These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Why the new voting system CCP?

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#121 - 2013-02-25 05:47:39 UTC
Nexus Day wrote:
OP, and others, are under the assumption that CSM's matter.

Bravo CCP. Bravo.
Cause CSM 6 and Crucible weren't connected at all.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Yonis Kador
KADORCORP
#122 - 2013-02-25 05:54:15 UTC
From the Retribution 1.1 Patch Notes:

Science and Industry

• With really good skills, NPC corp standing and a 50% base output NPC station you can now actually get a 100% refinery output.


Question:

If single players (the majority of characters on Tranquility) are about to be forced to anchor POS's and refining arrays to achieve perfect refine rates, why then did CCP buff perfect high sec refine rates only 5 days ago?

Just curious.

YK
Benny Ohu
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#123 - 2013-02-25 05:57:05 UTC
i've heard that it was a display issue only, that it was possible to achieve 100% before the patch but it didn't display as 100%

so it wasn't a buff but a fix. i hear.

from the latest CSM minutes i think soundwave expresses a view that noone should be able to get 100% but an outpost should be closest to it
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#124 - 2013-02-25 06:02:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Reaver Glitterstim
I don't have perfect refine skills but I've been receiving almost perfect refine in 40% stations for over a year, without refining implants. The 1% makes up about 3/4ths of what I lack, and I don't bother for anything more expensive because I'm not a refining tycoon and I scored good marks in maths.

It's 35% stations that I have trouble with.

It wasn't a display issue, really, though it could have been altered. The old system showed your refining efficiency for any ore which you didn't have a processing skill trained for. The problem was that after you trained ALL of the processing skills, it still displayed as if you didn't have any, even though for every ore you actually tried to refine, you got a better rate than was listed.

I need to check what's going on with that now. I initially thought it was a typo and they meant you could get perfect refine in a 35% station, but now that someone mentioned it might have been a display effect, I'm curious to see which it is (if either).

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Yonis Kador
KADORCORP
#125 - 2013-02-25 06:04:24 UTC
But that's not what it says.

It says "can now actually get" a perfect refine rate.

I'm no linguist, but shouldn't it read "fixed a display error" if that's what was fixed?

YK
Benny Ohu
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#126 - 2013-02-25 06:24:35 UTC
it is under the 'fixes' section, not changes. i'm going off one of mynnna's posts here

i suppose the particular note is just worded poorly vOv
dark heartt
#127 - 2013-02-25 06:25:09 UTC
If the highsec players were actually interested in the CSM we wouldn't be here.

http://tetrisisunrealistic.blogspot.com.au/
Yonis Kador
KADORCORP
#128 - 2013-02-25 06:30:57 UTC
I guess I haven't encountered that particular display error but if that's the case, then yes, its poorly worded. As in worded so poorly what is written does not mean what was done in the English language.

I just double-checked and my 50% stations display: net yield 100%.

I also know what Reaver is writing about. Yonis has the standings to be tax-free at 14 npc corps but according to ISK the Guide, he should need refinery efficiency 5 and each ore reprocessing skill at lvl 5 to get perfect refine rates w/o implants.

Ive got no implants, 4s across the board, and 100 percent yield.

As far as I can tell, the lvl 5s on all the refining skills aren't even necessary for perfect refine rates atm.

YK
Solstice Project
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#129 - 2013-02-25 08:36:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Solstice Project
Yonis Kador wrote:
If single players (the majority of characters on Tranquility)


Wow, why are there so many people reading things that aren't true ??

It means that most players have a "single playing" character !
That's what the CSM minutes say, not the other way round !

It does NOT mean that the majority of characters are single players !

If you don't understand the difference, then think about it for longer than 0.3 seconds !
You might actually learn something !
Josef Djugashvilis
#130 - 2013-02-25 08:38:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Josef Djugashvilis
Solstice Project wrote:
Yonis Kador wrote:
If single players (the majority of characters on Tranquility)


Wow, why are there so many people reading things that aren't true ??

It means that most players have a "single playing" character !
That's what the CSM minutes say, not the other way round !

It does NOT mean that the majority of characters are single players !

If you don't understand the difference, then think about it for longer than 0.3 seconds !
You might actually learn something !


!

Sorry, just couldn't resist the temptation !

This is not a signature.
Lapine Davion
Outer Ring Applied Logistics
#131 - 2013-02-25 08:40:15 UTC
dark heartt wrote:
If the highsec players were actually interested in the CSM we wouldn't be here.


As in, we wouldn't be here because eve online would no longer exist, or we wouldn't be here arguing about it?

