EVE Search - A Radical Proposal

Search EVE-Online forums for:

All Channels

Jita Park Speakers Corner

A Radical Proposal

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] :: one page

Author	Topic
Herb Philbrik Minmatar The Cuthroat Armada	Posted - 2008.05.03 05:13:00 - [1] I'm a new player to EVE (2 months or so) but a veteran of MMO games, and their pen and paper precursors. I feel I have a pretty firm grasp of the various implementations and player-discovered permutations of gaming mechanics, and how these can effect a game from the micro and macro levels. The bulk of my community research in this game, fascinated by the player-generated content and political atmosphere, has been spent absorbing the many posts on the infamous CAOD forum. From what I can gather, the main issue here, and indeed the very impetus for this experiment in virtual MMO "democracy," is meta gaming. Reading the NY Times article linked on a post elsewhere on this board, CCP's own CEO puts forward this idea of transparent oversight to police the developer in such a fashion, but so far all I see is yet another opportunity for some alliance meta gaming, this time taking place on a seemingly legitimate board of elected virtual representatives. A gander at the forum activity for the Goonswarm candidate makes this pretty obvious as, either an example of blatant politicking to advance their own alliance in the face of past CCP corruption in assisting BoB (evening the score so to speak, what better way to counter CCP's involvement with BoB than to have a Goon on the CSM), or, assuming a truly ideal and innocent wish to improve the game, weathering all the blatant anti-Goon trolls, detractors, loaded questions, strawmen, etc. In either case, this exercise, while interesting on a social level and the blurring boundaries between real and virtual life, will amount to simply another layer of community politicking, literally. In my time playing these games, I have never seen meta gaming taken so far, even in other sandbox mmos, where measures of real life are effecting what should be a leisurely past-time. Developers SHOULD NOT be actively participating in the everyday play of the game. My radical proposal is this: either ban ALL CCP employees and relatives from any 0.0 alliances, or from the game entirely. This eliminates the need for the CSM in the first place, restores trust in the developer, and refocuses CCP to doing what should be happening in the first place: continuing development and refinement of the game, instead of some band aid publicity stunt which will just further serve the efforts of elite players to use CCP as yet another avenue of meta gaming. I will support any candidate that will seriously forward this proposal, and then pledge to immediately disband the CSM upon its implementation. EVE is not a nation. It's a game. Thanks for reading.
Lorq vonRay Spartan Industrial Manufacturing SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2008.05.03 05:26:00 - [2] but how would the playerbase know if CCP employees were holding up there end? also to better further the game i would assume that the game developers would need the first hand experience of in game play i would rather the game developers decide what needs fixed over people crying on the forums
Herb Philbrik Minmatar The Cuthroat Armada	Posted - 2008.05.03 05:38:00 - [3] Originally by: Lorq vonRay but how would the playerbase know if CCP employees were holding up there end? also to better further the game i would assume that the game developers would need the first hand experience of in game play i would rather the game developers decide what needs fixed over people crying on the forums It would be a simple matter of them publicizing the revised company policy, and making all CCP developer and family member avatars, and alts, known to all. CCP's CEO spouts transparency, well there it is. In real life, corporations are not democracies, and if this fellow is serious about transparency then all it will take is a sweeping edict by corporate management. As for first hand game play, we know that the Jove Empire is a development testing space, and the less harsh method of simply banning CCP employees and their families from 0.0 alliances still leaves plenty of play in empire space. Remember, there would be no cause to implement a CSM if not for the meta gaming issue to begin with, as evidenced by the NY Times article posted elsewhere, CCP's CEO statements included there also. Ironically, it is this meta gaming issue distracting CCP (and all of you) from more legitimate concerns like bugs, mechanics tweaks, RMT, macro mining, etc. What other mmo has had this "issue?" None.
