These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

New Dev Blog: CSM December summit – meeting minutes are out

First post First post First post
Author
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
#501 - 2012-01-20 23:18:47 UTC
Plutonian wrote:

... and then an all-nullsec CSM tries to shift CCP's focus towards their own desires.

As a previous poster mentioned, for the first time in years I have faith in the playerbase. And my faith in CCP is growing. But after seeing these minutes, I cannot help but believe the CSM is the biggest threat to this game.

Agreed. CSM should not be used as a lobbyist platform for any special interest group.

Lobbyists are the bane of US politics and a major reason why a minority of the rich and influential can push through short-sighted government policies which benefit the few at the expense of the many.

Bad enough in government - fatal for a business.
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#502 - 2012-01-20 23:47:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Cearain
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:


This is why it is so important for the devs to engage directly with the community, and the change in tone over the last 6 months has been very encouraging. I have been pushing, and will continue to push, for more engagement, and for the devs to go direct to the relevant communities and gather feedback.

It's just good business.


Thank you Trebor. It is encouraging to know at least one of the current council members feels this way. I can't speak for other sub-communities, but at least with Faction Warfare the general wishes / desires of those who have paid to engage in that feature all these years should be pretty clear by now. That was the point of consolidating feedback into the threadnought, encouraging the community to keep their comments into the one thread for convenience purposes, and directly contacting the council with our wishes for the future. That, combined with the strong, almost unanimous opposition to the proposed plan discussed in the summit minutes, means that there is now officially no excuse for CCP or the CSM, for that matter, to say "we didn't know".

All is laid out on the table for the developers to see. We will no doubt keep the debates going (not all of us agree on the details, even if we all agree that FW is about small-scale, frequent PvP and not about Alliance emulation.) but part of that is that the discussions continue to generate some really solid solutions and ideas. The Dev's don't have to pull ideas out of a vacuum - players have already generated many excellent solutions worthy of discussion.

CCP Developers have all the tools in front of them they need to fully restore FW to its original vision and glory - a haven for casual, easy to get into, frequent PvP skirmishes, without the hassle and resource management needed to operate at the Alliance level. Whether they listen to us at this point is on them.

You are absolutely right, this is all about good business in the end - there are a couple thousand subscriptions that are dedicated FW players, and many more that are biding their time to see if CCP makes the right move and develops the feature with respect to what is important to the community. Countless more have quit the game waiting for this to come around, and might come back if FW gets fixed properly.

I hope CCP thinks about the isk, in the end - and realizes they just can't afford NOT to listen to their paying customers and propose plans for the future that ultimately will alienate the devoted pilots who have put the time into making FW fun all these years.

CCP probably feels they ARE listening to the community by hearing out the CSM. I just hope that they understand that like you said, sometimes even the CSM doesn't have the answers and that there's other experts they can rely on for advice within the community.


Seriously if CCP or CSM wants to know what the fw community wants, it can just ask Hans.

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

Ang Min
CPD Adventures Pte. Ltd.
#503 - 2012-01-21 07:21:52 UTC
Iwas There wrote:
Is the capital drive "spool up" supposed to apply also to jump freighters? That would be a crippling blow to lowsec logistics, as JF pilot could easily get camped in station by a single frigate with point... What?

This was discussed extensively earlier in this thread. My suggestion was that a "jump drive reactivation delay" would be better than a "spool up timer."
Sigras
Conglomo
#504 - 2012-01-21 08:59:06 UTC
well a frigate cant tank station guns but I get your point.

Has anyone discussed the problems with possible docking supercarriers? You thought the Moros was bad when playing station games? try the moros x5
Amelia Diamant
Perkone
Caldari State
#505 - 2012-01-21 09:38:46 UTC
Ang Min wrote:
Iwas There wrote:
Is the capital drive "spool up" supposed to apply also to jump freighters? That would be a crippling blow to lowsec logistics, as JF pilot could easily get camped in station by a single frigate with point... What?

This was discussed extensively earlier in this thread. My suggestion was that a "jump drive reactivation delay" would be better than a "spool up timer."


