7 candidates from the last election might not always fit the content, so they wanted flexibility to pick other CSM people to send to iceland if that happened again.

So with my view, I worry not, since its mostly about expansion content and trying to get it right, then CCP playing politics and trying to keep Frying Doom up at night with worry, so that he will get tired and stop trolling them so much.

But anyhow, do you really view it as pure CCP meta gaming, and not them trying to pick the candidate that relates most to the content at all?

Lets say, you ran for CSM Frying Doom, and got 13th place. But CCP said they wanted to focus on customer service at the summit. Would you think it unwise to send you to the summit, with you only taking 13th place even though you might know customer service best? Or would you prefer a null sec candidate going there instead of you? That way CCP doesn't look like it is just meta gaming only.

Sincerely Yours,

Rodyas

It does worry me but does not keep me up at nights, bottom line is it is still a game but having said that saying "The purpose of the CSM is to represent society interests to CCP."
Is not a truthful statement if CCP have their fingers in the pie.

As to me being rep 13 and asked to go to Iceland, well I can recommend some good videos on customer service. So no I would not play volunteer on that and of course volunteers are always taken with a pinch of salt.

But yes the concept that does bother is that the player representatives are not ours any more but just another tool of CCPs, so I have noticed my interest in these up coming elections a lot less than they were last year. I have sort of come to the conclusion that I think CCP will be hard pressed to get last years voting numbers (in percentage of total accounts) due to the new voting system, even with their awareness campaign and the basic fact that at the end of the day who gets voted and is influential within the CSM will have less to do with the will of the populous than it did in CSM6 and before and more to do with CCPs whims and future ideas.

So to sum it up Seleene's blasphemy in the minutes is coming true....and after that if any one ever votes for an ex-ccp employee again or votes them chairman they should forever hide them selves from the world and feel shame for the evil they have brought.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Frying Doom
#139 - 2013-03-01 07:35:48 UTC
rodyas wrote:

I mean I always liked CCP since, It seemed they tried hard to keep things fair, or kept that as a priority, but sometimes it looks like. Some things are big enough for them, they get tempted to not keep things fair, and go ahead and do them anyways. I think I just got too depressed at a recent Dev's comments towards people being hurt by a change, and the dev said, there is no way to help them out, so CCP will just go ahead and do what they want to anyhow and not worry about them.

Funny CCP just remind me of a pile of guys who get drunk and then decide, yeah lets do that.

And no matter how silly, expensive or just plain wrong the idea is they just do it any way, and then if anyone complains they just act again like drunks and say, hell this is the way it is, suck it up princess.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Trebor Daehdoow
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#140 - 2013-03-01 10:40:43 UTC
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:
#1 Streaming enemy systems in Twitch.tv. With the right X264 settings you can get the FPS so low that a crappy cell phone can view it. And that is BEFORE H265 which will potentially half it.

#2 Black ops jumping range boost providing even more incentive to cloak and wait to hotdrop with zero risk. (I don't think there is much else in EVE that can cause such in game damage by keeping a computer on and connected to the internet)

#1 I don't think there's much that can be done. #2 probably gets addressed as part of the intel revamp. The problem with cloaking isn't cloaking as such, it's that its interaction with other game features results in things like AFK Cloaking.

CCP knows that if/when they iterate on intel tools, cloaking is definitely something that has to be part of it.

Quote:
For Logi would you push CCP to make a dev blog or otherwise detailed post on what they can and can't do in regards to logi? How active would you push for changes even if they involved longer development time?

I don't think you'll get a specific devblog. But I definitely would like to see some effort put into iterating the overview/watchlist/broadcast system, and that would be an opportunity to address logi concerns (and a lot of other ones).

Private Citizen • CSM in recovery