These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[CSM8] Ripard Teg for CSM8

First post First post
Author
Bi-Mi Lansatha
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#341 - 2013-03-13 15:02:18 UTC
TurAmarth ElRandir wrote:
...No matter what the advertising says, EVE is not "real"... Profit and Loss, however is. And J315's idea's add up to lower subscriptions and reduced profitability. Anyone who can't see that, based on J315s bald statements (multiple I have been reading his drivel for some time now) that the risk adverse can just leave (unsub) and 'EVE' would be a better game for it... well, not a lot can be done for you.
I can see J315 accomplishing one thing by getting elected... he will make CCP consider the CSM a joke.


Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#342 - 2013-03-13 15:50:36 UTC
Ripard Teg wrote:
The first job of a CSM member is not to be a junior game developer.



Ripard Teg wrote:

As for the rest, I've written several hundred thousand words around how I feel the game should be developed, what I think is working and what I don't think is working.



I am not trying to hurt your chances in this csm. I actually like allot of your ideas for the game and think you will make a good csm.

But this whole idea that csm is not involved in the development of the game is just silly. You are in fact talking to ccp about how they should develop eve. You are correct that most of this thread and several items on your blog talk about the development of the game of eve.

Why do so many csm candidates try to deny this? It makes things muddy for political reasons. Because its easier not to give any specific ideas and if things go wrong then just say "I'm not a dev" and can't control what ccp does. But if it goes right then take full credit and stress how you pushed that through with your amazingly persuasive communication skills.

Thats why we see so many csm candidates talking about how they will represent everyone but very little detail on what they want to see happen in the game. Its also a reason why the csm is considered a joke by so many players.



Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815

Amyclas Amatin
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#343 - 2013-03-14 03:09:18 UTC
Bi-Mi Lansatha wrote:
Amyclas Amatin wrote:
...there are swarms of angry pvpers out there who want to gank everybody...
You mean 'Gangbears'?

People who want to gang, but are to lazy or risk adverse to do it under the present system.




Gankers are all brave kamikaze pilots willing to sacrifice themselves and their ships, over and over again.

All to keep the carebear population down. We don't need so many of them... They might just vote for people like Ripard if they stay in the game.

For more information on the New Order of High-Sec, please visit: http://www.minerbumping.com/

Remember that whenever you have a bad day in EVE, the correct reponse is "Thank you CCP, may I please have another?"

Scatim Helicon
State War Academy
Caldari State
#344 - 2013-03-14 07:41:16 UTC
Cearain wrote:
Why do so many csm candidates try to deny this? It makes things muddy for political reasons. Because its easier not to give any specific ideas and if things go wrong then just say "I'm not a dev" and can't control what ccp does.


It's cargo cult behaviour.

The Mittani's CSM6 candidacy thread spelled out that CSM was not about putting forward specific fixes, and was wildly successful in getting him the CSM6 chair (and CSM7, but lmao) and causing a shift in the role of the CSM. Second rate candidates, having seen that success, now ape that 'we're not game designers' statement without comprehension of the meaning behind it.

Every time you post a WiS thread, Hilmar strangles a kitten.

Ripard Teg
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#345 - 2013-03-15 05:32:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Ripard Teg
Scatim Helicon wrote:
The Mittani's CSM6 candidacy thread spelled out that CSM was not about putting forward specific fixes, and was wildly successful in getting him the CSM6 chair (and CSM7, but lmao) and causing a shift in the role of the CSM. Second rate candidates, having seen that success, now ape that 'we're not game designers' statement without comprehension of the meaning behind it.
There's only one problem with your theory: while it's fun, it's not true. CSM5 was making it very clear to everyone who ran for CSM6 that this was the only approach that succeeded. Mittens wasn't the only CSM6 candidate advocating this strategy (post #62, second para if you don't go there directly).

That said, I'm not exactly dodging the issue of what I think about in-game topics. Want to know what I think about a specific game issue? Search my blog for it. There's a search bar right on the front page and the answer's probably there. Want to know what sorts of things I'd advocate adding to the game? Read posts on my blog tagged "Proposals". There's 30-odd of them. I've written hundreds of thousands of :words: on this, something that few other candidates can say.

