These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Assembly Hall

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

CSMX - SUMMIT I

First post First post
Author
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
#101 - 2015-09-29 06:49:44 UTC
Cearain wrote:
It seems csm and ccp post more constructive posts outside of the eve-o forums on various blogs and other forums which means players need to go on a scavenger hunt to find out what they are thinking about their area of the game. Actually CCP Leeloo seems to have recognized this and tried to give us a resource to help search the world wide web and see what it is our csm actually think.

This is something I don't like. There was a topic about missiles rebalance/mods on official forums and I've heard there was a disscussion on reddit about it with devs involved. Madness.
Cearain wrote:
Tell me what any csm member other than sugar kyle proposed about faction war. Go ahead search the web and try to see what they think about it. Let me know.

EvE has broad spectrum of activities, we can't assume CSM members done all of them. I'm playing for 2,5 year and don't even touch FW because of standing loss. Maybe it's time to vote for some kind of ppl good at one aspect of the game like low-sec, WHs, Industry etc. instead random dozen with 1/3 of them comes from goons just beacuse they have crushing voting supremacy comes from alliance numbers.
Cearain wrote:
The fact is there is no transparency until after the meeting. We have no clue what they are going to push going into the meeting. Even sugar kyle just mentioned some tweaks to faction war that ccp was considering. She was supposed to actually present something but I don’t think eve players had access to what it was, so they could discuss it *before* it was presented.
This is not to indict of Sugar Kyle or anyone on csm. But it is an indictment of the general way that csm works. And it is why Sion is right. Some things need to change. There has to be more transparency and use of the players' knowledge.

Most of it is NDA, but last time Fozzieman spoke too much on o7 show about minerals change and there was speculation on market.

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

CCP FoxFour
C C P
C C P Alliance
#102 - 2015-09-29 09:07:45 UTC
Vilar Diin wrote:
CCP Foxfour,

I saw that you are considering charging for different cloak colors and it made think of the old cloaking sound as well as the old strip miner sound.

Is there a way to make different sounds available for items and then charge for them or is that not possible (non-coder here )?


It could be done I suppose. I cannot think of any technical issues that would stand in the way.

@CCP_FoxFour // Technical Designer // Team Tech Co

Third-party developer? Check out the official developers site for dev blogs, resources, and more.

Master Sergeant MacRobert
Space-Brewery-Association
#103 - 2015-09-29 12:21:07 UTC
I just like to say.....


"Never gonna give you up, never gonna let you down".


Perhaps there was such a large amount of content with the PvE (yeah, actually I mean FW) discussion that the minutes are pages and pages long? Big smile

"Remedy this situation or you shall live out the rest of your life in a pain amplifier"

Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#104 - 2015-09-29 15:22:35 UTC
Master Sergeant MacRobert wrote:
I just like to say.....


"Never gonna give you up, never gonna let you down".


Perhaps there was such a large amount of content with the PvE (yeah, actually I mean FW) discussion that the minutes are pages and pages long? Big smile



According to Sugar Kyle's blog there was some corruption of files. But she is putting it together.

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

Indahmawar Fazmarai
#105 - 2015-09-29 20:39:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Indahmawar Fazmarai
Master Sergeant MacRobert wrote:
I just like to say.....


"Never gonna give you up, never gonna let you down".


Perhaps there was such a large amount of content with the PvE (yeah, actually I mean FW) discussion that the minutes are pages and pages long? Big smile


More likely they're trying to figure a way so 3 minutes of casual talking while half the CSM was outside of the boardroom looks as if CCP cares for PvE players... What?
Nofearion
Tr0pa de elite.
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#106 - 2015-09-30 10:02:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Nofearion
Cearain wrote:
Nofearion wrote:


We already have an area on the forums where dedicated players can voice concerns and propose new ideas. or sometimes old ideas in a new way.
CCP and the CSM do watch these threads and look for trends.



I think there is very little evidence of this. They might be looking at trends and not posting, who knows? But looking at trends is very different from engaging and asking questions about ideas. I am not really sure what valuable information you could get from looking at trends on these forums anyway. The up vote system is pretty broken and half of the posts are personal digs at people instead of addressing actual ideas for the game.


