These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Last thread about CSM was closed for not being constructive... Take 2 on the CSM
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Issler Dainze
Tadakastu-Obata Corporation
The Honda Accord
#201 - 2011-12-05 22:58:37 UTC
Ai Shun wrote:
Issler Dainze wrote:
Quote:
But some of my concerns right now relate to whether the CSM is maybe focused on a particular aspect of the game and I'm starting to get feedback from players that they worry the CSM is too pre-occupied by a certain playstyle. That might mean we may need to change the structure, but definitely the CSM has worked as a feedback tool greatly throughout the years. We will have them over at the end of the year, after everything that's gone on, and we will have a chance to talk about that. We'll just see where we are and take it from there.


Makes me think the influence of the CSM is being revisited and CCP is concerned with the lack of broad player focus of the current CSM. Pull the plug, I think that is possible if the CSM continues to represent a minority player interest.


Read it and saw:

"Yeah, some players are complaining about the CSM. The CSM works well as a feedback tool, so we're not going to do anything crazy. We'll have a chat about it at the year-end meeting with the CSM."

I wouldn't paint that as dire as you seem to want it to be.


I don't think that word means what you think that word means.

I didn't say "dire". I said it would be interesting to see what happens going forward.

Maybe something bad, maybe something good

Issler
Petrus Blackshell
Rifterlings
#202 - 2011-12-05 23:01:36 UTC
Handsome Hussein wrote:

Also: I'd vote for you, you're smarter than the average bear.


He's not a bear, he's FW. With the LP prices lately, that's gotta show a dedication to small gang PVP rather than risk-free ISK.

Accidentally The Whole Frigate - For-newbies blog (currently on pause)
Handsome Hussein
#203 - 2011-12-05 23:02:55 UTC
Petrus Blackshell wrote:
Handsome ******* wrote:

Also: I'd vote for you, you're smarter than the average bear.


He's not a bear, he's FW. With the LP prices lately, that's gotta show a dedication to small gang PVP rather than risk-free ISK.

That wasn't a carebear reference, FWIW. And yes, I know who he is (in the forums at least).

Leaves only the fresh scent of pine.
First Lieutenant Dan
Doomheim
#204 - 2011-12-05 23:04:18 UTC
Petrus Blackshell
Rifterlings
#205 - 2011-12-05 23:06:08 UTC
Handsome Hussein wrote:
Petrus Blackshell wrote:
Handsome ******* wrote:

Also: I'd vote for you, you're smarter than the average bear.


He's not a bear, he's FW. With the LP prices lately, that's gotta show a dedication to small gang PVP rather than risk-free ISK.

That wasn't a carebear reference, FWIW. And yes, I know who he is (in the forums at least).

Oh, I thought you were suggesting he run as the "carebear candidate". My bad.

Accidentally The Whole Frigate - For-newbies blog (currently on pause)
Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#206 - 2011-12-05 23:12:54 UTC
Jita Alt666 wrote:
Ai Shun wrote:
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Many won't believe this, but in that case the best solution is simply to elect a candidate that is truly free from null sec interests, which would hopefully quell many of the fears that the CSM seats are merely avenues for increased power and influence for one's own Alliance friends.


Hans, if you want to try for a CSM position or if you know somebody who can I'll help with the campaign. Even if it is only to donate ISK or to advertise via bio / website.


Called it. This thread is ground floor of a future Internet spaceship politicians campaign. The question for you Ai Shun is: is Hans John or Phil?


To answer your speculation, I'm just a lobbyist, more or less. I've been speaking with CSM members about various issues, but really I'm more information gathering than anything else. I am (relatively) young player, and don't have the knowledge about the CSM or its history that many here have from many more years observing EvE, the CSM, and its influence on CCP. I'd be lying if I said I wasn't as interested in improving the political process as much as I am improving Faction Warfare, High Sec, Eve's underworld, etc, but the jury is still out whether all my efforts can and will actually bear any fruit. All I can do is speak out on the areas of game play I am familiar with, offer my suggestions for improvement, and see what sticks, same as anybody else. I just keep doing it because I care too much about the features and gameplay I love to simply stay silent and be angry at the way things turn out.

As for my earlier post, I'm only speaking based on my recent interactions with the council, and its evident that the role of the CSM is in a state of flux following Incarna and its fallout. I think there's a lot that still needs to be defined.

One of my frustrations has been, like many others here, the lack of a clear idea of how exactly players like myself can get their ideas and those of their sub-communities up to the highest levels of CCP. Clearly past documents describing the CSM process do not currently describe the modern workings of the CSM or the true nature its influence, as trying to approach them from traditional means has not yielded results.