For the record, I agree with Zax on this one - this is a very fair, moderate suggestion. It would solve the issue with rapid capital movement, without seriously frustrating logistics in populated system. If a change must be made that will encompass all Jump Drive ships (JFs included), then this is the option I would support.
VC General
No Baals Inc
#506 - 2012-01-21 09:44:22 UTC
You don't need to worry about lobbyists with the CSM. They're a special interest group unto themselves. There aren't enough people in WH's to get a CSM seat, and most solo carebears don't care enough to vote. That means the whole thing is filled with lowsec pirates, and nullsec SpaceRisk players, and a smattering of carebears that get told to STFU and sit in the corner during meetings. Nearly every change they propose to something other than the playstyles they prefer, involves nerfing everyone else's ISK making, or making it easier for them use places they don't want to live as hunting grounds.
Two step
Aperture Harmonics
#507 - 2012-01-21 13:23:01 UTC
VC General wrote:
You don't need to worry about lobbyists with the CSM. They're a special interest group unto themselves. There aren't enough people in WH's to get a CSM seat, and most solo carebears don't care enough to vote. That means the whole thing is filled with lowsec pirates, and nullsec SpaceRisk players, and a smattering of carebears that get told to STFU and sit in the corner during meetings. Nearly every change they propose to something other than the playstyles they prefer, involves nerfing everyone else's ISK making, or making it easier for them use places they don't want to live as hunting grounds.


Uh, wormhole folks didn't get a *full* seat (this time), but they do have a rep on the CSM (me).

CSM 7 Secretary CSM 6 Alternate Delegate @two_step_eve on Twitter My Blog

Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
#508 - 2012-01-21 14:42:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Jade Constantine
It is the problem with the homogenous 0.0-only focus at the moment (which I know isn't *totally* true) but when the chairman *is* completely 0.0 focused and has pushed a hive-mind agenda of "csm this, csm that" and the only messaging comes out looks and feels 0.0 exclusive - you have the same overall result.

Its dangeous for future CSM credibility for sure. Because right now CCP could correctly assume that if they wanted to discuss things with 0.0 lobbyests - sure go to the CSM. But if they want to talk to other groups of players interested in other aspects of the game - they'd be better off just putting up a forum post in the relevant forums.

And yes, getting Hans Jagerblitzen to respond to a public thread on Warfare and Tactics would be about 1001% more productive than asking this current CSM about Faction Warfare.

Same goes for lowsec, hisec wars, industry, exploration even damned microtransactions.

Now (just for balance) I did just read Meissa's blog (who was one of the CSM's I voted for) which did finally show the ways in which he differed from Mitten's Hive agenda and that was good - but its just a shame the minutes didn't come out in such a way as to distinguish the pants-on-head stupidity of "the csm" from the particular moronic political bias of particular members.

I think if we get another CSM like this one (0.0 dominated from top to bottom, couple of active members and 7 stuff-shirted meatsacks unprepared to do *anything*) then the institution will be in danger of griefing itself out of relevance because CCP will begin to see its inability to properly represent the wishes and desires of the wider community.

Now of course, this might be a win condition for certain player groups so it may well happen anyway. But I'd hope some sensible heads will provail and we get a more balanced group this time.

And *if* Mittani wins chair again, I'd hope that some of the new and returning CSMs under him will oppose the hive-mind presentation and argue for a return of accountability, voting records and minuted meetings. However "effective" in presenting an image of a united CSM its been this time round it hasn't convinced many in the community at large of anything other than an immense stitch-up that fails to represent their interests.

The True Knowledge is that nothing matters that does not matter to you, might does make right and power makes freedom

Jadecougar
Doomheim
#509 - 2012-01-21 14:46:36 UTC
VC General wrote:
You don't need to worry about lobbyists with the CSM. They're a special interest group unto themselves. There aren't enough people in WH's to get a CSM seat, and most solo carebears don't care enough to vote. That means the whole thing is filled with lowsec pirates, and nullsec SpaceRisk players, and a smattering of carebears that get told to STFU and sit in the corner during meetings. Nearly every change they propose to something other than the playstyles they prefer, involves nerfing everyone else's ISK making, or making it easier for them use places they don't want to live as hunting grounds.


