These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE Information Portal

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Dev Blog: CSM 9 - The Year In Review

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#61 - 2015-01-16 22:38:54 UTC
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:
CCP Leeloo wrote:
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:
Houm... maybe I got the intent wrong, but wasn't that devblog like an attempt to "sell" the CSM to unaware readers/non-voters?

Not at all. Last time I checked the dev blog was called "CSM 9 - The Year In Review". Which, in my opinion describes the purpose of this blog :)


Oh nice, then i'll wait for the actual efforts to get more people caring/involved/voting. Cool


You put more energy into not caring about voting than most voters put into voting.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#62 - 2015-01-16 22:42:19 UTC
Milla Goodpussy wrote:


im for a complete new CSM where they're not used as test mice or puppets and look to provide better for all of the game not just certain parts (cough cough null sec).. which seems to be the entirety of it lately only about null sec and the rest is blah..


Whenever good quality "hi-sec" candidates run, they don't seem to have much trouble getting elected.

CSM 9 seems to be 'mostly about null' because 0.0 is finally getting some attention after being almost wholly neglected between Dominion (2009) and Kronos (2014).

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Aiyshimin
Shiva Furnace
#63 - 2015-01-17 10:12:33 UTC
Nolak Ataru wrote:
Aiyshimin wrote:
Nolak Ataru wrote:
Hey corebloodbrothers, what first-hand experience do you have with ISBoxer? Have you talked to any ISBoxers, smacktalk and crying in local nonwithstanding? Did you even attempt to integrate anti-bomber ships into your fleet doctrines, including defensive DIC/HICs?

e: And Falcon, you're one to talk about acting like an adult after refusing to discuss this with the ISBoxer community before Jan1.


Nobody negotiated with the macro miner "community" when they were banned
Nobody negotiated with RMT "community" when they were banned
Nobody negotiated with ISBotter "community" when replication was banned

If it's bad for the game, it is and you happened to be part of the problem, when ban was the solution. Deal with it.


Macros are and have always been a gray area, but I assume you mean the more complicated macros that no longer require human interaction. Those are and have always been against the EULA under the botting clause, and the accelerated gameplay clause.
RMT is and has always been in violation of the EULA under the RMT clause and the clause regarding CCP's control over the game.
Your pitiful attempt at wordplay aside, ISBoxer was not in violation of the EULA, 6A3, the macro clause, or the control clause, and that fact had been repeatedly reinforced by CCP and GM responses to the troll threads on the forums. Lax worked with CCP in order to remove as much chance and possibility of turning ISBoxer into a botting program. Now corebloodbrother comes along and makes claims that broadcasting was somehow in violation of the EULA, or that ISBoxer was some instant-win button with no counters, or that (and this is my favorite) it's somehow the sole cause of problems in the game. I want to know what qualifications and experience he has with the product in question, much as an average Joe would want to know how much experience the dude he'll be electing to Congress, or the presidency.

Not even negotiation in the pure sense, but ISBoxers were willing to come to the table and discuss actual changes to the gameplay that would have a greater effect on their ability to box than the broadcast ban, which was recently laughed at by a video posted by Shadowandlight where he demonstrated a way to control a theoretically unlimited number of bombers that fell within the new EULA. And we're not even talking about how the boxing community was treated by CCP before the ban with reimbursements of ganked ships being handed out like condoms in a brothel, and then with CCP's refusal to talk to any ISBoxer seriously until after Jan1, even when they pointed out a dozen or more ways to attack ISBoxers with changes to gameplay mechanics (let alone fleet doctrines, EWAR, or ganks) that would have had a greater effect on ISBoxers.


Input broadcasting is currently treated equal to input automation and is bannable, if you are aware of a way to use a 3rd party program to simulate either behaviour, your duty is to report it.

Your ISBotting habits garner no sympathy from the players nor the developers, so you are free to go bot in some other game.

Indahmawar Fazmarai
#64 - 2015-01-17 11:29:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Indahmawar Fazmarai
Malcanis wrote:
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:
CCP Leeloo wrote:
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:
Houm... maybe I got the intent wrong, but wasn't that devblog like an attempt to "sell" the CSM to unaware readers/non-voters?

Not at all. Last time I checked the dev blog was called "CSM 9 - The Year In Review". Which, in my opinion describes the purpose of this blog :)


Oh nice, then i'll wait for the actual efforts to get more people caring/involved/voting. Cool


You put more energy into not caring about voting than most voters put into voting.


Oh, I have that sllly agenda of mine about CCP stop preaching to the choir as first step into doing something for outlanders like me.