I used to think as you do. I actually took the time to look, and then write a letter to several Devs directly including some of my favorite CSM candidates.
I received replies from 1 dev on behalf of the rest and from two CSM members.
My concerns were noted, evidence of my past posting was used.
The simple explanation is that we are many, devs are few, they cannot possible answer and discuss every item on every thread.
They do look at trends, and give weight to popular ideas. EVE is a vast game, even at their largest CCP does not have the manpower to address every aspect of EVE in one go. I for one want our Devs and CSM working not reading and replying to every sub topic. Sometimes it is better to look at the forest and not worry about a few bad trees until they become a fire hazard.
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#107 - 2015-09-30 13:42:56 UTC
Nofearion wrote:
Cearain wrote:
Nofearion wrote:


We already have an area on the forums where dedicated players can voice concerns and propose new ideas. or sometimes old ideas in a new way.
CCP and the CSM do watch these threads and look for trends.



I think there is very little evidence of this. They might be looking at trends and not posting, who knows? But looking at trends is very different from engaging and asking questions about ideas. I am not really sure what valuable information you could get from looking at trends on these forums anyway. The up vote system is pretty broken and half of the posts are personal digs at people instead of addressing actual ideas for the game.


I used to think as you do. I actually took the time to look, and then write a letter to several Devs directly including some of my favorite CSM candidates.
I received replies from 1 dev on behalf of the rest and from two CSM members.
My concerns were noted, evidence of my past posting was used.
The simple explanation is that we are many, devs are few, they cannot possible answer and discuss every item on every thread.
They do look at trends, and give weight to popular ideas. EVE is a vast game, even at their largest CCP does not have the manpower to address every aspect of EVE in one go. I for one want our Devs and CSM working not reading and replying to every sub topic. Sometimes it is better to look at the forest and not worry about a few bad trees until they become a fire hazard.



I have to say that asking all the thousands of players to try to take up a private coorespondance with each csm member is about the worst idea out there. There is no transparancy for one. Are the csm going to privately tell every person "yes I agree" even when they recieve contradictory advise? Who knows?

Second it is an incredibly ineffecient way to communicate with thousands of players to ask them each to individually write you and then you can individually respond. And what sort of in depth discussion could writing a letter have?

I don't expect csm to answer every thread on every type of forum. That is the point. There should be *one* thread for each topic they intend to address and the csm who is addressing that topic only need to check one place. The ideas are out in the open (not just through private letters) and the community can actually take part in the process.

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

Mike Azariah
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#108 - 2015-09-30 15:11:31 UTC
Cearain wrote:


I don't expect csm to answer every thread on every type of forum. That is the point. There should be *one* thread for each topic they intend to address and the csm who is addressing that topic only need to check one place. The ideas are out in the open (not just through private letters) and the community can actually take part in the process.


A few issues.
1) Not all csm read the forums, nor do they want to. Have you seen the volume of material produced here each day?

2) We have threads started by players about various topics, often overlapping or resurrected from the dead pile. One thread per topic is a nice idea but topics wander. Hell this one is about a summit that has ended and yet here we are talking about how representation needs to be done.

3) People already listen to others whom they trust. How do you see the forums different from listening in private. I know that I am odd in that I do not often look at who said what until after I have read the text. (Teacher training, helps keep bias out of the response)

4) Ideas in the open? I agree. Always have. (with the exception of NDA material) Hammering out details or fine tuning sometimes needs a more focused subgroup as the signal to noise ratio in a large group is low. Now if you want to take issue with who or how said subgroup is chosen, I will be right there with you.

5) Oh, and thousands do not write us. Most play the game happily ignorant of the CSM's existence. Others are sure we are naught but a publicity campaign or a deflection shield for player criticism. Hell I would welcome more mail from players.

Me? I am hoping that the day 4 minutes come out soon. That being the main reason I still haunt this thread.

m

Mike Azariah  ┬──┬ ¯|(ツ)

Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#109 - 2015-09-30 16:04:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Cearain
Mike Azariah wrote:
Cearain wrote:


I don't expect csm to answer every thread on every type of forum. That is the point. There should be *one* thread for each topic they intend to address and the csm who is addressing that topic only need to check one place. The ideas are out in the open (not just through private letters) and the community can actually take part in the process.