But anyone who goes to Reyk with an agenda and does nothing but try to push it is going to get laughed out of the room, or just flat-out ignored. It's a simple fact that's been repeated by more past CSM members than I can count. Anyone who's been following the CSM knows it. Mittens had better luck than most but did it by using external media interviews to exert pressure on CCP even when times were good. He said as much again just the other day on TMC.

Cearain wrote:
Why do so many csm candidates try to deny this? It makes things muddy for political reasons. Because its easier not to give any specific ideas and if things go wrong then just say "I'm not a dev" and can't control what ccp does. But if it goes right then take full credit and stress how you pushed that through with your amazingly persuasive communication skills.
The simple fact is that sometimes CCP is going to take a hard right turn on a topic without telling the CSM anything about it. That's the painful truth. Ask Two step about POSes sometime. Ask the entirety of CSM7 about that player-to-player contract system they were going to help CCP develop sometime. It's no dodge to sometimes say "CCP cut the CSM out of the loop on this" as long as it's true.

For the rest of your post, see above. The simple fact is that the only strategy that's consistently shown to work in Reyk is to come at things with a data-driven approach either with real players backing up your data, or being able to show real financial benefits to CCP on your approach. If I say "I think you should do X", chances are better than even it'll be ignored unless it's what CCP wanted to do anyway. If I say, "I held a player round-table on this, and they say you should do X" or "The last time you did X, PCU count and subscriptions both jumped by 18%, so I think you should follow up the trend", CCP will listen.

aka Jester, who apparently was once Deemed Worthy To Wield The Banhammer to good effect.

rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
#346 - 2013-03-15 05:40:10 UTC
Scatim Helicon wrote:
Cearain wrote:
Why do so many csm candidates try to deny this? It makes things muddy for political reasons. Because its easier not to give any specific ideas and if things go wrong then just say "I'm not a dev" and can't control what ccp does.


It's cargo cult behaviour.

The Mittani's CSM6 candidacy thread spelled out that CSM was not about putting forward specific fixes, and was wildly successful in getting him the CSM6 chair (and CSM7, but lmao) and causing a shift in the role of the CSM. Second rate candidates, having seen that success, now ape that 'we're not game designers' statement without comprehension of the meaning behind it.


Well I remember The Mittani saying the T2 BPO is a terrible game mechanic and if anyone had good ideas, he would relay them to CCP as fast as he could.

Sadly, no one had any good ideas, but it was nice to see enthusiasm to try to improve the game and such.

Signature removed for inappropriate language - CCP Eterne

Prince Kobol
#347 - 2013-03-15 07:46:47 UTC
rodyas wrote:
Scatim Helicon wrote:
Cearain wrote:
Why do so many csm candidates try to deny this? It makes things muddy for political reasons. Because its easier not to give any specific ideas and if things go wrong then just say "I'm not a dev" and can't control what ccp does.


It's cargo cult behaviour.

The Mittani's CSM6 candidacy thread spelled out that CSM was not about putting forward specific fixes, and was wildly successful in getting him the CSM6 chair (and CSM7, but lmao) and causing a shift in the role of the CSM. Second rate candidates, having seen that success, now ape that 'we're not game designers' statement without comprehension of the meaning behind it.


Well I remember The Mittani saying the T2 BPO is a terrible game mechanic and if anyone had good ideas, he would relay them to CCP as fast as he could.

Sadly, no one had any good ideas, but it was nice to see enthusiasm to try to improve the game and such.


Using T2 BPO's as an example of being a bad idea was a bad idea lol

The reason nobody could up with a better idea is because it has been discussed to death and proved many times over that they are not the isk making machines many people believe they are by people who know a hell of a more on the subject then the kittens ever will.
Speedkermit Damo
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#348 - 2013-03-15 12:27:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Speedkermit Damo
Ripard Teg wrote:
Scatim Helicon wrote:
The Mittani's CSM6 candidacy thread spelled out that CSM was not about putting forward specific fixes, and was wildly successful in getting him the CSM6 chair (and CSM7, but lmao) and causing a shift in the role of the CSM. Second rate candidates, having seen that success, now ape that 'we're not game designers' statement without comprehension of the meaning behind it.
There's only one problem with your theory: while it's fun, it's not true. CSM5 was making it very clear to everyone who ran for CSM6 that this was the only approach that succeeded. Mittens wasn't the only CSM6 candidate advocating this strategy (post #62, second para if you don't go there directly).

