These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
12Next page
 

CSM: A Publicity Stunt Or Actually Useful?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Veldspar And Scordite
Just One More Cycle
Ankle Biter's
#1 - 2017-03-27 12:02:56 UTC
From the many csm candidates I have watched on youtube and the interview with them in pod casts I have heard I have often wondered what the CSM actually do in this game and I have ran into a couple points consistently and with out fail. These points are that they are a communication link between CCP and the player base. Also that they communicate issues and suggest workarounds/solutions to problems in game.

This on the surface sounds quite genuine and quite good for a game with thousands of players and personalities and to the best of what I have seen in other MMOs is a first. This to me is something of a conflict to me as I personally have also heard on the exact same interviews and seen in the exact same videos that important workarounds and nurfs was not talked about in detail or actually brought up on these summits.

The Rorqual befor it was brought into the game as a miner was sugested to have insane mining potential and we got a discussion forum to talk about it and sugest changes to the origional stats. This forum I am assuming had been ignored as the issues that were brought up by the vast ammount of players were realized and shown to be true. I would also put the assumption that the CSM were also talking about these problems with ccp in person but to no actual result as they were pushed out exactly the same as what a dev posted months in advance.

The plex split was something that apparantly wasnt even told in any form of detail to the csm befor it was pushed out and neither were the nurfs to fighter ratting or anything of the sort which is important.

Every big feature ccp have pushed out hasnt been talked about with the CSM in detail so I am confused in what their actual point in existance realy is.

If the CSM have actualy done anything I would like them to show it with links and have a dev back them up but I am sure they will just say that its all under NDA and they are very buisy working along side devs to better the game. I would legit like to understand the use of the CSM befor I consider voting next year.

Curently all i see are players becoming candidates on a eve version of X-Factor all trying to grab a free holiday to Iceland.

Wonder how many people will give a structured answer to my question or just call me a troll/noob/****** simply for asking a simple question. Is the CSM a publicity stunt and why should I vote for them?


I waited until AFTER voting was finnished befor posting this as to not impact the curent elections hype
Neuntausend
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#2 - 2017-03-27 12:36:38 UTC
What people - even many CSM candidates - fail to understand is, that the CSM can't "do" anything. Some CSM candidates build their platform on some aspects of the game that they think need to be changed in one way or another, and people vote for them expecting them to actually make a change happen, provided they get elected. That is however not how any of this works. The CSM does not develop this game, and the CSM cannot tell CCP how to develop Eve.

The only thing the CSM *can* do is talk to Devs and give Feedback on existing or planned features, and that's pretty much about it. CCP are in no way obligated to listen to anything the CSM says. People also complain that there is no way to check what each of the CSM members actually does, but in fact there is: It's called the CSM Minutes, and it will tell you what has been discussed, and what the stance of the CSM members was on a certain topic.

So, the CSM is what the name says: A "Council" - they can counsel CCP on things, but they cannot make any decisions. So I always find it a bit odd when people ask what a particular CSM member has "done", or when they claim that CSM member soandso has "done" this or "done" that. They can'd "do" anything but give feedback.

I still think the CSM is a good thing - it's a filter. Just look at this community, at the eve-o forums or r/eve - it's a cesspool of whiny, entitled and very easily offended online gamers. It's quite difficult to get any meaningful feedback out of that, which is why focus groups are used. At least with those you can typically have a conversation in a more or less civilized manner. And where usually the company would pick out the focus group, here in Eve the players are allowed to pick their own representatives, which is also not a bad thing.

All in all, the CSM is not a bad thing, but people should lower their expectations a bit. It's not supposed to be the powerful decision making entity people often expect it to be.
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#3 - 2017-03-27 12:45:01 UTC
The CSM is a scam. Any organized groups such as alliances / coalitions will easily outvote unorganized groups like the rest of the player base as long as voting is not mandatory. Its basic political science. When your alliance leaders direct you to vote for its candidate most will vote for that candidate. When you consider alt accounts a coalition might easily have more votes for that candidate than actual subscribers in EvE (CFC @ 40k votes x alt accounts).