A few issues.
1) Not all csm read the forums, nor do they want to. Have you seen the volume of material produced here each day?

2) We have threads started by players about various topics, often overlapping or resurrected from the dead pile. One thread per topic is a nice idea but topics wander. Hell this one is about a summit that has ended and yet here we are talking about how representation needs to be done.

3) People already listen to others whom they trust. How do you see the forums different from listening in private. I know that I am odd in that I do not often look at who said what until after I have read the text. (Teacher training, helps keep bias out of the response)

4) Ideas in the open? I agree. Always have. (with the exception of NDA material) Hammering out details or fine tuning sometimes needs a more focused subgroup as the signal to noise ratio in a large group is low. Now if you want to take issue with who or how said subgroup is chosen, I will be right there with you.

5) Oh, and thousands do not write us. Most play the game happily ignorant of the CSM's existence. Others are sure we are naught but a publicity campaign or a deflection shield for player criticism. Hell I would welcome more mail from players.

Me? I am hoping that the day 4 minutes come out soon. That being the main reason I still haunt this thread.

m



Mike thanks for the concerns.

Ill just address each numbered point:


1)Again what you say is the point that needs to be addressed. The idea is not that the csm should read all the forums. Rather I say if a csm member is going to present something to ccp then that csm member could post some of their ideas in a single thread. Players could pitch in their ideas. (again if you want to reduce the amount of noise ask that players only post in one or 2 such csm topics)

The current situation effectively means no one has any clue what the csm are doing with ccp. Like I said, csm had a session with ccp about faction war. Did anyone know what the csm was going to tell ccp before other than the csm members themselves and perhaps thier relatively small cliques of friends? No because there is no format where players can easily learn what csm are thinking on the topics they are interested in.

Look on reddit look at blogs listen to podcasts and hope some of these mention something you're interested in. The thing is EVE is so big that most likely most of what is posted/said there will not be of interest to most players. By having a seperate thread for a topic players can learn what the csm thinks about the topics that are important to them. Why should I have to register for reddit and a thousand different blogs in order to talk about ccp's csm?



2) Topics can wander no doubt sometimes it is because the effects of what is talked about go beyond what people think. Other times its because people are off topic. We are talking about how representation needs to be done in this thread because it seems it was a topic of the summit. But yes this thread would be overbroad. The thread topics should be of more limited scope but some leeway should be offered. There is no magic formula but its also not an impossible task. Honestly, unless csm can actually get player input csm is at best a waste and at worst misleading ccp about what players want.

3) Transparency transparency transparency. Now CSM are seen as just a bunch of special interests that do not even allow players to know what they are advocating until it is done. And until csm opens up beyond private emails with thier friends this view will be justified. I have no idea who you speak to nor do I care. I am however interested in the *ideas* you want to present to ccp. Why wouldn't you (or other csm) want players to know what ideas you intend to propose, so they can give input?

Right now the messages and formats are so diverse across the internet they are effectively hidden.

4) I am glad you are all for openness. I would suggest that csm members simply start a seperate thread about what they might talk about for the next summit. So for example, if you were planning on presenting something in the fw topic then you would put in to that thread what you wanted to say. If you had nothing you were planning to say in the fw thread then you wouldn't *need* to follow it the thread at all. No one from csm would need to post at all. But then don't be surprised when players think little of csm.

Players who are interested in that topic can post. If the thread gets too unwieldly you have to at least count it as some sort of plus in that players are actually taking interest in the csm. But yes there might be negatives to the threads getting too large. And in those cases moderation or splitting of topics may need to happen.

Not consider an idea due to some personal grudge against the poster? That fits the view many players have that csm are just special interest groups for their friends.

5) I would like to know what your views are on topics. Private emails you have with others is not going to help.

Let's say day 4 comes out and people want to address some of the topics in an open way. Wouldn't it be nice if there was a seperate thread for each topic? I mean posting in this thread will just a be a huge mass of different topics. That is all I am suggesting. I would just like to see separate threads that address the topics csm intends to propose to ccp. Is that asking too much?