That said, I'm not exactly dodging the issue of what I think about in-game topics. Want to know what I think about a specific game issue? Search my blog for it. There's a search bar right on the front page and the answer's probably there. Want to know what sorts of things I'd advocate adding to the game? Read posts on my blog tagged "Proposals". There's 30-odd of them. I've written hundreds of thousands of :words: on this, something that few other candidates can say.

But anyone who goes to Reyk with an agenda and does nothing but try to push it is going to get laughed out of the room, or just flat-out ignored. It's a simple fact that's been repeated by more past CSM members than I can count. Anyone who's been following the CSM knows it. Mittens had better luck than most but did it by using external media interviews to exert pressure on CCP even when times were good. He said as much again just the other day on TMC.

Cearain wrote:
Why do so many csm candidates try to deny this? It makes things muddy for political reasons. Because its easier not to give any specific ideas and if things go wrong then just say "I'm not a dev" and can't control what ccp does. But if it goes right then take full credit and stress how you pushed that through with your amazingly persuasive communication skills.
The simple fact is that sometimes CCP is going to take a hard right turn on a topic without telling the CSM anything about it. That's the painful truth. Ask Two step about POSes sometime. Ask the entirety of CSM7 about that player-to-player contract system they were going to help CCP develop sometime. It's no dodge to sometimes say "CCP cut the CSM out of the loop on this" as long as it's true.

For the rest of your post, see above. The simple fact is that the only strategy that's consistently shown to work in Reyk is to come at things with a data-driven approach either with real players backing up your data, or being able to show real financial benefits to CCP on your approach. If I say "I think you should do X", chances are better than even it'll be ignored unless it's what CCP wanted to do anyway. If I say, "I held a player round-table on this, and they say you should do X" or "The last time you did X, PCU count and subscriptions both jumped by 18%, so I think you should follow up the trend", CCP will listen.


Jester,

What happens we you encounter CCP stonewalling, like they have been doing for yours now. The problems regarding sov-null, Tech have been festering for years. What strategies do you have for making CCP simply GET ON WITH IT!

Protect me from knowing what I don't need to know. Protect me from even knowing that there are things to know that I don't know. Protect me from knowing that I decided not to know about the things that I decided not to know about. Amen.

Orisa Medeem
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#349 - 2013-03-16 16:16:47 UTC
People talk a lot about adjusting the risk/reward of the game. You, yourself, talked about this to some extent. And sure enough, I think it is a worthy high-level design of the game.

The problem is, I haven't seen anyone, be it a dev, CSM rep, candidate or regular player define it to the level of detail I think it's necessary.

So here's the question for you: assume that you (or CCP, for that matter) have access to perfect information about Eve and set forth to balance the risk/reward of each in-game profession. How would you go about measuring as precisely as possible, first the risk, then the reward of these professions in each area of space?

In my understanding, we need hard data to know exactly where we stand on this if we want to determine how much of a correction is needed. Otherwise we are conducting these whole discussions on this subject based purely on the collective perceptions of the players.

Keep in mind that different people perceive the world in different ways, even more so if the world in question is comprised of space pixels and the people themselves are represented by internet spaceships.

:sand:  over  :awesome:

Prince Kobol
#350 - 2013-03-16 19:00:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Prince Kobol
Orisa Medeem wrote:
People talk a lot about adjusting the risk/reward of the game. You, yourself, talked about this to some extent. And sure enough, I think it is a worthy high-level design of the game.

The problem is, I haven't seen anyone, be it a dev, CSM rep, candidate or regular player define it to the level of detail I think it's necessary.

So here's the question for you: assume that you (or CCP, for that matter) have access to perfect information about Eve and set forth to balance the risk/reward of each in-game profession. How would you go about measuring as precisely as possible, first the risk, then the reward of these professions in each area of space?

In my understanding, we need hard data to know exactly where we stand on this if we want to determine how much of a correction is needed. Otherwise we are conducting these whole discussions on this subject based purely on the collective perceptions of the players.

Keep in mind that different people perceive the world in different ways, even more so if the world in question is comprised of space pixels and the people themselves are represented by internet spaceships.