Ben Derindar Dirty Deeds Corp. Axiom Empire	Posted - 2008.05.03 05:59:00 - [4] Originally by: Herb Philbrik Developers SHOULD NOT be actively participating in the everyday play of the game. My radical proposal is this: either ban ALL CCP employees and relatives from any 0.0 alliances, or from the game entirely. And on what basis do you propose they would they make their game development decisions concerning 0.0 alliances, then? Originally by: Herb Philbrik I will support any candidate that will seriously forward this proposal, and then pledge to immediately disband the CSM upon its implementation. I too am sceptical of the usefulness of the CSM to a point, but until the outcomes of at least one term are known, no-one can really judge whether or not it should be disbanded completely. I don't like the events that led to the CSM's formation any more than you do (and I like the fact that it was exposed to the public even less), but what's done is done. Let's see the process through before abandoning it altogether. /Ben
Herb Philbrik Minmatar The Cuthroat Armada	Posted - 2008.05.03 06:26:00 - [5] Edited by: Herb Philbrik on 03/05/2008 06:27:54 Originally by: Ben Derindar Originally by: Herb Philbrik Developers SHOULD NOT be actively participating in the everyday play of the game. My radical proposal is this: either ban ALL CCP employees and relatives from any 0.0 alliances, or from the game entirely. And on what basis do you propose they would they make their game development decisions concerning 0.0 alliances, then? See, that's the issue. Other games need to balance endgame because they have a traditional progression scheme, and "closed" gameplay where players are ultimately guided by instances, npc questing, and mechanics-regulated pvp, so development direction there is critical. In EVE, 0.0 space is simply the same mechanics applied to a wide open environment (with some important differences of course [insert Titan complaint thread here]). If 0.0 development is so critical, and such rigorous real-time testing is needed, one of two solutions can be easily applied: market the test server and encourage participation (city of heroes was good at this) OR open Jove space to a list of 0.0 alliances/players for purposes of testing 0.0 issues. Over and over we can see this CSM is a highly questionable endeavor, smacking more of marketing than real problem-solving. Other companies deal with it simply, by having a separate testing space, firing/disciplining employees found to abuse their powers, banning the players involved, and wholesale reversing any advantage that was gained. CCP is the first I've ever seen to try and form a "council" to come in with "oversight." Frankly, it's a little ridiculous. This is an internal corporate process and policy issue, solved with the application of rule. Instead we have wanna-be virtual politicians with little to no experience in other game mechanics, how other developers handled these sorts of issues, knowledge of programming, knowledge of database design, or any of the myriad issues involved with mmo design/maintenance. No personal attack meant on you Ben, and I appreciate your guts in being the first candidate to open a dialog, but I see little to no actual issue resolution by adding another layer of bureaucracy to software development of all things.
zoolkhan Minmatar Mirkur Draug'Tyr	Posted - 2008.05.03 07:09:00 - [6] Edited by: zoolkhan on 03/05/2008 07:12:48 Edited by: zoolkhan on 03/05/2008 07:10:44 Originally by: Herb Philbrik My radical proposal is this: either ban ALL CCP employees and relatives from any 0.0 alliances, or from the game entirely. according to my knowledge this has already been done, i lost some very good and long time wingmen who never abused their relations , nor ever had the chance to so so. REST IN PEACE al haquiz :( you have been the craziest nut i had ever the pleasure to die with, and i miss you. REST IN PEACE Khaldron Murino, the leader of the hordes, the flying charisma, the guy who could make a one legged one armed cripple to pick up a two handed sword.....where are you now? I think, if you dont allow the jovians(devs) to mingle in the production cluster, they will lack first hand experience - and the task to improve the game and feel the players pain will become more difficult. As far i recall there was only one incident(my memory isnt always that good tho), the person in question has made a public appology and left the game. Short after - all CCPs got kicked from the game as the crowd called for their burning corpses with pitchforks in their hands - strangely enough, BoBs power has not reduced due to that, huh? Your proposal is therefore late. As of their relatives.. everyone who has been at the fanfest has had a drink with a dev. Thats quiet some banning ahead :) And obviously it doesnt help, even after banning them all - the tinfoil hats are still been sold for high prices in jita and rens. The CSM will not change this either. Those who choose to do so, will start to assume teh CSM is corrupted by ccp - or we would have powers that other players dont have, and would soon call for our heads too... The first part of your post is spot on though, metagaming is a huge issue and i wish the people would find more joy in the sportive fair measurement of their powers INGAME. I mean hacking someones vent server is not only metagaming, it is plain and simple illegal - and could lead to jail. People do it, because they get away with it.