It's possible that the CSM is indeed a sham as others have stated, but its too hard to say at this point, but I truly believe that the Hilmar apology, and the Crucible turnaround, would never have happened without the media blitz they unleashed in Incarna's wake. That's all I was pointing out, that if the CSM does have power within the company, its not the type players have been told that it has based on the Evelopedia articles, which are clearly out of date.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai
#207 - 2011-12-05 23:15:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Ishtanchuk Fazmarai
Issler Dainze wrote:
(...)

I also love it when folks discount the high sec independent player or care bear as just an alt of some nul sec player. I know from personal experience that to be very unlikely. So unless you can cite some source in CCP with hard data to support your assertion I have to call you out as wrong about that.

As to not taking the CSM as seriously the CEO said it himself

Quote:
But some of my concerns right now relate to whether the CSM is maybe focused on a particular aspect of the game and I'm starting to get feedback from players that they worry the CSM is too pre-occupied by a certain playstyle. That might mean we may need to change the structure, but definitely the CSM has worked as a feedback tool greatly throughout the years. We will have them over at the end of the year, after everything that's gone on, and we will have a chance to talk about that. We'll just see where we are and take it from there.


Makes me think the influence of the CSM is being revisited and CCP is concerned with the lack of broad player focus of the current CSM. Pull the plug, I think that is possible if the CSM continues to represent a minority player interest.

Issler



"But some of my concerns right now relate to whether the CSM is maybe focused on a particular aspect of the game and I'm starting to get feedback from players that they worry the CSM is too pre-occupied by a certain playstyle."

That line from Hilmar is very interesting. It may be worth keep hammering that nail until it makes its way into decission-making. Nullsec whiners are only but ONE of CCP's troubles with customer satisfaction...

And won't start on the moral sillines about "being risk averse" in a game where, after all, your character never dies, police will not chase you all over the place until the end of times for as much as breaking the law once, shooting defenseless ships is deemed "elite" and until a week ago insurance companies would pay you for having your ship blown by the Police... Lol

Roses are red / Violets are blue / I am an Alpha / And so it's you
Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#208 - 2011-12-05 23:21:01 UTC
Handsome Hussein wrote:

Dude, your avatar gets creepier every time I turn around.


Hahahaha excellent. Working as intended. I always imagined Hans a cross between T-Bag from "Prison Break" and one of the German Nihilists from "The Big Lebowski".

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary
Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#209 - 2011-12-05 23:24:03 UTC
Petrus Blackshell wrote:
Handsome ******* wrote:
Petrus Blackshell wrote:
Handsome ******* wrote:

Also: I'd vote for you, you're smarter than the average bear.


He's not a bear, he's FW. With the LP prices lately, that's gotta show a dedication to small gang PVP rather than risk-free ISK.

That wasn't a carebear reference, FWIW. And yes, I know who he is (in the forums at least).

Oh, I thought you were suggesting he run as the "carebear candidate". My bad.


Yeah, don't you have to be positive security status to qualify as a carebear?

Also - Small-gang PvP is where its at. It is one of the most fun, and least supported forms of gameplay EvE has to offer. Thats why I continue to stump for Faction Warfare changes, there is just so much untapped potential there for people currently living in all security zones that want a break from Supercap blobs and suicide ganks.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#210 - 2011-12-05 23:33:11 UTC
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:
That line from Hilmar is very interesting. It may be worth keep hammering that nail until it makes its way into decission-making. Nullsec whiners are only but ONE of CCP's troubles with customer satisfaction...

Let me ask you a question, then. What do you do in EVE? What kind of content would you like to see added? I assume, by your "The CSM doesn't represent me!" attitude, that you've got a list.

Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:
And won't start on the moral sillines about "being risk averse" in a game where, after all, your character never dies, police will not chase you all over the place until the end of times for as much as breaking the law once, shooting defenseless ships is deemed "elite" and until a week ago insurance companies would pay you for having your ship blown by the Police... Lol

I don't know where you get the "elite" bit from. I think the word you're looking for is "hilarious".

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Handsome Hussein
#211 - 2011-12-05 23:34:43 UTC
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:
And won't start on the moral sillines about "being risk averse" in a game where, after all, your character never dies, police will not chase you all over the place until the end of times for as much as breaking the law once, shooting defenseless ships is deemed "elite" and until a week ago insurance companies would pay you for having your ship blown by the Police... Lol

Being risk-adverse isn't about morality, it's about content. You don't try to find your own content. You are adverse to leaving "safe space" to find other play styles.

Leaves only the fresh scent of pine.
Petrus Blackshell
Rifterlings
#212 - 2011-12-05 23:44:48 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Petrus Blackshell wrote:

Oh, I thought you were suggesting he run as the "carebear candidate". My bad.