You have answered your own question in a way.

It is impossible to define risk v reward as everybody has their own perspective and opinion and as such will argue what ever changes are made.

You are asking for "hard data" well what "hard data" do you want?

I see a lot of people saying that we need data but never describe exactly what data they need or want
Orisa Medeem
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#351 - 2013-03-16 19:24:18 UTC
Prince Kobol wrote:
I see a lot of people saying that we need data but never describe exactly what data they need or want


What?!? This is exactly what I was asking from him. To define what hard data is needed to measure risk and reward. To put together some steps about how to reach the results, for instance:

"The risk of activity X is measured by

  1. counting how many times a player does X,
  2. counting how many of these he gets blown up by whatever means,
  3. evaluating the average cost of his losses,
  4. anything else that's relevant
"

Or something. I'm opening it up to him on how he would approach it. Even if no player has the numbers, it could serve as a guide to CCP on how to query the server and get the answers.

Talking is cheap, yet none of the candidates that make a big fuss about adjusting the risk/reward equation bother to clarify how they would guarantee that the end result is balanced not just in one's perception.

:sand:  over  :awesome:

Prince Kobol
#352 - 2013-03-16 22:08:07 UTC
Orisa Medeem wrote:
Prince Kobol wrote:
I see a lot of people saying that we need data but never describe exactly what data they need or want


What?!? This is exactly what I was asking from him. To define what hard data is needed to measure risk and reward. To put together some steps about how to reach the results, for instance:

"The risk of activity X is measured by

  1. counting how many times a player does X,
  2. counting how many of these he gets blown up by whatever means,
  3. evaluating the average cost of his losses,
  4. anything else that's relevant
"

Or something. I'm opening it up to him on how he would approach it. Even if no player has the numbers, it could serve as a guide to CCP on how to query the server and get the answers.

Talking is cheap, yet none of the candidates that make a big fuss about adjusting the risk/reward equation bother to clarify how they would guarantee that the end result is balanced not just in one's perception.



My bad.. I read your post wrong and I do completely agree with you Big smile
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
#353 - 2013-03-17 06:06:52 UTC
Prince Kobol wrote:
rodyas wrote:
Scatim Helicon wrote:
Cearain wrote:
Why do so many csm candidates try to deny this? It makes things muddy for political reasons. Because its easier not to give any specific ideas and if things go wrong then just say "I'm not a dev" and can't control what ccp does.


It's cargo cult behaviour.

The Mittani's CSM6 candidacy thread spelled out that CSM was not about putting forward specific fixes, and was wildly successful in getting him the CSM6 chair (and CSM7, but lmao) and causing a shift in the role of the CSM. Second rate candidates, having seen that success, now ape that 'we're not game designers' statement without comprehension of the meaning behind it.


Well I remember The Mittani saying the T2 BPO is a terrible game mechanic and if anyone had good ideas, he would relay them to CCP as fast as he could.

Sadly, no one had any good ideas, but it was nice to see enthusiasm to try to improve the game and such.


Using T2 BPO's as an example of being a bad idea was a bad idea lol

The reason nobody could up with a better idea is because it has been discussed to death and proved many times over that they are not the isk making machines many people believe they are by people who know a hell of a more on the subject then the kittens ever will.


There is so much drama in your feedback.

Think of null sec, the game play sucks. Now apply that to T2 BPO lottery. Game play sucks.

People want better null sec, same way a cooler way to get T2 BPOs would be a cool thing.

No one came up with a cool game play idea for T2 BPOs, much like in mining and hi sec activities. Sometimes I think the null sec ideas aren't that great either.

Just like a lot of candidates right now promise if anyone has a good idea for hi sec missions, or mining or for null sec, they would love to take it to CCP. But no one really has good ideas.

Signature removed for inappropriate language - CCP Eterne

Prince Kobol
#354 - 2013-03-17 11:08:21 UTC
rodyas wrote:
Prince Kobol wrote:
rodyas wrote:
Scatim Helicon wrote:
Cearain wrote:
Why do so many csm candidates try to deny this? It makes things muddy for political reasons. Because its easier not to give any specific ideas and if things go wrong then just say "I'm not a dev" and can't control what ccp does.


It's cargo cult behaviour.