Pays to do a little research on the so called independent CSM as well, some are in alliances corps that are affiliated with the but bigger alliances coalitions.

At most they represent parts of the player base in a very biased way.

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#4 - 2017-03-27 12:49:34 UTC
Neuntausend wrote:


All in all, the CSM is not a bad thing, but people should lower their expectations a bit. It's not supposed to be the powerful decision making entity people often expect it to be.


A lot of people really need to think about this.
Salvos Rhoska
#5 - 2017-03-27 12:56:47 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Neuntausend wrote:


All in all, the CSM is not a bad thing, but people should lower their expectations a bit. It's not supposed to be the powerful decision making entity people often expect it to be.


A lot of people really need to think about this.

I think most people know that.

At this point they are more concerned about undue influence and insider info.

PvE v PvP <> Old School Exploration <> CODE Licenses <> CODE Special Agent
Gregorius Goldstein
Queens of the Drone Age
#6 - 2017-03-27 12:59:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Gregorius Goldstein
The CSM may not be representing all EVE players but only the bigger organized blocks, but that is still better than no focus group. Direct feedback from all players would be more democratic but less useful to CCP. Do focus groups like the CSM neglect the opinions and needs smaller player groups? Certainly, but some kind of filter is needed to keep things on a manageable level. “Everybody tell us what you think and want please” would only be a placebo because there was no time/way to read/listen to such much input anyway. Liquid feedback sounds better in theory than it works out in reality.
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#7 - 2017-03-27 13:04:11 UTC
I never understand the criticism of the CSM and 'organized' groups. If you don't like organized groups of people voting against what you think are your interests, why aren't you organizing your own group?

(Rhetorical question, everyone knows the answer, which is that "impotent rage is easier than positive action")
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#8 - 2017-03-27 13:09:07 UTC
Gregorius Goldstein wrote:
The CSM may not be representing all EVE players but only the bigger organized blocks, but that is still better than no focus group. Direct feedback from all players would be more democratic but less useful to CCP. Do focus groups like the CSM neglect the opinions and needs smaller player groups? Certainly, but some kind of filter is needed to keep things on a manageable level. “Everybody tell us what you think and want please” would only be a placebo because there was no time/way to read/listen to such much input anyway. Liquid feedback sounds better in theory than it works out in reality.

It was the bias of the larger blocs which resulted in years of blue donut.

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#9 - 2017-03-27 13:14:56 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
I never understand the criticism of the CSM and 'organized' groups. If you don't like organized groups of people voting against what you think are your interests, why aren't you organizing your own group?

(Rhetorical question, everyone knows the answer, which is that "impotent rage is easier than positive action")

So your answer to the issue of blocs outvoting non-blocs is to create more blocs? That's as smart as saying people who don't like criminal gangs should start their own criminal gang.

Better solution is to eliminate the manipulation from the vote.

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#10 - 2017-03-27 13:20:51 UTC
Infinity Ziona wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
I never understand the criticism of the CSM and 'organized' groups. If you don't like organized groups of people voting against what you think are your interests, why aren't you organizing your own group?

(Rhetorical question, everyone knows the answer, which is that "impotent rage is easier than positive action")

So your answer to the issue of blocs outvoting non-blocs is to create more blocs? That's as smart as saying people who don't like criminal gangs should start their own criminal gang.

Better solution is to eliminate the manipulation from the vote.


You want to prevent people from voting for who they think is the bests candidates?
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#11 - 2017-03-27 13:23:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenn aSide
Infinity Ziona wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
I never understand the criticism of the CSM and 'organized' groups. If you don't like organized groups of people voting against what you think are your interests, why aren't you organizing your own group?

(Rhetorical question, everyone knows the answer, which is that "impotent rage is easier than positive action")

So your answer to the issue of blocs outvoting non-blocs is to create more blocs? That's as smart as saying people who don't like criminal gangs should start their own criminal gang.