Yeah, don't you have to be positive security status to qualify as a carebear?

Also - Small-gang PvP is where its at. It is one of the most fun, and least supported forms of gameplay EvE has to offer. Thats why I continue to stump for Faction Warfare changes, there is just so much untapped potential there for people currently living in all security zones that want a break from Supercap blobs and suicide ganks.


You're blue, so I don't really care about your sec status, so I didn't check it. *shrug*

I totally agree about small gang PvP, and it's been sad to see it die. Last time I really found good small gang warfare was in Providence before the whole U'K disband, and then later a bit in FW (though a bit stunted by massive blobs).

If you ran on a small gang PvP platform you'd have my vote for actually actively doing it. Mittens might know about PvP, but when I was talking to a Goonswarm member about PvP, I found that their definition of "small gang" is 40-50 people. When I mentioned using fewer than 10 people, he started wondering if it was right before downtime or at some time when absolutely nobody was around.

Accidentally The Whole Frigate - For-newbies blog (currently on pause)
Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#213 - 2011-12-05 23:50:37 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:

Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:
And won't start on the moral sillines about "being risk averse" in a game where, after all, your character never dies, police will not chase you all over the place until the end of times for as much as breaking the law once, shooting defenseless ships is deemed "elite" and until a week ago insurance companies would pay you for having your ship blown by the Police... Lol

I don't know where you get the "elite" bit from. I think the word you're looking for is "hilarious".


I still think "Elite" players tackle enemies that are armed and know how to fight back.

Experienced players suicide ganking noobs is much like a Vampire feeding on a rat. You can get by that way, if there's nothing else to feed on, but its pretty unsavory and nobody is proud of you for it. I think the sooner nullsec issues are fixed and entities like Goonswarm can return to fighting for Sovereignty out there, the better. They should have a sector of the game that is actually fun (nullsec isn't at the moment), and in doing so highsec players will have the (relative) safety of highsec returned to them.

Highsec should always have its element of danger, and theoretically attacks should be possible (with consequence) anywhere in the game. But I personally never understood the appeal in noob-ganking, myself. Its much akin to kicking puppies. Its a pretty low-brow way to get your jollies, and says nothing about your combat skill or prowess. I'd rather fight foes with as many skill points or more as I have, my killboard may be much smaller than most but I'm infinitely more proud when I know I was up against a pro.

Ultimately I think its a fallacy to pitch this whole CSM battle as a "highsec vs nullsec" divide. When nullsec is fixed and bored Alliances return home, high sec players win to. When high sec game play is improved, more new players stick around long enough to eventually add their numbers to the Alliance ranks. Lowsec, too, plays a critical role in all of this. The game needs to be developed holistically, instead of being viewed as three distinct zones warring for arbitrary representation.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary
Jack Cavanaugh
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#214 - 2011-12-05 23:51:15 UTC
Lone Gunman wrote:
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:
Proposal One: voting the CSM must be compulsory, at least until people gets used to do so. Every player who logs in during election period must be forced to vote, either won't be allowed to reach the character selection screen. An option to vote later may be added, but only for a limited amount of chances. That certainly should increase total vote and the representivity of the CSM.


Go "F" yourself.

Since I have no control what CCP does and Neither does the CSM(See Black Ops) my refusal to participate in this lame "I get a free trip to Iceland" publics relations stunt is not to participate and now you want to take that away from me.

Blow me.


Instead of compulsory voting why not just prompt the vote like Ishtan proposed but have an option to abstain from voting for people who don't want to as LG so eloquently put it.
Petrus Blackshell
Rifterlings
#215 - 2011-12-05 23:56:41 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:

Ultimately I think its a fallacy to pitch this whole CSM battle as a "highsec vs nullsec" divide. When nullsec is fixed and bored Alliances return home, high sec players win to. When high sec game play is improved, more new players stick around long enough to eventually add their numbers to the Alliance ranks. Lowsec, too, plays a critical role in all of this. The game needs to be developed holistically, instead of being viewed as three distinct zones warring for arbitrary representation.


Of course, those arbitrary divisions are a bit dumb. However, the issue is not "nullsec vs highsec" as I understand it, but rather "we need input from everywhere". This requires presence in the meta-game (forums, voting, etc etc), which seems to be much more heavily weighted towards nullsec, even though the actual player count is weighted towards highsec.

That's hard to fix.

Accidentally The Whole Frigate - For-newbies blog (currently on pause)
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#216 - 2011-12-06 00:05:35 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Lord Zim wrote:

Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:
And won't start on the moral sillines about "being risk averse" in a game where, after all, your character never dies, police will not chase you all over the place until the end of times for as much as breaking the law once, shooting defenseless ships is deemed "elite" and until a week ago insurance companies would pay you for having your ship blown by the Police... Lol

I don't know where you get the "elite" bit from. I think the word you're looking for is "hilarious".