The Mittani's CSM6 candidacy thread spelled out that CSM was not about putting forward specific fixes, and was wildly successful in getting him the CSM6 chair (and CSM7, but lmao) and causing a shift in the role of the CSM. Second rate candidates, having seen that success, now ape that 'we're not game designers' statement without comprehension of the meaning behind it.


Well I remember The Mittani saying the T2 BPO is a terrible game mechanic and if anyone had good ideas, he would relay them to CCP as fast as he could.

Sadly, no one had any good ideas, but it was nice to see enthusiasm to try to improve the game and such.


Using T2 BPO's as an example of being a bad idea was a bad idea lol

The reason nobody could up with a better idea is because it has been discussed to death and proved many times over that they are not the isk making machines many people believe they are by people who know a hell of a more on the subject then the kittens ever will.


There is so much drama in your feedback.

Think of null sec, the game play sucks. Now apply that to T2 BPO lottery. Game play sucks.

People want better null sec, same way a cooler way to get T2 BPOs would be a cool thing.

No one came up with a cool game play idea for T2 BPOs, much like in mining and hi sec activities. Sometimes I think the null sec ideas aren't that great either.

Just like a lot of candidates right now promise if anyone has a good idea for hi sec missions, or mining or for null sec, they would love to take it to CCP. But no one really has good ideas.


Lol.. didn't realise fact is now called drama

Comparing T2 BPO's and Sov is like comparing a apple to a small outer mongolia lama.. 2 completely different things.

Okay so CCP screwed up with the T2 lottery, nobody has ever denied that but if you want a T2 BPO then you can simply buy one (if your crazy and stupid enough that is)

There is no valid reason to get rid of T2 BPO's as it has been proven many times that they have little effect on the market, take years to pay back their investment and offer no where near the flexibility of invention.

The only effect removing T2 BPO's is enraging those people who have them and who have paid a massive amount of isk in purchasing them.

The reason T2 BPO's have not been either removed or changed is because there is no problem with them to being with and have very little effect overall, like pissing in the ocean so to speak.

Now we have Sov which is terrible in more or less every aspect. This means that nearly any idea to change it is good because Sov is so terrible, also Sov is a fundamental mechanic that effects thousands of players.. kind of a major big deal in the grand scheme of things.



Amyclas Amatin
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#355 - 2013-03-18 01:21:21 UTC
Prince Kobol wrote:


Now we have Sov which is terrible in more or less every aspect. This means that nearly any idea to change it is good because Sov is so terrible, also Sov is a fundamental mechanic that effects thousands of players.. kind of a major big deal in the grand scheme of things.



Why do you claim that Sov is broken and terrible?

For more information on the New Order of High-Sec, please visit: http://www.minerbumping.com/

Remember that whenever you have a bad day in EVE, the correct reponse is "Thank you CCP, may I please have another?"

Alekseyev Karrde
Noir.
The Network.
#356 - 2013-03-18 04:46:29 UTC
Amyclas Amatin wrote:
Prince Kobol wrote:


Now we have Sov which is terrible in more or less every aspect. This means that nearly any idea to change it is good because Sov is so terrible, also Sov is a fundamental mechanic that effects thousands of players.. kind of a major big deal in the grand scheme of things.



Why do you claim that Sov is broken and terrible?

why would anyone claim anything else?

Alek the Kidnapper, Hero of the CSM

Frying Doom
#357 - 2013-03-18 06:58:09 UTC
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:
Amyclas Amatin wrote:
Prince Kobol wrote:


Now we have Sov which is terrible in more or less every aspect. This means that nearly any idea to change it is good because Sov is so terrible, also Sov is a fundamental mechanic that effects thousands of players.. kind of a major big deal in the grand scheme of things.



Why do you claim that Sov is broken and terrible?

why would anyone claim anything else?

hallucinogenic drugs?

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!

Amyclas Amatin
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#358 - 2013-03-18 10:16:51 UTC
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:
Amyclas Amatin wrote:
Prince Kobol wrote:


Now we have Sov which is terrible in more or less every aspect. This means that nearly any idea to change it is good because Sov is so terrible, also Sov is a fundamental mechanic that effects thousands of players.. kind of a major big deal in the grand scheme of things.