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

Mike Azariah
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#110 - 2015-09-30 18:45:29 UTC
Cearain wrote:


Let's say day 4 comes out and people want to address some of the topics in an open way. Wouldn't it be nice if there was a seperate thread for each topic? I mean posting in this thread will just a be a huge mass of different topics. That is all I am suggesting. I would just like to see separate threads that address the topics csm intends to propose to ccp. Is that asking too much?


Nope, and a few folks help by sending links to threads they have started to csm asking for comments. That removes the 'private clique' aspect and helps save the csm from having to wade into the forum muck looking for gems

m

Mike Azariah  ┬──┬ ¯|(ツ)

Karti Aivo
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#111 - 2015-10-03 18:16:25 UTC
The Day 4 minute PDF closes with "this is the end of Day Two".

other than that, thanks!! Lots of NDA, but thanks!
CCP Falcon
#112 - 2015-10-03 18:29:21 UTC
Karti Aivo wrote:
The Day 4 minute PDF closes with "this is the end of Day Two".

other than that, thanks!! Lots of NDA, but thanks!


This is fixed.

There was also an entire session missing, which has also been fixed.

Sorry for the confusion!

Big smile

CCP Falcon || EVE Universe Community Manager || @CCP_Falcon

Happy Birthday To FAWLTY7! <3

Salpun
Global Telstar Federation Offices
SLYCE Pirates
#113 - 2015-10-03 18:42:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Salpun
CCP Falcon wrote:
Karti Aivo wrote:
The Day 4 minute PDF closes with "this is the end of Day Two".

other than that, thanks!! Lots of NDA, but thanks!


This is fixed.

There was also an entire session missing, which has also been fixed.

Sorry for the confusion!

Big smile



Which section was missing? The pdf version has not changed.
edit: Info about Faction warfare and PVE was missing in the first version per the new post.

If i dont know something about EVE. I check https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/ISK_The_Guide

See you around the universe.

Mike Azariah
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#114 - 2015-10-03 19:40:02 UTC
Salpun
Global Telstar Federation Offices
SLYCE Pirates
#115 - 2015-10-03 19:47:35 UTC
Mike Azariah wrote:
http://cdn1.eveonline.com/community/csm/Meetings/summit/CSM10-S1-D4.pdf

http://cdn1.eveonline.com/community/csm/Meetings/summit/CSM10-S1-D4.txt

links for the last day

m

still not the new version for meWhat?

If i dont know something about EVE. I check https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/ISK_The_Guide

See you around the universe.

Kynric
Sky Fighters
Rote Kapelle
#116 - 2015-10-03 20:28:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Kynric
With regard to the comments on headshotting FCs being an issue; has anyone comsidered simply not showing the pilots name on the overview. That is a very strong piece of intel which is not necessary. Ship names could be displayed instead, tags and broadcasts used to designate the target. I cant think of any military reason a pilot would want to share that intel.
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#117 - 2015-10-03 20:38:23 UTC
still no mention of when T3 cruisers are going too get a nerf bat/ rebalance, its sooooo.. overdue and needed.

links should be a permanent bubble (invisible) that buffs anyone inside it from say 50km upto 75km maybe, as the different types of links could have different ranges, say siege and armour links could be shorter ranged than the info and skirmish links.

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using

motie one
Secret Passage
#118 - 2015-10-03 22:57:17 UTC
10:56 Gmt still showing the old version, looks like you might have an issue with the CDN
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#119 - 2015-10-04 00:41:56 UTC
http://pastebin.com/TiSSBX43 if you want the text from the missing section.

(the CDN has long cache timers. Depends where you are in the world, what you see)

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter

Masao Kurata
Perkone
Caldari State
#120 - 2015-10-04 01:00:10 UTC
So the Tribute System is... daily quests? Really? What? And indeed it's an ISK faucet Sad

I'm very disappointed that Sugar Kyle apparently doesn't know the difference between faction police and faction navy but still thinks they should be buffed.

No mention of pinning LP payouts at tier 5 for kills? What's the holdup on that?