Belidonna	Posted - 2008.05.03 08:16:00 - [7] So much truth in this thread it hurts. Would love to see more candidates discuss this. I see many folk lining up to get on the ballot but no one seriously questioning the need for it, or how to create an environment where we dont need this oversight. Its worse than creating homeland security or the EPA. Not that there would be bribing going on but I believe that it is impossible for ALL devs to be impartial. Much less CSMs. Its hard enough dealing with GMs when you know that exploits were used against you but they hold that the burden of proof is on your shoulders. Thats an impossible battle that leaves the player strangely alone. On one hand I think that CSMs might help this. You throw in the conspiracy theory which was allowed to propagate, sadly by bad corporate policy and the sheer fact that human nature will always win, and you have, as a game player a real uneasy feeling. Is this GM on the alliance that attacked me? AM I being singled out? Those are questions that shouldn't even be possible IMO. Call me a hat wearer but my experiences with the system have been far from pleasant. I dont want to derail the issue here but I feel that it is part and parcel. I mean why is it that players even have the opportunity to think that someone that they may have to face on the field of battle was making decisions or had the power to impact the outcome of the game? Clearly anyone is going to be motivated by selfish reasons. Its impossible not to be in a role as such. Much as the original poster Herb, I too am a long time veteran of MMO and PNP roleplay. I like eve because it is unique. It is however, becoming unique in the wrong ways. I also feel that the CSM program may only cover up some of the real issues. So lets hear some good on topic discussions.
Herb Philbrik Minmatar The Cuthroat Armada	Posted - 2008.05.03 08:21:00 - [8] Edited by: Herb Philbrik on 03/05/2008 08:23:21 Quote: according to my knowledge this has already been done, i lost some very good and long time wingmen who never abused their relations , nor ever had the chance to so so. If this has already been done, then that's great, we've solved two issues at once: overt CCP involvement in the game, and confirming that the CSM remains nothing more than fodder for the gaming media and placating a suspicious playerbase. And how is it that every other major mmo game functions, receives feedback, tests implementation, and generally avoids this kind of thing without having to form a council of players who have little idea about software and game development? And for that matter, if CCP is already removed from the game, then arguing they need to test the game from the "common man's" point of view is moot. If it isn't moot, then banning them from 0.0 alliances serves us all just as well, as testing in 0.0 is still possible, and the majority of the playerbase seems to be in empire anyway. Additionally, I don't really care about some alliance's "power." Obviously, people with mundane lives like heating/cooling managers and bored business consultants need to feel important in a virtual space, and likewise for a crass bunch of bees and whatever banal failure existence they deal with. I will be trying AoC when it's released soon, and as much as I really like this game, with that on the horizon I'm not sure I'm ready to devote the months needed to get up to par in this game. I just found it completely incredulous that an MMO would let meta gaming get so out of hand as to have its staff effect the outcome of the game, and then turn around and invite players into their studio to make sure everything was OK. That's just a little extreme. Again, adding a layer of player-inspired politics is just stupid. Have you read some of these candidate threads? It's as bad as an American presidential election. If anything, the surest amount of transparency was when the source code was leaked, and someone smart asked some very hard (and skillfully dodged) questions to the devs. That's the kind of feedback with true substance that improves a game imo. They should give that guy a job and set up his remote virtual office. Hell, put him on the council, you would then have a genuinely qualified member.
Leandro Salazar The Blackguard Wolves Black Star Alliance	Posted - 2008.05.03 08:22:00 - [9] Edited by: Leandro Salazar on 03/05/2008 08:22:29 Originally by: Herb Philbrik My radical proposal is this: either ban ALL CCP employees and relatives from any 0.0 alliances, or from the game entirely. I have seen what happens to games when the devs themselves don't really play them, and I most definitely do not want to see that happen to EVE. They should not play for any major powerblocks, but they absolutely MUST play the game to properly develop it imho.
Herb Philbrik Minmatar The Cuthroat Armada	Posted - 2008.05.03 08:36:00 - [10] Edited by: Herb Philbrik on 03/05/2008 08:44:56 Originally by: Leandro Salazar I have seen what happens to games when the devs themselves don't really play them, and I most definitely do not want to see that happen to EVE. They should not play for any major powerblocks, but they absolutely MUST play the game to properly develop it imho. Hence my suggestion to ban them from 0.0 alliances. Another option, like mentioned before, is a separate testing space. CoH was very successful with this when I played a few issues before CoV's release, so successful that quite a few players made the test server their "home" server. It had its very own vibrant test community. How hard would it be for CCP to have a separate space where they could test 0.0 scenarios, or some crazy "all 0.0 space" test server where you can pick any fit and any ship and play with the devs to that effect? What a better marketing opportunity for a new player like me, knowing I could go try out something I wouldn't be able to ordinarily fly unless I was a 5 year old toon with 50mil+ sp, but in a temporary space that doesn't effect the "main" game. How nice would that be for all players to test tactics and ideas, or for players to demonstrate bugs/issues right there in front of a dev live? CSM is a fabulous marketing idea, but actually solving gaming issues needs a gaming development approach. Not some silly council. edit: reading more about Singularity, that's essentially what's described above. So, we have a test server (2 actually), volunteer bughunters, and other community resources, why is CCP direct involvement needed on the main server? How does a council improve on these existing resources?