[b]Don't worry about posting with your main!  Post with your brain! "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."[/b]
Aren Madigan
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#132 - 2013-02-25 08:49:16 UTC
Looking closer at the voting system... yeah, I can see the problems with the trickle down effect in a perfectly organized large voting block that would be impossible to beat... it does assume though that the TEST and Goon guys are a hive mind.... whiiiiich falls apart quite often in an anonymous election. If it DOES turn out that say that all or the majority are from a very small section of the player base because of failings in the voting system, I could see them doing a revote under a different system as that wouldn't be a healthy CSM team... or maybe they are counting on it turning out that way because they want a null alliance heavy CSM this year to focus on the broken issues out in null sec, what's causing things to apparently be too quiet out there and such... maybe I should stop theory crafting though *shrugs*. I'm interested in seeing what happens regardless since its pretty clear CSMs aren't the all powerful super beings some want to portray them as.
Yonis Kador
KADORCORP
#133 - 2013-02-25 08:53:12 UTC
Solstice Project wrote:
Yonis Kador wrote:
If single players (the majority of characters on Tranquility)


Wow, why are there so many people reading things that aren't true ??

It means that most players have a "single playing" character !
That's what the CSM minutes say, not the other way round !

It does NOT mean that the majority of characters are single players !

If you don't understand the difference, then think about it for longer than 0.3 seconds !
You might actually learn something !


From the 2012 Winter CSM minutes pg. 10:

"Unifex reminded the CSM once again that this group, the lurking single players who are already subscribed, are the majority of characters on Tranquility."

My reading comprehension is just fine. But thanks for the comments.

YK
March rabbit
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#134 - 2013-02-25 09:19:25 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Quote:
so they will just look after their bread and butter the veterans players and mostly anything that the goons want
If that were the case, technetium would no longer be a bottleneck and sov would have had a a few more iterations by now. Sadly, neither has happened.

really?

you really believe Goons want tech to not be bottleneck (having lots of money from it)? or they really want changes in sov-system AFTER they captured half of universe? Shocked

Last "war" between goons and tests shown what they REALLY want

The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
Snow Axe
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#135 - 2013-02-25 10:06:24 UTC
March rabbit wrote:
you really believe Goons want tech to not be bottleneck (having lots of money from it)? or they really want changes in sov-system AFTER they captured half of universe? Shocked


Mittani pushed pretty hard for Tech to be nerfed and replaced with a bottom-up income system that would benefit alliances regardless of where they lived. There also isn't a single null resident that doesn't want to see the Sov system massively changed - you mentioned the (lack of) Goons vs. Test war that nearly broke out, well, you can thank the abortion that is the Sov system for that. I'd bet hard currency that had the Sov system not been ****, we'd have found out about Montolio's ambitions when the Test and PL cap fleet started hitting our assets, not through whiny jabber broadcasts.

"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["
CCP Dolan
C C P
C C P Alliance
#136 - 2013-02-25 13:37:48 UTC
Oh jeez, I don't look at GD over the weekend and look what happens. For those of you who don't know I'm one of the three people behind the changes to this year's voting system (in addition to CCP Xhagen and CCP Veritas).

I'd like to clarify some comments about the new Single Transferable Vote (STV) system we are using, and why we chose to go with it. Many of the assumptions in this thread (including those of the OP) are relatively misguided. Rather than quoting from the thread I will just list the answers to a few common questions.


  • After looking at the results of previous elections, we found that the number of disenfranchised (wasted) votes was staggeringly high. In fact, the majority of votes cast had no effect on the results of the election, either because the candidate had too many over-votes or the candidate didn't make top 14. We found this level of disenfranchisement unacceptable, and recognized it was largely a flaw in our voting system (First Past the Post).
  • We also saw a potential issue in the fact that highly organized groups were able to use coordinated information gathering to ensure that their votes were more effectively placed than any unorganized voter ever could. This gave them a far lesser chance of being disenfranchised, on consequently more "effective power" per vote than an unorganized vote.
  • STV systems will drastically reduce the level of disenfranchisement by ensuring that voters have at least 14 options for their vote to be effectively placed. It also greatly reduces the "effective power" difference between organized and unorganized votes by having vote allocation built in as a fundamental part of the system for all voters.
  • We feel that STV will give us a very accurate representation of overall voter preference (keep in mind that we have no way of representing the views of those who do not vote).
  • We will be taking steps this year to ensure that the CSM Election is as visible as possible to all active players, in the hopes of increasing voter turnout.


For more information about STV Voting, feel free to check out some of these links:

* Wikipedia: Single Transferable Vote
* Wikipedia: Counting single transferable votes
* OpenSTV (Software)

I will be locking this thread as there is a significant amount of trolling, and there is already a thread here which is actively being followed by CCP and contains many clarifications to common questions.

CCP Dolan | Community Representative

Twitter: @CCPDolan

Gooby pls