The CSM election plays a role into getting more people who do as Sugar and corbexx and actually step out and reach to the player base in search of answers to questions nobody asked before. Like, "what do you think about avatar customization?"

The day someone asks "why do carebears carebear in EVE?", the eye opening at CCP will be epic.

Meanwhile, CCP will keep doing things like the structures poll, where a player can say "No, I don't use structures" and "no, I never used them" and "no, I will never use them" and the next question is "what is the most important gameplay element that should be improved" rather than "why oh WHY you don't use, never used and never will use structures? What's wrong with them?" Roll

Preaching to the choir is such a great way to improve attendance to the mass... Blink
Nolak Ataru
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#65 - 2015-01-17 15:44:44 UTC
Aiyshimin wrote:
Nolak Ataru wrote:
Aiyshimin wrote:
Nolak Ataru wrote:
Hey corebloodbrothers, what first-hand experience do you have with ISBoxer? Have you talked to any ISBoxers, smacktalk and crying in local nonwithstanding? Did you even attempt to integrate anti-bomber ships into your fleet doctrines, including defensive DIC/HICs?

e: And Falcon, you're one to talk about acting like an adult after refusing to discuss this with the ISBoxer community before Jan1.


Nobody negotiated with the macro miner "community" when they were banned
Nobody negotiated with RMT "community" when they were banned
Nobody negotiated with ISBotter "community" when replication was banned

If it's bad for the game, it is and you happened to be part of the problem, when ban was the solution. Deal with it.


Macros are and have always been a gray area, but I assume you mean the more complicated macros that no longer require human interaction. Those are and have always been against the EULA under the botting clause, and the accelerated gameplay clause.
RMT is and has always been in violation of the EULA under the RMT clause and the clause regarding CCP's control over the game.
Your pitiful attempt at wordplay aside, ISBoxer was not in violation of the EULA, 6A3, the macro clause, or the control clause, and that fact had been repeatedly reinforced by CCP and GM responses to the troll threads on the forums. Lax worked with CCP in order to remove as much chance and possibility of turning ISBoxer into a botting program. Now corebloodbrother comes along and makes claims that broadcasting was somehow in violation of the EULA, or that ISBoxer was some instant-win button with no counters, or that (and this is my favorite) it's somehow the sole cause of problems in the game. I want to know what qualifications and experience he has with the product in question, much as an average Joe would want to know how much experience the dude he'll be electing to Congress, or the presidency.

Not even negotiation in the pure sense, but ISBoxers were willing to come to the table and discuss actual changes to the gameplay that would have a greater effect on their ability to box than the broadcast ban, which was recently laughed at by a video posted by Shadowandlight where he demonstrated a way to control a theoretically unlimited number of bombers that fell within the new EULA. And we're not even talking about how the boxing community was treated by CCP before the ban with reimbursements of ganked ships being handed out like condoms in a brothel, and then with CCP's refusal to talk to any ISBoxer seriously until after Jan1, even when they pointed out a dozen or more ways to attack ISBoxers with changes to gameplay mechanics (let alone fleet doctrines, EWAR, or ganks) that would have had a greater effect on ISBoxers.


Input broadcasting is currently treated equal to input automation and is bannable, if you are aware of a way to use a 3rd party program to simulate either behaviour, your duty is to report it.

Your ISBotting habits garner no sympathy from the players nor the developers, so you are free to go bot in some other game.

You don't know what I'm saying, so I'll try to say it slower. ISBoxer. Is. Not. Banned. I couldn't give two hoots about some whiner in local who doesn't dare get a catalyst and do something in a player-built universe. Shadowandlight showed the EVE community a nice simple way around the broadcast ban, and there's at least a half-dozen other ways to circumvent the ban. I ask you to re-read the second paragraph as well.
Duckslayer
Horde Vanguard.
Pandemic Horde
#66 - 2015-01-17 16:50:25 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Leeloo
[Off-topic is against the forum rules – CCP Leeloo]
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#67 - 2015-01-17 17:58:54 UTC
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:

Preaching to the choir is such a great way to improve attendance to the mass... Blink


So how do you feel that refusing to participate in the process to advance your interests in any way at all and just sitting in a corner complaining you never get anything you want is working out for you? From memory, you have been conducting your campaign of intensive sulking and this-time-I'm-qutting-forever-I-REALLY-MEAN-IT for... how long? 3 years now? Or is it 4? Let's review what you think are the greatest things you've achieved in this way, shall we?