I disagree with this to a large degree. First, the issue of not having 'enough people' in w-space or in high sec is simply incorrect. The real issue is that null sec groups and to some degree low sec groups are organized and communicate well the goals and directions they want to see the game develop within their alliances and coalitions. The nature of W-space living and the (relative) safety of high sec makes it difficult to bond together for the common good of the game. I'd venture even further to state that a large part of high sec dwellers don't even have a clue of the CSM concept and process. There's no sense of need to....unless the need is awakened in them, which is done through organizing them better. I'm personally taking steps to improve that with a new initiative but things like that take time to see the fruits of the labour. The 'awareness' has increased and that's already a good step.

The challenge of jostling for position on the CSM when you're up against the null sec power blocs is (and looks to continue to be) a challenge if we want to see representation from other parts of the game. This is a personal concern, not because null sec doesn't need developmental focus, but because the understanding of everyday life in other parts of the game are often misunderstood and as a result is at risk of having developments made that could have a pretty negative effect on those in that area of space.

Getting more back on topic specifically with the minutes, my concern is a complete or near complete wipeout of seats by null sec power blocs with some of the approaches being made for the future of the CSM election process. I say that and yet at the same time, why does the community get mad when they at least VOTE? In one sense we have no one to blame but ourselves for this situation but on the other hand, there will never be a way to change it without increasing the awareness and organization of people in w-space, low sec, and high sec together. Reducing the number of people that can run is a start to focus more votes but that only works when there's exposure and awareness of the other candidates. I could go on at length with this (I feel I have already? OopsP) but let's just say the challenge is NOT null sec. The challenge is in every other area of space coming together for a common goal, but what's standing in the way of that happening is by and large....ourselves.

Increase the AWARENESS, then focus on the NEED, and then ORGANIZE the right groups of people regardless of their area of abode and hope for the best! Big smile
Jadecougar
Doomheim
#510 - 2012-01-21 14:50:17 UTC
Two step wrote:
VC General wrote:
You don't need to worry about lobbyists with the CSM. They're a special interest group unto themselves. There aren't enough people in WH's to get a CSM seat, and most solo carebears don't care enough to vote. That means the whole thing is filled with lowsec pirates, and nullsec SpaceRisk players, and a smattering of carebears that get told to STFU and sit in the corner during meetings. Nearly every change they propose to something other than the playstyles they prefer, involves nerfing everyone else's ISK making, or making it easier for them use places they don't want to live as hunting grounds.


Uh, wormhole folks didn't get a *full* seat (this time), but they do have a rep on the CSM (me).


Umm, yeah, THIS DUDE is a darn good representative for wormhole issues as well as another on the current CSM. There's hope with these ones. Blink
Rei Za
GDMFSOB EVE Services Corporation
#511 - 2012-01-21 17:06:33 UTC
Cearain wrote:
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:


This is why it is so important for the devs to engage directly with the community, and the change in tone over the last 6 months has been very encouraging. I have been pushing, and will continue to push, for more engagement, and for the devs to go direct to the relevant communities and gather feedback.

It's just good business.


Thank you Trebor. It is encouraging to know at least one of the current council members feels this way. I can't speak for other sub-communities, but at least with Faction Warfare the general wishes / desires of those who have paid to engage in that feature all these years should be pretty clear by now. That was the point of consolidating feedback into the threadnought, encouraging the community to keep their comments into the one thread for convenience purposes, and directly contacting the council with our wishes for the future. That, combined with the strong, almost unanimous opposition to the proposed plan discussed in the summit minutes, means that there is now officially no excuse for CCP or the CSM, for that matter, to say "we didn't know".

All is laid out on the table for the developers to see. We will no doubt keep the debates going (not all of us agree on the details, even if we all agree that FW is about small-scale, frequent PvP and not about Alliance emulation.) but part of that is that the discussions continue to generate some really solid solutions and ideas. The Dev's don't have to pull ideas out of a vacuum - players have already generated many excellent solutions worthy of discussion.

CCP Developers have all the tools in front of them they need to fully restore FW to its original vision and glory - a haven for casual, easy to get into, frequent PvP skirmishes, without the hassle and resource management needed to operate at the Alliance level. Whether they listen to us at this point is on them.

You are absolutely right, this is all about good business in the end - there are a couple thousand subscriptions that are dedicated FW players, and many more that are biding their time to see if CCP makes the right move and develops the feature with respect to what is important to the community. Countless more have quit the game waiting for this to come around, and might come back if FW gets fixed properly.