Akita T Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2008.05.03 08:51:00 - [11] Edited by: Akita T on 03/05/2008 08:55:50 Originally by: Herb Philbrik My radical proposal is this: either ban ALL CCP employees and relatives from any 0.0 alliances, or from the game entirely. That's crazy talk ! One of the better things EVE has going for itself is the fact that most of the devs actively play (undercover, most of the time anyway), which means they have an unique perspective of what's actually going on in the game, from a player's point of view. As long as their "cover" remains intact (and they uphold the "must not disclose you're a dev" clause), it's all fine and dandy. So... no... under no circumstances whatsoever should CCP employees or relatives be excluded from the game. I'd actually go so far as claim the exact opposite should be enacted. So here's MY radical proposal : force every CCP employee to actively play the game at least 8 hours a week, and disclose their identity as CCP staff publically, in the character showinfo, or by any other easily noticeable markings. All you need to do afterwards is have a strong oversight of "unfair acts" they might possibly perform... which would be rendered even more obvious by their visible status. Originally by: Herb Philbrik CSM is a fabulous marketing idea, but actually solving gaming issues needs a gaming development approach. Not some silly council. So, we have a test server (2 actually), volunteer bughunters, and other community resources, why is CCP direct involvement needed on the main server? How does a council improve on these existing resources? The CSM in its current incarnation is simply a "human interface" between the players and the devs. They're supposed to bring the issues most players care about to CCP's attention, and get some public feedback. Their responsability is to churn through the raw sewage that these forums have become, and come up with a few concise issues, argue them to kingdom come with their "constituents", and when a proposal has reached enough maturity (and support), present it to CCP as advice. So, in other words, they are the elected "voice of the people". Not guaranteed to be followed, but at least listened to. Nothing more, nothing less.
zoolkhan Minmatar Mirkur Draug'Tyr	Posted - 2008.05.03 08:59:00 - [12] Originally by: Herb Philbrik How hard would it be for CCP to have a separate space where they could test 0.0 scenarios, or some crazy "all 0.0 space" test server where you can pick any fit and any ship and play with the devs to that effect? What there is no lack of test servers, but many tests require masses everything that involves LAG requires masses - ccp has a handful emplyees, how do you expect them to simulate close to production issues with their handful of people on a cluster that is only the shadow of what is sitting in the UK datacenter? i spend my days with clustering. thats my profession - and i can tell you some things require to be tested live... but we dont need to discuss the matter of bannin, that has already happened. although i hope one or the other is still sneaking in our mids to see the world they make from our eyes, to experience teh massive lag and teh countless disconnections and network issues on their own machines during their own gameplay... i also feel much better knowing to play a game which is so good, that even the developers play it. i know programmer who code for cash (skispringen 200X yeah) and who would vomit on the table if theyd be forced to play that crap. and then i know idealists, visonists (farbrausch) - people who ENJOY coding, and enjoy the result of their work. I would ban on case to case basis, however the decision is not mine its just hypothetical.
Goodwin Caldari Brother Theo's Monastery	Posted - 2008.05.03 15:12:00 - [13] Mistrust of the developing body is certainly an issue of concern. I completely understand the thought process of the CSM potentially making the powerful, even more so. This topic certainly requires much more thought on my part. I can not lay out an answer right now, because I am still processing the issue. Personally as a player I have not felt the impact of it the way some others have, but that does not invalidate the issue. I will continue to keep an eye on this thread and if I come of with any thoughts on it, even if don't make the council, I will post them.