While you work on that list, I'll be re-reading the previous year's worth of patch notes that include industry reform, sov structures rebalancing, and of course the epic long distance travel changes. My oh my, I think I need an umbrella: it's just raining actual results on my poor little head.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Salem Aivo
#68 - 2015-01-19 15:34:48 UTC
CCP Leeloo wrote:
Milla Goodpussy wrote:

so to speak honestly about it would get completely censored..

I will repeat, in case you missed:
CCP Falcon wrote:
send us an email to internalaffairs@ccpgames.cominstead of crowing about it on the forums.
I don't think his intention was to "crow about it", but was to explain that the issue most people have with mailing to a CCP address is that the general feeling is that it will get swept under the rug. If it's anything like every other report ever made, the reporter usually gets a message back saying "We're looking at it, honest" and then nothing happens. You can hardly blame people for having no faith that the correct process is followed behind the scenes when that is what happens.

Personally I believe the CSM has run it's course. While there's little traceable evidence to rely on, many people get the feeling that things discussed in the CSM affect the decisions those people make, and with many of them being in significant positions within groups in the game, those decisions have huge effects. Whether they mean to or not, upcoming changes they discuss changes the way their groups play. Since the CSM also seem to be getting left out of the loop and questions from the community are still going unanswered, it leaves the question: what are they there for?
marly cortez
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#69 - 2015-01-19 21:25:39 UTC
A Vote for the CSM is in the view of a lot of players a wasted vote.

Instead players should use the best version of the CSM they have and vote with there feet.

Humanity is the thin veneer that remains after you remove the baffled chimp.
Katrina Bekers
A Blessed Bean
Pandemic Horde
#70 - 2015-01-20 17:06:15 UTC
Mike Azariah wrote:
Katrina Bekers wrote:
And yet not a single grateful word on Dolan and Xhagen, and their legacy - on top of which everything was built.


We were asked about what went on this year.


Yes, Mike, you're right.

Dolan left after fanfest, beginning of may 2014, a mere nine months ago.

I think it could have been a good chance to thank him, in reviewing what happened this year.

But that's me.

And I still have tons of pics to send you. Shame on me.

<< THE RABBLE BRIGADE >>
Xenuria
#71 - 2015-02-01 16:41:37 UTC
jason hill wrote:
meet the new team..... same as the old team What?Cry


Not if I have anything to say about it.
Cool

CSM 12 Candidate
Michael Ruckert
Hohere Kavallerie-Kommando
#72 - 2015-02-01 17:57:52 UTC
I read the blog in it's entirety. I thank each of the CSM members who did contribute for their well-written summaries, honesty and candor. I have a much better appreciation for the time and effort CSM members spend working with CCP and the player community. Each of you who worked so hard as volunteers can be proud of your achievements. o7!

And a request to the CCP BIG BOSS. Give CCP Falcon a raise, a bonus, and a paid vacation to a warm, tropical environment. He deserves it!

"No matter how well you perform there's always somebody of intelligent opinion who thinks it's lousy." - Laurence Olivier
Dave Stark
#73 - 2015-02-01 20:34:04 UTC
CCP Logibro wrote:
we decided that CSM members should speak directly to you

CCP Logibro wrote:
With almost no edits made


after reading about the slapfight on twitter between funkybacon, and leeloo, then seeing that...

**** me, this is comedy gold.
BadAssMcKill
Aliastra
#74 - 2015-02-01 20:54:20 UTC
Just get rid of the CSM and crowdsource your ideas from Reddit
Azami Nevinyrall
172.0.0.1
#75 - 2015-02-01 23:28:56 UTC
CCP Falcon wrote:
Marlona Sky wrote:
@Sion -

The reason why CCP is hesitant in having the CSM in the loop on major changes is because it has become very apparent to them and even the player base - there is some loose lips on the CSM. it is no secret that some CSM members are there to gain insight on upcoming changes so they and their constituents can gain an advantage. We need CSM members who are there for the entire player base and the health of the game. Not just them and theirs.

Until this changes, don't be surprised with the short notices on upcoming changes.


Have something you want to tell us?

If so, be a responsible adult and send us an email to internalaffairs@ccpgames.com instead of crowing about it on the forums.

If not, feel free to take your completely unsubstantiated rumors somewhere else, most likely to a third party bittervet forum for further discussion and conspiracy theory-crafting.

We have rules against rumor mongering and ranting here, fyi.


I really should pay more attention to the forums, there's a bit of stuff going on between CCP and the CSM.

*grabs popcorn*

also, Bravo Falcon! Free internet like for you!

...