I still think "Elite" players tackle enemies that are armed and know how to fight back.

Experienced players suicide ganking noobs is much like a Vampire feeding on a rat. You can get by that way, if there's nothing else to feed on, but its pretty unsavory and nobody is proud of you for it. I think the sooner nullsec issues are fixed and entities like Goonswarm can return to fighting for Sovereignty out there, the better. They should have a sector of the game that is actually fun (nullsec isn't at the moment), and in doing so highsec players will have the (relative) safety of highsec returned to them.

Highsec should always have its element of danger, and theoretically attacks should be possible (with consequence) anywhere in the game. But I personally never understood the appeal in noob-ganking, myself. Its much akin to kicking puppies. Its a pretty low-brow way to get your jollies, and says nothing about your combat skill or prowess. I'd rather fight foes with as many skill points or more as I have, my killboard may be much smaller than most but I'm infinitely more proud when I know I was up against a pro.

Ultimately I think its a fallacy to pitch this whole CSM battle as a "highsec vs nullsec" divide. When nullsec is fixed and bored Alliances return home, high sec players win to. When high sec game play is improved, more new players stick around long enough to eventually add their numbers to the Alliance ranks. Lowsec, too, plays a critical role in all of this. The game needs to be developed holistically, instead of being viewed as three distinct zones warring for arbitrary representation.

Four words: This guy gets it.

As for the "noob ganking" etc, it has absolutely ****-all to do with combat skill or prowess, and everything to do with just how pissed off some players get, and in a lot of cases how gullibly they'll hand over isk to get "protection". We're not looking for killboard stats or elite pvp recognition, we're playing this game as it's supposed to be played, as a sandbox, where we define our own content based on the rules available to us.

As to us going back to nullsec once SOV's made better, that may or may not happen. Not everyone in goonswarm is all about nullsec, they may just be about causing tears. Miner ganking is absolutely perfect for that. Then again, it may. I don't know, we're not one blob of people of one mind. Only time'll tell.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Ai Shun
#217 - 2011-12-06 00:26:14 UTC
Issler Dainze wrote:
I don't think that word means what you think that word means.

I didn't say "dire". I said it would be interesting to see what happens going forward.

Maybe something bad, maybe something good

Issler


Issler Dainze wrote:
ICCP is concerned with the lack of broad player focus of the current CSM. Pull the plug, I think that is possible if the CSM continues to represent a minority player interest.


That was the bit that I was specifically referring to. I can see that Hillmar is acknowledging that players have complained about it and that they will discuss it with the CSM. But not that it is a concern.

Maybe because English is a second language I read concern as being stronger than acknowledgement of an issue.
Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#218 - 2011-12-06 00:35:29 UTC
I'm still curious about the "Phil" and "John" business......Are these names of current CSM members? I only know them by their character names. Or is this some other reference I'm not up to speed on? Like I said, I'm new to all this political shtuff.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary
Issler Dainze
Tadakastu-Obata Corporation
The Honda Accord
#219 - 2011-12-06 00:43:04 UTC
Ai Shun wrote:
Issler Dainze wrote:
I don't think that word means what you think that word means.

I didn't say "dire". I said it would be interesting to see what happens going forward.

Maybe something bad, maybe something good

Issler


Issler Dainze wrote:
ICCP is concerned with the lack of broad player focus of the current CSM. Pull the plug, I think that is possible if the CSM continues to represent a minority player interest.


That was the bit that I was specifically referring to. I can see that Hillmar is acknowledging that players have complained about it and that they will discuss it with the CSM. But not that it is a concern.

Maybe because English is a second language I read concern as being stronger than acknowledgement of an issue.


I am sure your english is fine, my reference to the "word not meaning what you think it means" was me jumping at any opportunity to make a "Princess Bride" reference!

As to concern vs. acknowledgement the fact he goes on to say changes in the CSM may be in order after the discussions meant to me that they take it as more than just players complaining. But who knows?

I think right now we have no idea what CCP is planning in a lot of areas. Personally I think they owe us some clarification about the future including the real state of the CSM, WiS and other abondonded content and future expansions.

Issler
Mallak Azaria
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#220 - 2011-12-06 01:39:47 UTC
Zevina wrote:
A change in voting mechanics will surely help to give us highsec people a louder voice. So please make it happen.


There is a pretty easy solution to this. Get behind a high sec candidate & vote for them. There's more people in high sec than null... Well, at least until you start counting bots.

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.