Herb Philbrik Minmatar The Cuthroat Armada	Posted - 2008.05.03 17:39:00 - [14] Originally by: Akita T They're supposed to bring the issues players care about to CCP's attention, and get some public feedback. Their responsability is to churn through the raw sewage that these forums have become, and come up with a few concise issues, argue them to kingdom come with their "constituents", and when a proposal has reached enough maturity (and support), present it to CCP as advice. So, in other words, they are the elected "voice of the people". Not guaranteed to be followed, but at least listened to. Nothing more, nothing less. So, in other words, the CSM will basically be just like WoW's CSRs, except "elected" by a mass of uninformed and/or politically motivated masses, themselves most likely having little to no QA experience or game dev experience. Sounds like CCP cleverly created marketing and offloaded the chore of forum-sifting to people willing to do it for free in one fell swoop. Just.... wow. Quote: One of the better things EVE has going for itself is the fact that most of the devs actively play (undercover, most of the time anyway), which means they have an unique perspective of what's actually going on in the game, from a player's point of view. So explain to me, with the test server resources and undercover devs feeling the common player's plight, why is the CSM necessary again? Again, this entire situation was not created by some huge deficiency in QA resources, it was created when developers stepped over that sacred line, and allowed meta gaming to occur so some people could have an easier time "winning" EVE. I have all the confidence in the world that a staff who has been working on this game for 5 years, and with the professional qualifications, already know the issues players have with the game, the lag, the macro-<insert activity here>'s, perceived balance issues, and all the rest of it without having to form some body that knows next to nothing. The issue is policing the devs to ensure their professionalism and scope of activity remains fixing/expanding/improving the game only, not abusing their access on behalf of their virtual pals. I agree, devs should be clearly marked in-game at all times, but the only impartial method of keeping them above politics and meta game involvement is their ban from 0.0 alliances, at the very least. You'll notice that option in no way prevents them from traveling to 0.0 space, testing there, playing there, talking to players there, etc.
Herb Philbrik Minmatar The Cuthroat Armada	Posted - 2008.05.03 18:25:00 - [15] I also wanted to add some double-think I'm seeing occur here: How can CCP be "banned" from the game as one respondent above claims, but still be testing the live game? Obviously, because they are not "banned." If CCP allows it's employees to run amok on the live server, undercover or not, for "testing" purposes when there is abundant resource for that already without playing on the live server, then the same opportunities for favoritism, meta gaming, and other activities remain. Clearly segregate test activities, encourage player participation on existing resources, and ban 0.0 alliance participation for CCP devs and their families. Issue solved.
TornSoul BIG	Posted - 2008.05.03 18:36:00 - [16] Originally by: Akita T The CSM in its current incarnation is simply a "human interface" between the players and the devs. They're supposed to bring the issues players care about to CCP's attention, and get some public feedback. Their responsability is to churn through the raw sewage that these forums have become, and come up with a few concise issues, argue them to kingdom come with their "constituents", and when a proposal has reached enough maturity (and support), present it to CCP as advice. So, in other words, they are the elected "voice of the people". Not guaranteed to be followed, but at least listened to. Nothing more, nothing less. (sorry about the long quote, but I think it's important, and it's more or less identical to what I've written on my campaign website as well) Granted, this is not how the CSM was first "presented to the public". It was something else, and potentially much more powerfull. But guess what, it was the players (and some invited panel guests) that told CCP (particularly at the FF'07) that the original plan/idea was simply not possible - and the "mission statement" needed to change. I myself took part in a round table discussion at FF'07 on this subject in particular, and "raised the alarm" as well towards CCP. Guess what - CCP listened. They not only listened, they actually realised that what they had first invisioned was flawed, not on the ideal of it, but simply on the practicalitites of it - So it got changed to what it is now (to be more realistic in scope). Whether or not the CSM will be usefull at all, time will tell. Seriously, we simply can not know yet. And I'm sure the CSM will evolve from what it currently is (supposed to be) as well. It's a test. A test of an idea with huge potential - Potential beeing the key word. It might fail, or at least fail to live up to peoples expectations, it might not! And theres frankly only one way to find out. ---- About CCP employees playing the game. If your following quote was true (it's not) I could perhaps agree to your view. Originally by: Herb Philbrik I have all the confidence in the world that a staff who has been working on this game for 5 years, and with the professional qualifications, already know the issues players have with the game, the lag, the macro-<insert activity here>'s, perceived balance issues, and all the rest of it without having to form some body that knows next to nothing. I happen to be a RL software developer (not gaming) myself. And I can tell you first hand, that "external testing" (by endusers) always, and I mean always turns up things that the developers had simply not thought about testing for in the first place. As a developer (it beeing as a programmer or dedicatd QA) you simply have a different focus, even though you try not to. Unless you "take your own dog food" (an expression we use in my RL corp , ie. "play the game" (or use the software) you will miss a ton of things that needs to be fixed. And even then, you will still miss some things, and this is where the CSM kicks in, to "churn through the raw sewage" and distill some sense and present it to CCP. -------- All that said, I think that the CSM has one more role, which is briefly touched on on my campaing website. Something that most (not all) others (candidates and people arguing here as well) seems to neglect. Namely all the non-game mechanics stuff that we as players should (imo) also have a say in. Stuff like : What exactly is CCP doing to thwart macroing/ISK sales and so on. Is enough resourses put into this? To name a few examples. For obvious reasons, CCP won't be able to reveal, in details, how they deal with say macroers (or they'll change their ways), but some things can be said. My point is, that the CSM can be about more than "just" game-mechanics. It's about "The BIG picture"