Better solution is to eliminate the manipulation from the vote.


Which is why I use the term "impotent". You're literally saying "stop people from doing people things". That's stupid and undoable, if you believe what you are saying, why not find others who believe the same? No one says you have to fly with them.

I know, another rhetorical question, because damn near no one agrees with you so why would they ever vote like you lol.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#12 - 2017-03-27 13:26:19 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
I never understand the criticism of the CSM and 'organized' groups. If you don't like organized groups of people voting against what you think are your interests, why aren't you organizing your own group?

(Rhetorical question, everyone knows the answer, which is that "impotent rage is easier than positive action")

So your answer to the issue of blocs outvoting non-blocs is to create more blocs? That's as smart as saying people who don't like criminal gangs should start their own criminal gang.

Better solution is to eliminate the manipulation from the vote.


Which is why I use the term "impotent". You're literally saying "stop people from doing people things". That's stupid and undoable, if you believe what you are saying, why not find others who believe the same? No one says you have to fly with them.

I know, another rhetorical question, because damn near no one agrees with you so why would they ever vote like you lol.


The chances of Ziona ever going from whining to action are the same as the chances as Ziona going from rage quit posting to biomassing.

We both know what those odds are.
Cade Windstalker
#13 - 2017-03-27 15:13:54 UTC
Veldspar And Scordite wrote:
The Rorqual befor it was brought into the game as a miner was sugested to have insane mining potential and we got a discussion forum to talk about it and sugest changes to the origional stats. This forum I am assuming had been ignored as the issues that were brought up by the vast ammount of players were realized and shown to be true. I would also put the assumption that the CSM were also talking about these problems with ccp in person but to no actual result as they were pushed out exactly the same as what a dev posted months in advance.


You may want to go actually read the thread in question before declaring that CCP don't listen to the playerbase or declaring the players prophets. Like 90% of the feedback in that thread is "OMG, why would I ever bring something this expensive on-grid!?!?!" and that was when the price of those drones was estimated to be less than 250m a piece. End result, CCP high-balled the yield, a lot, and we got a flood of Rorquals.

Veldspar And Scordite wrote:
The plex split was something that apparantly wasnt even told in any form of detail to the csm befor it was pushed out and neither were the nurfs to fighter ratting or anything of the sort which is important.


I've heard nothing suggesting the CSM didn't hear about or give feedback on either of these, and this comment by Bobmon suggests the CSM absolutely knew about the Fighter changes before hand.


Just because you personally don't like something doesn't make it a bad decision on CCP's part. Just because the CSM isn't publicly clamoring for dev skulls in response to a change doesn't mean they didn't give feedback on it.

Feedback does not just mean "do you like this or not", quite often it means "can anyone offer any substantive objections to this or reasons why we shouldn't make this change for X reasons?" That's what the CSM exists for, to get to see some or all of CCP's reasoning or advanced plans so they can test the waters and get feedback ahead of changes being made.

If you're expecting the CSM to just go "players won't like that!" you're going to be disappointed. Someone has disliked every single change CCP has ever done, that people won't like something getting nerfed (or buffed for that matter) is not surprising to CCP.

It kinda seems like you have bigger expectations of the CSM than is realistic. Go talk to some of the CSMs, message them in-game or on Reddit. Most are pretty happy to talk about what the CSM does and how they feel it contributes, you'll get a better answer that way than you will from a bunch of Very Important Opinions on here.
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#14 - 2017-03-27 15:20:06 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:



Just because you personally don't like something doesn't make it a bad decision on CCP's part. Just because the CSM isn't publicly clamoring for dev skulls in response to a change doesn't mean they didn't give feedback on it.

Feedback does not just mean "do you like this or not", quite often it means "can anyone offer any substantive objections to this or reasons why we shouldn't make this change for X reasons?" That's what the CSM exists for, to get to see some or all of CCP's reasoning or advanced plans so they can test the waters and get feedback ahead of changes being made.