I hope CCP thinks about the isk, in the end - and realizes they just can't afford NOT to listen to their paying customers and propose plans for the future that ultimately will alienate the devoted pilots who have put the time into making FW fun all these years.

CCP probably feels they ARE listening to the community by hearing out the CSM. I just hope that they understand that like you said, sometimes even the CSM doesn't have the answers and that there's other experts they can rely on for advice within the community.


Seriously if CCP or CSM wants to know what the fw community wants, it can just ask Hans.



^ Absolutely.



My two cents....

So, with 1.1 patch on the 24th we're getting alliances in FW. Everyone that has weighed in on the issue in this thread and the patch notes thread thinks it is a terrible idea, and there has really been no direct response to that feedback. (correct me if I am wrong)

Personally I think it is like splicing apples into oranges. Can someone at least explain why it is such a good thing and how it will fit into FW in a way that makes sense?

It just seems totally out of place that a nullsec block can pop into FW for the weekend. I think that the militia should take a larger commitment and be a whole and complete aspect of gameplay rather than treated like a minigame.

FW isn't that broken right now it just needs a little chiseling instead of the jackhammering its about to get.

Real rewards for holding space, killing enemy militia, etc... these are things that would enhance a system that is already in place.

And personally I think It should be more viable to play a PVP only FW, with equal rewards. FW should not be a ground for farming PVE content.
Plutonian
Intransigent
#512 - 2012-01-21 19:04:20 UTC
Jade Constantine wrote:
Because right now CCP could correctly assume that if they wanted to discuss things with 0.0 lobbyests - sure go to the CSM. But if they want to talk to other groups of players interested in other aspects of the game - they'd be better off just putting up a forum post in the relevant forums.


The CSM has been compromised. They no longer serve any purpose other than their own. This means any good ideas for improvement in the game now have to break through the barrier of the CSM to reach CCP. The CSM itself is now the force which keeps CCP from hearing it's customers.

The harsh truth is the players unsubbed this summer and forced CCP's turn-around. Not the CSM.

If it were up to me, I'd call the CSM a failed experiment and dismantle the whole thing.


VC General
No Baals Inc
#513 - 2012-01-21 20:32:37 UTC
Two step wrote:
Uh, wormhole folks didn't get a *full* seat (this time), but they do have a rep on the CSM (me).


Yeah, you do a great service for us, and you'll definitely have my vote, and the votes of anyone else I can convince next time. The fact that they seriously discussed changing WH mechanics with CCP, just to make it easier for blobs to invade AHARM is pretty damned scary. Much like with lobbyists, one of the big sources of power in politics isn't simply convincing people that you're right on an issue, it's steering the direction of the debate to that issue in the first place. I certainly hope they listen to you on this stuff, but my gut tells me it goes in one ear and out the other.
Che Biko
Alexylva Paradox
#514 - 2012-01-21 22:07:03 UTC
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
This is why it is so important for the devs to engage directly with the community, and the change in tone over the last 6 months has been very encouraging. I have been pushing, and will continue to push, for more engagement, and for the devs to go direct to the relevant communities and gather feedback.

It's just good business.

It also becomes critical when the CSM outright ignores certain groups, like the WiS/RP ones. They won't even show their face in one of the biggest threads in GD (save perhaps for their troll alts), and certainly won't speak on our behalf. The chairman is even obvious in that he does not take his task to represent ALL players seriously.

I wouldn't be surprised if the CSM will not notice this post, they've probably hidden my posts for acting a bit on the pro-WiS group and asking some difficult questions.

I can't even get answers on this thread to 4 simple yes or no questions.

And yes, I know I'm probably a bit cynical, but if you're being treated like an idiot for having different views than the chairman and presumably "not having used a jump bridge in your life", you would be too. I'm not sure if other CSM's try to correct his behaviour in private, but I'm not seeing any of that in public.
Jade Curtis
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#515 - 2012-01-21 23:58:31 UTC
Che Biko wrote:
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
This is why it is so important for the devs to engage directly with the community, and the change in tone over the last 6 months has been very encouraging. I have been pushing, and will continue to push, for more engagement, and for the devs to go direct to the relevant communities and gather feedback.