Herb Philbrik Minmatar The Cuthroat Armada	Posted - 2008.05.03 18:50:00 - [17] Edited by: Herb Philbrik on 03/05/2008 18:50:36 People are missing the point. QA is NOT an area where I feel CCP is deficient. Of course CCP needs to test their game. Can they? Yes. There are 2 severs for just such a practice. Can they analyze data and activities from their development tools? Yes. Can they log in and observe and test things live? Yes. Are they literate and can read the forums, identifying areas that might need a second look? Yes. Can they illicit feedback from their current crop of volunteer QA testers? Yes. Could they organize live test events or encourage players to log into the test server for QA events? Yes. I'll say it again, in bold, there is no issue here with QA. These posts saying otherwise are trying to add legitimacy to the CSM election process, like the devs aren't smart enough to figure out what's wrong with their own game, (or to incent you the player to participate) so they must need an elected council of amateurs or completely unqualified virtual politicians to figure it out, right? The CSM is a feel-good move for mainly the meta gaming scandal, and as a means to funnel whining from the player base, that is all. How effective will the CSM be? About as effective as community reps in other games. Think on that a moment.
TornSoul BIG	Posted - 2008.05.03 19:00:00 - [18] Originally by: Herb Philbrik People are missing the point. QA is NOT an area where I feel CCP is deficient. Fair enough. But perhaps this is excactly because they are playing the game? You mentioned you wanted to change that... I'm arguing that it would be to the detriment of the quality of QA. Originally by: Herb Philbrik Of course CCP needs to test their game. Can they? Yes. There are 2 severs for just such a practice. You missed my point about "taking your own dog food" I think. I daily have my own test servers at work that I run tests on (and develop for). But it's an artificial environment! It is not the real thing, and as such a lot of real issues will never appear there. Same goes for CCP's test servers.
Venkul Mul Gallente	Posted - 2008.05.03 19:27:00 - [19] You series of post is pretty incredible, but can but better comprehended re-reading this quote of your first post: Quote: The bulk of my community research in this game, fascinated by the player-generated content and political atmosphere, has been spent absorbing the many posts on the infamous CAOD forum. From what I can gather, the main issue here, and indeed the very impetus for this experiment in virtual MMO "democracy," is meta gaming. Maybe with only 2 months of experience in the game you haven't realized that, but CAOD is the epitome of metagaming, with every wild accusation, thinhattery and watnot flying around. Basing your opinion on it and neglecting all other forums (you have discovered Singularity after starting this thread!) give you a very skewed and lopsided idea of EVE. About Singularity, at top load it has maybe 200 person in it, mostly 30 persons at all. The most blatant bugs can be discovered in it, but not those originated by heavy use of the market, having 100 person in 1 system doing 100 different things and so on. It can't even accommodate much more than that, it is a test server, it can't cost as much as the primary server. About your issue "why there are devs/CCP employee in mayor alliances?", how do you think CCP has discovered the hack Goonswarm was using to get the friend/enemy tags on the chat pictures? You think that some pure soul has reported it for unburdening his soul of this sin? Much more probable that some CCP employee has seen it while playing in Goonswarm and reported it. (Sorry Guumindong, this is not an attack to your alliance, probably other people was using it too) BACON: again, several alliances are using a similar program, from the very brief replies from CCP they were already trying to develop a countermeasure (that will not make the logserver useless) before BACON was unveiled. Again I suspect that some Dev/CCP employee has seen something similar in one of the alliances using it and reported it. Sure, some people could misuse this, and that is why there is a Internal Affair department (heard of it, or again something you have missed so far?) and petitions can be escalated to senior GM and the IA department, but removing Dev and CCP employee from the game is not the method to avoid that, it is a metod to get a worse game. Look a bit in General discussion or Game developement. You will see plenty of thread of "bright" ideas to detect or stop macrominers, most of those ideas will make a player stop mining after they are implemented, as they will bother more the regular player that a sweatshowp worker that is payed to mine. But if a Dev has never mined or even played the game it will be easy to think that those bright suggestion are what miners want and implement them. You will see plenty of suggestion that on paper seem very bright, but applied to actual game experience show all the holes they have. Developers without experience in the played game (and running some PvP or PvE in the test server is not experience in the played game) could easily implement the wrong thing and noticed it when it has done a heavy damage to the game. For an example of that kind of problem even when the Devs know well the game, look the effect of the introduction of the new system of scanning when Kali was first deployed. No one had thought of how easy was to scan mission runners. Practically overnight mission running in low sec has moved from praticable with a moderate risk to a suicide action. In a few days 90% of the mission runners that lived in low sec had left for high sec. Even if the probe effect has been somewhat blunted against mission runners low sec has never completely recovered. Try reading the other forum a bit, then return there ans say if your opinion is still the same.
Herb Philbrik Minmatar The Cuthroat Armada	Posted - 2008.05.03 20:30:00 - [20] Edited by: Herb Philbrik on 03/05/2008 20:30:37 Originally by: Venkul Mul You series of post is pretty incredible, but can but better comprehended re-reading this quote of your first post: Quote: The bulk of my community research in this game, fascinated by the player-generated content and political atmosphere, has been spent absorbing the many posts on the infamous CAOD forum. From what I can gather, the main issue here, and indeed the very impetus for this experiment in virtual MMO "democracy," is meta gaming. Maybe with only 2 months of experience in the game you haven't realized that, but CAOD is the epitome of metagaming, with every wild accusation, thinhattery and watnot flying around. I was waiting for the "stfu noob" post for awhile now, however worded ever so diplomatically. This is why I qualified my statement with the words community research. Never mind that the many issues found in general or game are rehashed in the same forum as fodder for thread propaganda, but if we honestly evaluate the effects of these bug and imbalances, we see they are no more detrimental than any other game's laundry list of player whines and issues. Quote: About Singularity, at top load it has maybe 200 person in it, mostly 30 persons at all. Hence my suggested to either open up live test space (Jove) to some players or incent the player base to participate in testing on the separate servers. For someone who values being informed and fully reading a position, you fail to offer me the same courtesy. Quote: ...how do you think CCP has discovered the hack Goonswarm was using to get the friend/enemy tags on the chat pictures? You think that some pure soul has reported it for unburdening his soul of this sin? Much more probable that some CCP employee has seen it while playing in Goonswarm and reported it. Or, even far more likely and demonstrably repeated in every other mmo, a rival or opposed party observed them doing it and duly reported it. As you well know, every major alliance has their share of spies and informants, and if they can get forum access, vent passwords, POS passwords and the like, its a simple matter for someone on the inside to blow the whistle on genuine exploits. Quote: BACON: again, several alliances are using a similar program... More ingenuity from the player base, similar to the loads of mods developed by the fan base for That Other Game people used to whine about. If you're aware of it, and I'm aware of it, and it's posted all over the web, explain to me again how the CSM magically addresses and "passes along" an issue already well-known? Quote: Sure, some people could misuse this, and that is why there is a Internal Affair department (heard of it, or again something you have missed so far?) I enjoy blatant condescension. Yes, I was aware of IA, which seems like a non-entity or another marketing ploy when simple iron-fisted corporate policy will do. Have you ever worked for a corporation, in any capacity above cubicle occupant? See, I can condescend too. Quote: ... Try reading the other forum a bit, then return there ans say if your opinion is still the same. I have, long before I wrote this. See, as someone practiced at playing these games and unlearning mechanics specific to games, those are the first places I go to get myself up to speed, with the satellite community sites afterward for the "pro tip" aspects of the game. MMOs are not rocket science, but the player arrogance continues. CCP is in fact far more qualified than you, or a collection of aspiring devs, to work on their own game, and if they wanted they could easily address every QA issue with the existing resources. <continued>

Herb Philbrik Minmatar The Cuthroat Armada	Posted - 2008.05.03 20:43:00 - [21] ... This is also why I presented a lessor option, that of banning CCP employees and relatives from participation in 0.0 alliances. This option does not prevent them from still play-testing in 0.0 space. Ironically, if anything, it would give them a true view of the majority players' experience, as 0.0 is all but inaccessible with out months/years of game play, hundreds of millions of ISK, and insertion into some kind of established social network. My personal beef with this game has always been the brutal vertical progression, and the stayed social hierarchy that has resulted from such. It is 100x's worse than anything present in WoW, which is a shame, because this game is such a wonderful departure from most everything else on the market right now. CCP can test their game live with transparency, or incent players to come to a separate testing space. Because of the unique impact meta gaming has here more than any other sandbox game or mmo, dev involvement in the common day-to-day play of the game is a detriment imo. The hysterics over "omg devs HAVE to be in BoB and Goons or the game falls apart!" amounts to more than likely alt propaganda (easily spotted given enough time in CAOD heh heh) than rational problem-solving. The CSM will add just another layer of meta gaming, and no doubt placate a few now that "something is getting done." I think I've made my points clear, why I feel the way I do, and have responded several times to the same rehashed arguments. It's your game; it's up to you collectively, EVE players, if you want to really solve things or just add more "customer service" layers like every other game. I have offered my proposal on the issue, and I'm done here. Thanks to all for reading and your input/feedback, hopefully some brains got rattled and people are thinking a little. Regards.