If you're expecting the CSM to just go "players won't like that!" you're going to be disappointed. Someone has disliked every single change CCP has ever done, that people won't like something getting nerfed (or buffed for that matter) is not surprising to CCP.

It kinda seems like you have bigger expectations of the CSM than is realistic. Go talk to some of the CSMs, message them in-game or on Reddit. Most are pretty happy to talk about what the CSM does and how they feel it contributes, you'll get a better answer that way than you will from a bunch of Very Important Opinions on here.


Well said. People are so sure they are right, that when CCp doesn't instantly surrender to their wants, it turns in to "CCP isn't listening to feedback!!!".

I say this as someone who has from time to time given warnings to CCP about consequences they may not be considering Sometimes I've been right and the bad consequences happened.
I don't think that means CCP doesn't listen, it means that CCP are different people form me, with different thought processes and beliefs and knowledge (the last part is important, I never let myself forget that CCP has more information about everything than I do).

It doesn't help that in those feedback thread a sizeable chunk of asocial nerds will be screaming at the developers and talking about how they should lose their jobs because they took a low slot off an imaginary spaceship or something lol. If I were an EVE DEV I wouldn't post much here either Evil
Alexander Bor
Polaris Global
#15 - 2017-03-27 15:20:55 UTC
Agree with topic starter. Current CSM need to be deeply restructured.
Issler Dainze
Tadakastu-Obata Corporation
The Honda Accord
#16 - 2017-03-27 16:24:41 UTC
The fact of the matter was the CSM was formed to be a player based oversight organization. It was a reaction to the BPO scandal back in the BOB days and later the POS exploit. The POS exploit was the first time I got to learn about on my first CSM term. It was good PR for CCP and early on it also was briefed on things like the Eve economy back when they had a full time economist.

What it is today I can say for sure. What I saw in the later days of my experience as a CSM is that it is populated by folks that think they can somehow become game designers by being part of the CSM or others that think their ginormous alliance should have some CSM presence because. I don't think the CSM serves its initial intended purpose anymore. But the CSM is now part of the rich meta of Eve so I think it should continue as it does seem to create the occasional drama and what would Eve be without all manner of drama!
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#17 - 2017-03-27 16:26:01 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
I never understand the criticism of the CSM and 'organized' groups. If you don't like organized groups of people voting against what you think are your interests, why aren't you organizing your own group?

(Rhetorical question, everyone knows the answer, which is that "impotent rage is easier than positive action")

So your answer to the issue of blocs outvoting non-blocs is to create more blocs? That's as smart as saying people who don't like criminal gangs should start their own criminal gang.

Better solution is to eliminate the manipulation from the vote.


Which is why I use the term "impotent". You're literally saying "stop people from doing people things". That's stupid and undoable, if you believe what you are saying, why not find others who believe the same? No one says you have to fly with them.

I know, another rhetorical question, because damn near no one agrees with you so why would they ever vote like you lol.

Nope I'm saying the voting process needs a rethink. But nice strawman

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)
Veldspar And Scordite
Just One More Cycle
Ankle Biter's
#18 - 2017-03-31 10:18:04 UTC
my conclusion is that the csm is their to do things but isnt realy doing them so its a publicity stunt. Right ima run next year i fancy a trip to iceland and dont fancy paying for it!!!
Clockwork Robot
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#19 - 2017-03-31 10:25:12 UTC
Neither. Not a scam... Not useful.
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
#20 - 2017-03-31 10:52:11 UTC
Alexander Bor wrote:
Agree with topic starter. Current CSM need to be deeply restructured.

Into what exactly?
CSM is a group of players that is able to see new feature before playerbase and provide feedback. And that's all. It's better to talk with 10 people that 10 000.
Now is feedback from 10 people usefull? I don't think so. Focus groups are better but they are taking time.

"I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville
12Next page