Why do you claim that Sov is broken and terrible?

why would anyone claim anything else?


I assume nothing. I am a new player after all.

Humor me. Why should I assume that everyone would agree that Sov is broken? Are there not people who would benefit from the status quo?

For more information on the New Order of High-Sec, please visit: http://www.minerbumping.com/

Remember that whenever you have a bad day in EVE, the correct reponse is "Thank you CCP, may I please have another?"

Alekseyev Karrde
Noir.
The Network.
#359 - 2013-03-18 16:38:51 UTC
Amyclas Amatin wrote:
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:
Amyclas Amatin wrote:
Prince Kobol wrote:


Now we have Sov which is terrible in more or less every aspect. This means that nearly any idea to change it is good because Sov is so terrible, also Sov is a fundamental mechanic that effects thousands of players.. kind of a major big deal in the grand scheme of things.



Why do you claim that Sov is broken and terrible?

why would anyone claim anything else?


I assume nothing. I am a new player after all.

Humor me. Why should I assume that everyone would agree that Sov is broken? Are there not people who would benefit from the status quo?

Even the people benefiting from the status quo (Goons/PL) have spent the last 2 years trying to get it changed. Everyone involved sees the over value of technetium disrupting the PVP food chain and the fun-crushing structure grinding mechanics which have shrunk the number of competitive turf wars over the past year or two to the single digits. Even those getting the good end of the territorial stick recognize that it's both not sustainable and inherently un-fun.

Alek the Kidnapper, Hero of the CSM

Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#360 - 2013-03-18 18:27:40 UTC
Ripard Teg wrote:
Scatim Helicon wrote:
The Mittani's CSM6 candidacy thread spelled out that CSM was not about putting forward specific fixes, and was wildly successful in getting him the CSM6 chair (and CSM7, but lmao) and causing a shift in the role of the CSM. Second rate candidates, having seen that success, now ape that 'we're not game designers' statement without comprehension of the meaning behind it.
There's only one problem with your theory: while it's fun, it's not true. CSM5 was making it very clear to everyone who ran for CSM6 that this was the only approach that succeeded. Mittens wasn't the only CSM6 candidate advocating this strategy (post #62, second para if you don't go there directly).

That said, I'm not exactly dodging the issue of what I think about in-game topics. Want to know what I think about a specific game issue? Search my blog for it. There's a search bar right on the front page and the answer's probably there. Want to know what sorts of things I'd advocate adding to the game? Read posts on my blog tagged "Proposals". There's 30-odd of them. I've written hundreds of thousands of :words: on this, something that few other candidates can say.

But anyone who goes to Reyk with an agenda and does nothing but try to push it is going to get laughed out of the room, or just flat-out ignored. It's a simple fact that's been repeated by more past CSM members than I can count. Anyone who's been following the CSM knows it. Mittens had better luck than most but did it by using external media interviews to exert pressure on CCP even when times were good. He said as much again just the other day on TMC.
.



The closest thing to game development idea mittens mentioned during his csm6 campaign was his "defense of incarna"

No support for getting back to spaceships in his CSM 6 campaign. Not even at the emergency summit did he push for a return to spaceships. He just met with ccp, and told the players to ignore those memos.

It was actually csm 5 that started the ball rolling with getting back to space ships with mynxee's brilliant handling of the csm minutes. That is what got the players pushing for this change. Including your blog where you gave the data about number of players online.

By the time mittens and csm6 finally started to beat that drum ccp had likely already made plans about how they were going to restructure resources to flying in space. You don't just decide to cut 20% of your workforce and completely go in a new direction on a weeks notice. I would say that we got crucible in spite of mittani, rather than because of him. But at least he did eventually get it, I will give him that. The majority of the time he was just trying to do pr for ccp and acted like a ccp lapdog. Of course, he took full credit for crucible since it was popular and happened when he was chair.

You say csm will get laughed out if they present actual ideas for the game instead of acting like a sort of opinion panel. Did this ever happen to anyone you can mention?

It seems to me people keep confusing your ability to push an idea with your ability to actually make the idea a reality. The problem is this ignores the ccp you are dealing with. CSM5 had a very different ccp than csm 6 and 7. CSM 5 more than any other forced ccp to either do away with csm or start listening to them.

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815