Venkul Mul Gallente	Posted - 2008.05.03 21:46:00 - [22] Originally by: Herb Philbrik Originally by: Venkul Mul You series of post is pretty incredible, but can but better comprehended re-reading this quote of your first post: Quote: The bulk of my community research in this game, fascinated by the player-generated content and political atmosphere, has been spent absorbing the many posts on the infamous CAOD forum. From what I can gather, the main issue here, and indeed the very impetus for this experiment in virtual MMO "democracy," is meta gaming. Maybe with only 2 months of experience in the game you haven't realized that, but CAOD is the epitome of metagaming, with every wild accusation, thinhattery and watnot flying around. I was waiting for the "stfu noob" post for awhile now, however worded ever so diplomatically. This is why I qualified my statement with the words community research. Never mind that the many issues found in general or game are rehashed in the same forum as fodder for thread propaganda, but if we honestly evaluate the effects of these bug and imbalances, we see they are no more detrimental than any other game's laundry list of player whines and issues. No, it not stuf nob, it is "you are using the wrong references, and thinking CAOD is all EVE", I was giving you the benefit of the doubt as you say that you have little game experience in EVE, but I see you are truly a CAOD exemplar. Quote: Quote: About Singularity, at top load it has maybe 200 person in it, mostly 30 persons at all. Hence my suggestion to either open up live test space (Jove) to some players or incent the player base to participate in testing on the separate servers. For someone who values being informed and fully reading a position, you fail to offer me the same courtesy. This? Quote: As for first hand game play, we know that the Jove Empire is a development testing space, and the less harsh method of simply banning CCP employees and their families from 0.0 alliances still leaves plenty of play in empire space. Can't see where you were suggesting to open the Jove area to players, not why that will be different from opening any other area. Maybe you should remember that EVE is not sharded. Open a new area in the main server and it become part of the game. Or your badly expressed idea wasthat CCP employees and parents should play in the Jove section of EVE? Again it will give nothing of the knowledge of how the game truly is but only a artificially limited version, sam as using only the Singularity server. Your whole idea of a thriving community in the test server, beside the limitations of the server, has a big fallacy: the test server is an environment with artificial limitations and boons. It can be used as a reference to see if game mechanics is right, not to see if balance is right. Plenty of game issues that will appear in tranquility will be not existant in singularity. Production and market wars? All is sold at 100 isk Sucide ganking? the same, no reason to do it as logistic is not needed Wars? No sense, nothing to gain/loose ecc. Singularity is not there to test player interactions, but player interactions and the effect of Dev decision on them are the hardest part of EVE developement.
Ben Derindar Dirty Deeds Corp. Axiom Empire	Posted - 2008.05.03 22:58:00 - [23] Originally by: Venkul Mul the test server is an environment with artificial limitations and boons. It can be used as a reference to see if game mechanics is right, not to see if balance is right. Plenty of game issues that will appear in tranquility will be not existant in singularity. Agreed. I was in ASCN during the G/IRON/RZR southern invasion of Christmas 2005, in the days when dreads were a new thing. We heard through the grapevine on more than one occasion that the conflict brought to light all sorts of issues for the devs to assess and resolve that had not been encountered on the test server to date, to the point where they were actually quite grateful for the conflict having taken place. As a web developer in RL, I am personally also very much aware that there's only so much a testing environment will provide in the way of issues with whatever mechanics are being developed. This was again demonstrated as recently as just last week when I launched a sweeping upgrade of a website belonging to one of our major clients; new problems were encountered upon launch, but this was expected and budgeted for. I don't necessarily disagree with his sentiment, but perhaps the OP could spend some time on the test server himself to better understand its limitations as far as resolving issues on TQ is concerned. /Ben
UTHAJA	Posted - 2008.05.04 06:54:00 - [24] I'm fond of Herb's radical proposal. Have a nice day !

Pages: [1] :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.