It's just good business.

It also becomes critical when the CSM outright ignores certain groups, like the WiS/RP ones.


Wait, there are people actively campaigning for CCP to go back to focusing on WiS?

You must be lost. SW:TOR is that way ------------>
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#516 - 2012-01-22 00:35:05 UTC
Che Biko wrote:
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
This is why it is so important for the devs to engage directly with the community, and the change in tone over the last 6 months has been very encouraging. I have been pushing, and will continue to push, for more engagement, and for the devs to go direct to the relevant communities and gather feedback.

It's just good business.

It also becomes critical when the CSM outright ignores certain groups, like the WiS/RP ones. They won't even show their face in one of the biggest threads in GD (save perhaps for their troll alts), and certainly won't speak on our behalf. The chairman is even obvious in that he does not take his task to represent ALL players seriously.

I wouldn't be surprised if the CSM will not notice this post, they've probably hidden my posts for acting a bit on the pro-WiS group and asking some difficult questions.

I can't even get answers on this thread to 4 simple yes or no questions.

And yes, I know I'm probably a bit cynical, but if you're being treated like an idiot for having different views than the chairman and presumably "not having used a jump bridge in your life", you would be too. I'm not sure if other CSM's try to correct his behaviour in private, but I'm not seeing any of that in public.



Biggest reason WiS is shelved is because CCP hasn't figured out how to get past the crippling technical hurdles involved in getting 2 avatars in the same room. Let alone letting them interact or getting groups together.

When I want a hotplate to boil my tea-water, I turn on CQ and put the kettle on my laptop.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon

Omega Flames
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#517 - 2012-01-22 03:30:48 UTC
Leave the drake alone. It is a pve ship and it tanks extremely well but you sacrifice dps to get that tank. To get even decent dps from it compared to the other bc's you must drastically reduce it's tank.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#518 - 2012-01-22 03:54:41 UTC
Omega Flames wrote:
Leave the drake alone. It is a pve ship and it tanks extremely well but you sacrifice dps to get that tank. To get even decent dps from it compared to the other bc's you must drastically reduce it's tank.


1) Besides Marauders, there's no such thing as a PvE ship.
2) Decent PvE ships are Gankey, not Tankey
3) The engagement range plus tankeyness is the main issue in PvP. And you need sacrifice no DPS for that tank. (Unless you've found a DPS midslot of which I am unaware)

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon

Jalmari Huitsikko
Avanto
Hole Control
#519 - 2012-01-22 04:17:17 UTC
1) Repeat after me: "drake is a bad ship"
2) npc 0.0 dont allow 0.0 alliance blobbing services there if large entities live and harass other large alliances whatever from npc 0.0 there's something wrong with sov 0.0
3) destroying stations: cool it's finally time
4) useless ship changes which make little difference like af eas whatever.

5) in csm election we should be able to vote canditate for some specific job like low sec representative which only gives opinions about that stuff. there's no need for mittani or seleene or carebear faggets lkie them to give opinions about stuff they hardly understand like low sec or npc 0.0 in that way ccp could get more feedback from also other stuff than just 0.0 blob warfare and tech moons and supers.

6) how about not taxing corporate employees and paying them instead. alliances should be working for profit together not just taxing some random chinese dude killing red crosses. imo it's pretty dumb.




RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#520 - 2012-01-22 04:32:34 UTC
Jalmari Huitsikko wrote:


5) in csm election we should be able to vote canditate for some specific job like low sec representative which only gives opinions about that stuff. there's no need for mittani or seleene or carebear faggets lkie them to give opinions about stuff they hardly understand like low sec or npc 0.0 in that way ccp could get more feedback from also other stuff than just 0.0 blob warfare and tech moons and supers.

6) how about not taxing corporate employees and paying them instead. alliances should be working for profit together not just taxing some random chinese dude killing red crosses. imo it's pretty dumb.



5) Who polices that? 'Cause the point of the CSM is that we can't trust CCP to make their game good.

6) Decent Corps do pay their members. Those anoms were upgraded with corp/alliance funds. SRPs are maintained with corp/alliance funds. Decent corps put together other incentives as well.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon