Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
|
CCP Fallout
|
Posted - 2010.03.06 23:16:00 -
[1]
The answer can be found in CCP Xhagen's newest dev blog.
Fallout Associate Community Manager CCP Hf, EVE Online Contact us |
|
Totula
|
Posted - 2010.03.06 23:32:00 -
[2]
Good stuff, glad to see they are putting the CSM to better use.
|
TeaDaze
|
Posted - 2010.03.06 23:40:00 -
[3]
This thread is relevant to my interests
|
Mashie Saldana
Red Federation
|
Posted - 2010.03.07 00:41:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Mashie Saldana on 07/03/2010 00:44:52 Now this is an interesting time to publish a devblog. Did someone lose a bet?
Edit - Good blog btw
|
Jason Edwards
Internet Tough Guy Spreadsheets Online
|
Posted - 2010.03.07 01:29:00 -
[5]
All I want to know... where the hell is the new and better cyno jumpdrive effect. It has been missing for a long time. ------------------------ To make a megathron from scratch, you must first invent the eve universe. ------------------------ Life sucks and then you get podded. |
Jagga Spikes
Minmatar Tribal Liberation Force
|
Posted - 2010.03.07 01:36:00 -
[6]
not even a word on mining? ________________________________ : Forum Bore 'Em : Foamy The Squirrel |
ElvenLord
|
Posted - 2010.03.07 01:45:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Mashie Saldana Edited by: Mashie Saldana on 07/03/2010 00:44:52 Now this is an interesting time to publish a devblog. Did someone lose a bet?
That would be CCP Xhagen :P
All in all, entire CSM and CCP worked hard (no matter how strange it might sound). First changes was done in the way we have CSM meetings, as I tried, as chairman, to make ppl work more together on issues/solutions in between meetings, to make CSM do more brainstorming sessions that comes up with solutions not just problems. And it worked good so far.
As Xhagen and few more CCP guys said, this was completely different summit then it used to be, as CSM was involved in not just giving feedback but also giving ideas/solutions for future (some might be noticed in alliance tournament dev blog).
I can assure you all that this CSM will continue to work hard on achieving goals we set to do.
|
London
Gallente Dark-Rising IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.03.07 04:27:00 -
[8]
Quote: The CSM raised the issue of the balance of different types of guns, claiming that projectile guns seemed more powerful than others. Furthermore, the Gallente seem underpowered in general. Their short range blaster specialty doesnæt combine well with their slow cumbersome ships which prevent them from determining engagement range.
\o/ It's about time. Funny they mentioned projectiles instead of lasers.
|
Sader Rykane
Amarr Midnight Sentinels Midnight Space Syndicate
|
Posted - 2010.03.07 04:34:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Jagga Spikes not even a word on mining?
Sig Gallery is currently down: Contact me ingame for prices.
|
UVPhoenix2
Gallente Brotherhood of Heart and Steel Iron Heart Brotherhood
|
Posted - 2010.03.07 05:38:00 -
[10]
*yawn*
Dev blogs like this are disappoint.
I know how you feel. Material of this nature affect us all in different ways. What you need to do is learn from this. And this is just my sig. |
|
Gaia Tezul
Gallente Digital Aerospace
|
Posted - 2010.03.07 06:28:00 -
[11]
As a Dev at another gaming studio - I can not express enough how amazed I am at the lengths that CCP goes to when trying to communicate and listen to their player base. I also am consistently amazed at how little respect some of the player base is of that. To those, ya'll don't know how good you have it.
|
Villian
|
Posted - 2010.03.07 07:53:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Gaia Tezul As a Dev at another gaming studio - I can not express enough how amazed I am at the lengths that CCP goes to when trying to communicate and listen to their player base. I also am consistently amazed at how little respect some of the player base is of that. To those, ya'll don't know how good you have it.
This. A much due thanks to the relevant parties at CCP and in the CSM.
|
Hienz Doofenshmirtz
|
Posted - 2010.03.07 08:27:00 -
[13]
best line in the whole set of minutes
Asher (aka Mrs Trzzbk) stated that low-sec is also an emergent sandbox, only itæs about 3 inches deep and full of cat poop
good description of pretty much all of low sec. a great place for newer players that can't yet make it in 0.0 but feel that high sec is too much of a bore. yet the 0.0 alliances hunting, the low sec pirates, well pirating, and the corperations that have managed to carve a space there for themselves. make this harder to play in than 0.0 or high sec. shoot even w-space is easier to fly in then low sec.
|
UndeadBabe
|
Posted - 2010.03.07 08:33:00 -
[14]
nice to see both open up their doors a bit, CCP and our choosen representatives.
For ur black op puzzle, mayby try looking into the point of allowing black ops to find new short term wormholes to and from low sec to 0.0 systems that only survive for like 50 ship passings / a few hours instaid of a day cycle.
That probebly gives u the use again for all those weard probes we had before....
|
T'Amber
www.shipsofeve.com
|
Posted - 2010.03.07 09:22:00 -
[15]
Can't wait to read all the full details.
-T'amber
|
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.03.07 10:49:00 -
[16]
I really hope a lot of stuff was removed to respect the NDA.
As it stay the lack of interest for all industrial/mining things and most PvE in the different CSM meetings minutes and in the Icelandic meeting minutes is very disturbing.
I am strongly against increasing the CSM term to 12 months. When (as it seem to be with the current CSM) some section of the game is heavily underrepresented a long term will only increase disaffection for the whole CSM mechanics in the players interested in that section of the game. That will convince them that the CSM has no utility and push them toward not voting, so getting underrepresented again. It is the kind of vicious cycle that can break the utility of the CSM.
|
QwaarJet
Gallente hirr Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2010.03.07 11:06:00 -
[17]
Elvenlord best Lord.
|
Phantom Slave
Universal Pest Exterminators
|
Posted - 2010.03.07 11:25:00 -
[18]
I enjoyed both the blog and the meeting minutes. Having the overview while in station? Awesome! Being unable to dock while being warp scrammed? Also freaking awesome!
|
Kharamete
|
Posted - 2010.03.07 11:32:00 -
[19]
lol
Originally by: The Minutes ThereÆs a wish for more delicately worded replies to petitions where players are denied reimbursement for a major loss.
GM Rearhat: What can I do for you? Player: WTF man! I tried to loggoski me titan! Didna work like! Those velators cheated! I want a reimbursement! GM Rearhat: [ silence ] Player: WTF man? I want me titan! GM Rearhat: Adapt or die! ---
|
Marlona Sky
D00M. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2010.03.07 11:42:00 -
[20]
*yawn*
|
|
Naga Tokiba
|
Posted - 2010.03.07 11:43:00 -
[21]
Wow ... (not WoW) ... excelent work CMS and CCP. Way to go to evolve eve |
Ifly Uwalk
Caldari Empire Tax Collection Agency
|
Posted - 2010.03.07 12:34:00 -
[22]
I think that,
"CCP discussing current and future design ideas"
on ze forumz iso just with the CSM would go a long way to squashing whine posts and actually discussing stuff. Amazing concept for a forum, I know.
Ifly
|
Razin
The xDEATHx Squadron Legion of xXDEATHXx
|
Posted - 2010.03.07 20:03:00 -
[23]
Edited by: Razin on 07/03/2010 20:03:07
Quote: Noah asked if it would change anything if you could get overview information before undocking. There were more mixed views about that and nothing conclusive came out of subsequent discussions. [The CSM, upon further reflection during the weekend, rallied behind the idea. See Saturday minutes for further information. Xhagen]
It took CSM a weekend to understand that this is needed?
Implementing this will bring us one step closer to Delayed Local in 0.0. ...
|
TeaDaze
|
Posted - 2010.03.07 20:10:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Razin It took CSM a weekend to understand that this is needed?
Erm no.
The idea was pitched during one of the 50 minute session on the first day. The idea wasn't agreed on at that time and we discussed other things the rest of the day.
We further discussed the idea that evening (probably in the pub ) and the next day in another relevant session (docking games) it was brought up again.
So not a whole weekend at all...
Originally by: Razin Implementing this will bring us one step closer to Delayed Local in 0.0.
One step at a time
|
Razin
The xDEATHx Squadron Legion of xXDEATHXx
|
Posted - 2010.03.07 20:14:00 -
[25]
Originally by: TeaDaze
Originally by: Razin Implementing this will bring us one step closer to Delayed Local in 0.0.
One step at a time
...
|
Alekseyev Karrde
|
Posted - 2010.03.07 22:35:00 -
[26]
Aside from attributing my quote to Mrs. Trzz, nice blog ---
|
Hemmo Paskiainen
Gallente Silver Snake Enterprise
|
Posted - 2010.03.07 22:40:00 -
[27]
Nice, its good to see stufs like this. Just 1 thing when does the black ops get fixed?
|
Serenity Steele
Dynamic Data Distribution
|
Posted - 2010.03.07 23:12:00 -
[28]
WTG CCP. Good that the discussion was more expansive.
I'll never forget CCP Hammer's comment on the first CSM something like ... which i interpreted as 'Yeah they had lots of ideas, but they were kinda trivial/lame, we expected big game-changing world future ideas.'. This wasn't an issue of being high and mighty, it really was "can CCP please balance Module X or Ship Y type ideas."
A good surprise to hear this has changed. Now that the dust is off the carpet, I look forward to it rolling red, all the way to the players.
Buy ≡v≡ Strategic Maps in the Eve-Online Store |
Bomberlocks
Minmatar Star Bombers
|
Posted - 2010.03.07 23:30:00 -
[29]
I am pretty much impressed with the new CSM's no nonsense attitude and willingness to communicate player dissatisfaction and wishes so far. I hope it stays that way.
I am especially glad that some long wished for ideas were discussed, such as the ability to see overview info in station. I was disappointed at CCP's attitude towards lowsec and FW. CCP just does not seem to realise that the vast majority of eve players stay in hisec and only occasionally go into losec because the costs are simply too high for most of them on the one side, and the idea of being a mere pawn in some big alliance's game is not exactly enticing.
I understand CCP's wish for nullsec combat from a RL business point of view as it keeps players playing longer in order to keep up with the losses, but the game is still severely disjointed from a new player's point of view. How on earth are new players supposed to quickly go into nullsec and make any real contribution or have any meaningful participation apart from being cannon fodder or bait?
The answer is that usually they can't and it is easier to go into losec pirating or hisec wardeccing than it is into nullsec. Making nullsec more accessible and worthwhile will help here.
I'm also still not so clear on what CCP has against FW. FW combat losses are astronomical and, including the limited capital warfare surely approach those of nullsec combat. It's also very popular as a starting point for PvP, and very often serves as the gateway for players to eventually go into nullsec.
|
ThaDollaGenerale
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2010.03.07 23:43:00 -
[30]
Quote: He also noted that ''The goons weren't living up to their reputation. They were actually being useful''
Who'd have thought that the goons would also have a vested interest in making eve better. Obviously not this idiot CSM rep.
|
|
ElvenLord
|
Posted - 2010.03.08 01:53:00 -
[31]
Originally by: Bomberlocks I am pretty much impressed with the new CSM's no nonsense attitude and willingness to communicate player dissatisfaction and wishes so far. I hope it stays that way.
tnx, we will try to keep up the work we've done so far and make sure all we started does go trough.
|
galphi
Gallente Sileo In Pacis THE SPACE P0LICE
|
Posted - 2010.03.08 05:31:00 -
[32]
Edited by: galphi on 08/03/2010 05:34:01 Excellent read, looks like the process is getting more efficient all the time.
The redocking mechanic change sounds sexy, looking forward to testing that out
Destroyers could use a massive overhaul, but if time is an issue, lowering signature (50-60) and increasing overall HP (+30% to 50%) would be a nice stopgap. Sure, they're glass cannons, but it's too much glass and not enough cannon. Perhaps increasing their warp speed to 4.5au/sec would be nice too.
|
Hack Harrison
Caldari
|
Posted - 2010.03.08 06:37:00 -
[33]
In regards to stopping someone docking when scrammed - just to clarify. Do they have to be scrammed or is warp disruption enough? I figure it means either, but I ask so that this is clear.
|
Charles Javeroux
Gallente INTERSTELLAR CREDIT
|
Posted - 2010.03.08 09:10:00 -
[34]
Good to see that our votes and fate in the CSM project, is not wasted and there is clear results to show and work on.
Originally by: Orek Fear I guess the ultimate solution to inflation in EVE turned out to be an NPC stripper...
|
Fade Toblack
|
Posted - 2010.03.08 09:13:00 -
[35]
The blog/minutes say that the CSM term has been increased to 12 months to give a bit of continuity. If you want to improve continuity can I suggest an alternative way of doing it.
Rather than electing an entire CSM for a fixed term why not have staggered elections. So for example a third of the CSM is eligible for re-election every 6 months.
|
Theron Gyrow
Gradient Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2010.03.08 09:28:00 -
[36]
Quote: Moving datacore production to nullsec was identified as a possible means to give players incentives to operate there.
I believe the T2 BPO owners make enough money as is, thank you very much.
Quote:
Noah asked what the CSM thought of a feature where ships that were scrambled or under other module effect could not dock.
The problem with that is that ships often drop outside the dock range when warping to dock. If this is implemented, you will pretty much need a center-of-station bookmark for each station where you are planning to dock. I'm not sure that is a good idea.
If the warp-to location to stations is changed so that the docking maneuver will always succeed immediately and the docking command will take without fail, this would probably be a good thing. -- Gradient forum |
Miyamoto Uroki
Caldari Revelation of the Fallen
|
Posted - 2010.03.08 09:40:00 -
[37]
Moar power and transparency to the CSM..
The stakeholder decision sounds nice, although I don't know how big the influence of stakeholders actually is.
But what about transparency? Will we, the players, get to see a list of influenced decisions or even backlogs points? As someone from the CSM rightfully mentioned, the majority of players are losing faith in the CSM.
|
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.03.08 10:26:00 -
[38]
Originally by: Fade Toblack The blog/minutes say that the CSM term has been increased to 12 months to give a bit of continuity. If you want to improve continuity can I suggest an alternative way of doing it.
Rather than electing an entire CSM for a fixed term why not have staggered elections. So for example a third of the CSM is eligible for re-election every 6 months.
It would be even worse.
Everytime the same majority of voters will win and the CSM would be a direct representation of the major power blocks without even one different voice.
|
Pottsey
Enheduanni Foundation
|
Posted - 2010.03.08 10:51:00 -
[39]
Edited by: Pottsey on 08/03/2010 10:54:41 Why zero mention of the Gallante highly experimental storyline missions that most of player Gallante mission runnerÆs absolutely hate. These missions are destroying PvE and have totally ruined mission running for many gallante players.
The missions are so bad many people bug reported them thinking they are bugs. See http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1228466
CCP said they are highly experimental. The missions failed yet no comment on removing them or fixing them? Are CCP even aware of the problems with these highly experimental missions.
Why where highly experimental missions even put directly on the live server without the test server? Nothing about the broken sound engine thatÆs worse then when the game first shipped? Noting about core broke features like shadows or the juke box? What about all the gfx effects that look worse now then a few years ago?
http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1262938&page=1 http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1018419&page=14
______ How to Passive Shield Tank T2
|
Nova Fox
Gallente Novafox Shipyards
|
Posted - 2010.03.08 13:49:00 -
[40]
good work CSM, hope to see some of the stuff become reality. Pre-order your Sisters of ≡v≡ Exploration ship today, Updated 24FEB10
|
|
1oldspacedude
|
Posted - 2010.03.08 19:00:00 -
[41]
"Noah asked what the CSM thought of a feature where ships that were scrambled or under other module effect could not dock."
You guys better think long and hard about this one before going though with it. This will only encourage blobs. Add what they said about bringing back DDD to low sec how hard would it be to send one bait ship to engage a cap and then cyno in a cap fleet for easy kills on stations.
Maybe a certain ship or point is need for this i.e use the infinite point but not ever scram and disrupt should stop you from docking. I would like to see something implemented to stop docking games but this is not the answer IMO. Think about scenario where this would be very overpowered and empower blobs even with the overview in station its not hard to setup safespots just off grid or put cynos on bait ships where the overview does no good at all.
Yes fix docking games no to points not letting you dock think of something better!
OSD
|
Musashibou Benkei
Combined Imperial Fleet JIHADASQUAD
|
Posted - 2010.03.08 19:15:00 -
[42]
I agree with what the above poster mentioned about not being able to dock while under other module influence 100%
It will make it too easy to have a bait abaddon or something with a high tank point a capital ship or something outside the station and simply sit there and keep things from docking AND warping away while the enemy hotdrops dreads/battleship fleet on you. Say goodbye to aggro fighting and it just becomes more and more blob warfare
|
Razin
The xDEATHx Squadron Legion of xXDEATHXx
|
Posted - 2010.03.08 19:43:00 -
[43]
Originally by: 1oldspacedude "Noah asked what the CSM thought of a feature where ships that were scrambled or under other module effect could not dock."
You guys better think long and hard about this one before going though with it. This will only encourage blobs. Add what they said about bringing back DDD to low sec how hard would it be to send one bait ship to engage a cap and then cyno in a cap fleet for easy kills on stations.
A cap shouldn't be flying without support, so nothing wrong with this.
This change will in fact encourage smaller gangs as you'd actually have a hope of killing something with a smaller force if you have a chance of keeping it from docking. ...
|
Chi Quan
Bibkor Enterprises
|
Posted - 2010.03.08 21:08:00 -
[44]
Quote: It was agreed that CCP formally recognizes the CSM as a stakeholder in EVE development on equal footing with stakeholder departments within CCP, allowing the CSM much greater influence on development prioritization.
you should have bolded that line ---- Ceterum censeo blasters need some tracking love |
1oldspacedude
|
Posted - 2010.03.08 22:27:00 -
[45]
Originally by: Razin
Originally by: 1oldspacedude "Noah asked what the CSM thought of a feature where ships that were scrambled or under other module effect could not dock."
You guys better think long and hard about this one before going though with it. This will only encourage blobs. Add what they said about bringing back DDD to low sec how hard would it be to send one bait ship to engage a cap and then cyno in a cap fleet for easy kills on stations.
A cap shouldn't be flying without support, so nothing wrong with this.
This change will in fact encourage smaller gangs as you'd actually have a hope of killing something with a smaller force if you have a chance of keeping it from docking.
I'll agree with you on the cap should fly with support but in small gang warfare out side a station a small group of RR could pin down a cap even with its own support till the larger alliance or corp can get more numbers. You will see logoffski rise about 95% since theres nothing else you could do.
Mega alliance would kill more caps and smaller corp that dont want to join them would suffer even more. Right now if a fight happens on a station Carrier can RR then dock up before Mega alliance can get support but if this changes you can point a carrier and just "WAIT" for your support. No reason to ever undock caps unless you know your numbers are greater less tactics saving your guys and getting docked.
I would support aggression timers based on mass or even RR getting flagged but not this. Would the point also stop you from jumping though gates or entering POS shields? where do you stop?
|
Gravecall
|
Posted - 2010.03.08 22:35:00 -
[46]
Quote: One option is to sell random number generators but the CSM expressed doubt that a significant number of players would utilize that option.
Would it be worth maybe trying to find out through the forums if folks would be interested? Could such devices be connected to multiple accounts since many Eve players have more than one account?
|
Mick Jabber
|
Posted - 2010.03.08 23:08:00 -
[47]
Originally by: 1oldspacedude "Noah asked what the CSM thought of a feature where ships that were scrambled or under other module effect could not dock."
You guys better think long and hard about this one before going though with it. This will only encourage blobs. Add what they said about bringing back DDD to low sec how hard would it be to send one bait ship to engage a cap and then cyno in a cap fleet for easy kills on stations.
Maybe a certain ship or point is need for this i.e use the infinite point but not ever scram and disrupt should stop you from docking. I would like to see something implemented to stop docking games but this is not the answer IMO. Think about scenario where this would be very overpowered and empower blobs even with the overview in station its not hard to setup safespots just off grid or put cynos on bait ships where the overview does no good at all.
Yes fix docking games no to points not letting you dock think of something better!
OSD
A module should not prevent you from docking. Solve docking games by increasing the de-agro timer. You agro you can not dock for 5 minutes. Also have remote effects create agro. Solved. Carriers Repping Nano Machs are now open to a good ol' attack. A module would open up all sorts of abuse. A cloaked Lachieses would hose most people that are not combat oriented.
Gate timers I think are fine. You can have someone on the other side of a gate, you can not have someone on the other side of a station. (Yet)
I am thinking of JF. Not normally flown with a lot of support, if scrammed, totally hosed. there is NO OPTION for him to get safe. He undocked and a cloaked ship hosed him.
|
Razin
The xDEATHx Squadron Legion of xXDEATHXx
|
Posted - 2010.03.08 23:53:00 -
[48]
Originally by: Mick Jabber
A module should not prevent you from docking. Solve docking games by increasing the de-agro timer. You agro you can not dock for 5 minutes. Also have remote effects create agro. Solved. Carriers Repping Nano Machs are now open to a good ol' attack. A module would open up all sorts of abuse. A cloaked Lachieses would hose most people that are not combat oriented.
Gate timers I think are fine. You can have someone on the other side of a gate, you can not have someone on the other side of a station. (Yet)
I like this solution a lot better, however there will still be complaints that this allows bait-and-hot-drop tactics without giving the cap a free pass on consequences of falling for the easy gank carrot. ...
|
Razin
The xDEATHx Squadron Legion of xXDEATHXx
|
Posted - 2010.03.08 23:59:00 -
[49]
Originally by: 1oldspacedude
I would support aggression timers based on mass or even RR getting flagged but not this. Would the point also stop you from jumping though gates or entering POS shields? where do you stop?
How would a meaningful aggression timer that prevents re-docking change what you are describing? What kind of timer would you suggest for a cap? ...
|
Reptzo
Channel 4 News Team Forbidden Domain
|
Posted - 2010.03.09 00:04:00 -
[50]
One good way to fix docking games, just make it so if you agro, you can only dock if you leave grid (means you got away anyways) or your 15 minute agro time runs out (means you won, or they just are not going to kill you).
That should solve it. Also, remote repping/boosting/whatever should flag you.
|
|
1oldspacedude
|
Posted - 2010.03.09 01:23:00 -
[51]
Originally by: Razin
How would a meaningful aggression timer that prevents re-docking change what you are describing? What kind of timer would you suggest for a cap?
That's actually a very good question that would take some research, testing and tweaking.
Ruff guess frigs and dessy about 30 seconds after aggression 1 min or so for cruisers and maybe bc's, 2 Min on BS and 4-5 min on Caps. This would have to be tested out on the test sever and have community feedback on timers.
This also could be very difficult to learn and understand for young players also so i would put under your aggression timer a orange timer that says redock timer or somthing and have it count down.
Another idea if you don't like this one is change the docking radius of stations and how you eject from them. People have complained about this a long time and standardizing them and making it so you have to get back to station would be simple for smaller ships but caps even if they stopped as soon as they tried to undock were 500m (not to far) off station will actually put them at a risk of a small bumps.
Just some ideas that i think are better then point and no dock which i think could royalty screw up the game.
|
Zastrow
|
Posted - 2010.03.09 03:17:00 -
[52]
I wrote a bunch of words somewhere not public about this, but I felt past CSMs (even csm3 of which I was a part) were hideously ineffective. The CSM was a good idea but we had really bad communication and internal processes. I came to iceland for CSM4 with a bit of a chip on my shoulder and did some table-pounding and voice-raising but I think through my (and the other csm's) nerd rage we were able to get through to CCP on many issues about both the CSM process and also EVE gameplay and mechanics. Even if you aren't satisfied with past CSMs, trust me when I say that the future CSMs will be much more effective. Please resize image to a maximum of 400 x 120, not exceeding 24000 bytes. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
Alice Silversong
|
Posted - 2010.03.09 06:49:00 -
[53]
So you guys talked about hybrid turrets but not rockets?
|
Jim Luc
Caldari Rule of Five
|
Posted - 2010.03.09 08:08:00 -
[54]
I really hope they don't bury the battle-recorder, I LOVE that idea!! If enough people speak up, they'll spend the money and time on it.
|
Aineko Macx
|
Posted - 2010.03.09 11:48:00 -
[55]
Originally by: 1oldspacedude "Noah asked what the CSM thought of a feature where ships that were scrambled or under other module effect could not dock."
Maybe a certain ship or point is need for this i.e use the infinite point but not ever scram
Yes, that would make the problem of afk cloaky cyno recons even worse. I'd much prefer it to be HICs + focusing scripts. Nice side effect to this would be the increased usefulness of HICs.
Originally by: 1oldspacedude
Originally by: Razin
How would a meaningful aggression timer that prevents re-docking change what you are describing? What kind of timer would you suggest for a cap?
That's actually a very good question that would take some research, testing and tweaking.
Ruff guess frigs and dessy about 30 seconds after aggression 1 min or so for cruisers and maybe bc's, 2 Min on BS and 4-5 min on Caps. This would have to be tested out on the test sever and have community feedback on timers.
Yes. Those two suggestions + having remote reps give the repper a timer would be a pretty good fix to docking games.
|
Elementatia
Caldari Sev3rance
|
Posted - 2010.03.09 15:47:00 -
[56]
Best CSM Meeting Minutes ever ! This is the first CSM-Meeting that does what i do expect from the CSM and CCP ! I am glad you now see this the same way and found a good way to do it.
Move on that way !
yours Elementatia
|
No Mauk'Ob
Minmatar Murientor Tribe
|
Posted - 2010.03.09 18:11:00 -
[57]
Quote: CCP prefers to use development resources on improving nullsec warfare rather than on factional warfare, but is still committed to fixing existing exploits and views it as a high priority.
very disappointing
for those of us who would like some consequence to our game and a wee bit of internal logic from time to time anyway...
for a game that purports to let me do whatever I want to do it sure does spend a lot of effort trying to herd me away from what I want to do....
------------------------------------------------ Captain No Mauk'Ob Murientor Tribe Navy 1st MCW MURIE is Recruiting! |
Fade Toblack
|
Posted - 2010.03.10 12:04:00 -
[58]
Originally by: Venkul Mul It would be even worse.
Everytime the same majority of voters will win and the CSM would be a direct representation of the major power blocks without even one different voice.
I think you've misunderstood what I suggested. All the other rules about elections can still be in place. So if you want a single Goon at once rule, then once a Goon gets onto the CSM the rest of them are not eligible for election until that first Goon's time period has been served.
|
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.03.10 13:34:00 -
[59]
Originally by: Fade Toblack
Originally by: Venkul Mul It would be even worse.
Everytime the same majority of voters will win and the CSM would be a direct representation of the major power blocks without even one different voice.
I think you've misunderstood what I suggested. All the other rules about elections can still be in place. So if you want a single Goon at once rule, then once a Goon gets onto the CSM the rest of them are not eligible for election until that first Goon's time period has been served.
I think I haven't misunderstood you.
The problem, as I see it is this (numbers can be imprecise):
Current situation
- CSM has 9 members, there are 30 candidates, 15K voters, average 500 votes for candidate. - a candidate need to gather at least 750 votes for a good chance to be elected. - a power group to be sure that his candidate get elected will gather at least 1.200 votes - so unless a power block is very large it will have a hard time electing more than 2 CSM members - the last positions could be get by "independent" candidates without a power block backing them.
With a mid term election for 53 candidates: - CSM has 5 open positions, there are still 30 candidates, 15K voters, average of 500 per candidate. - a candidate need to gather at least 1.000 votes for a good chance to be elected (first 5 positions of current CSM). - a power group to be sure that his candidate get elected will gather at least 1.500 votes - In this situation the 3 largest power groups will almost certainly get all the open seats and independent candidates will have almost no chance.
The US system work because the candidates are linked to a area and the same people don't vote for both the mid term and main election (or so i gather, I am not a US citizen).
There are no rules about "more than 1 Goon/Bob/whatever in the CSM" and there should be not such rules (and they will be useless too).
Note that power groups aren't necessarily an alliance, but mostly they linked by a common interest in the game and (often) by a willingness put aside whatever don't touch that interest.
|
ThorTheGreat
Caldari GoonWaffe SOLODRAKBANSOLODRAKBANSO
|
Posted - 2010.03.10 20:06:00 -
[60]
Edited by: ThorTheGreat on 10/03/2010 20:06:57
Originally by: Fade Toblack
Originally by: Venkul Mul It would be even worse.
Everytime the same majority of voters will win and the CSM would be a direct representation of the major power blocks without even one different voice.
I think you've misunderstood what I suggested. All the other rules about elections can still be in place. So if you want a single Goon at once rule, then once a Goon gets onto the CSM the rest of them are not eligible for election until that first Goon's time period has been served.
This doesn't solve a thing. You can't even keep people from gaming the tournament with alts where there's significantly less at stake. If I want 2 people on the CSM I'll get beyond any ridiculously arbitrary restrictions.
I have consistently seen a small number of people lament the representation of "power blocks" when the actual makeup of the CSM going back to CSM1 is the complete opposite. Do more reading, then talk.
|
|
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.03.11 00:35:00 -
[61]
Originally by: ThorTheGreat Edited by: ThorTheGreat on 10/03/2010 20:06:57
Originally by: Fade Toblack
Originally by: Venkul Mul It would be even worse.
Everytime the same majority of voters will win and the CSM would be a direct representation of the major power blocks without even one different voice.
I think you've misunderstood what I suggested. All the other rules about elections can still be in place. So if you want a single Goon at once rule, then once a Goon gets onto the CSM the rest of them are not eligible for election until that first Goon's time period has been served.
This doesn't solve a thing. You can't even keep people from gaming the tournament with alts where there's significantly less at stake. If I want 2 people on the CSM I'll get beyond any ridiculously arbitrary restrictions.
I have consistently seen a small number of people lament the representation of "power blocks" when the actual makeup of the CSM going back to CSM1 is the complete opposite. Do more reading, then talk.
Depend on the definition of "power blocks". I don't mean Alliances, or groups of alliances, but "interest in a section of the game".
With the election of the full CSM there is a good canche that 1-2 players interested in PvE and industrial things get elected.
With an half term election for 50% of the CSM it is almost granted that we will get only the PvP and 0.0 interest represented.
|
Delenne Sheridan
|
Posted - 2010.03.11 16:04:00 -
[62]
Edited by: Delenne Sheridan on 11/03/2010 16:04:34 Just read the minutes, and it would appear this was a complete waste of time, of the hundreds of proposals and ideas on the forums listed here, they talked about a handful and the only important one was suicide ganking. CCP has to stop paying insurance to people who intentionally gank ships and are concorded in Highsec. They get concorded, and are rewarded with insurance payouts and salvage for their complete disregard for the rules. Its like buying a box of cigars, insuring them, smoking them, then placing a claim with the insurance company for loss of the cigars due to fire.
The rest of the issues are all crap. Of the things they did approve (like Corp Bookmarks) CCP told them "its in the mail". Gee, seems to me from reading far too many posts on this board lots of things are in the mail...When does the postman arrive on some of these?
They should have just taken the "List of Frequent Ideas" with them and gone through them with the developers and run them down one by one, until they got through the most frequent ideas, then most of them could be put to rest. That would take them off the table and end the converstation on them once and for all.
This meeting was a complete waste of time....
|
Chirjo Durruti
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.03.12 16:14:00 -
[63]
Originally by: Delenne Sheridan
Just read the minutes, and it would appear this was a complete waste of time, of the hundreds of proposals and ideas on the forums listed here, they talked about a handful and the only important one was suicide ganking.
^ This.
|
TeaDaze
|
Posted - 2010.03.12 17:25:00 -
[64]
Originally by: Delenne Sheridan
Just read the minutes, and it would appear this was a complete waste of time, of the hundreds of proposals and ideas on the forums listed here, they talked about a handful and the only important one was suicide ganking.
Ok, I'll bite.
The list of topics that were taken by CSM to CCP were not all discussed during the summit simply because many of them didn't require further discussion (having been debated by CSM and categorised as major or minor changes). Instead of simply repeating the list as submitted we were able to spend more time discussing general game issues (as well as complaints about Dominion and expectation management) and also to have some input into stuff still under NDA.
The point of the CSM was never to take "hundreds of proposals and ideas" to CCP, but instead to identify and discuss those important issues (those with with good support) during our meetings and to weed out weak proposals that don't contain sufficient detail. We aim for quality over quantity simply because we know CCP have a limited amount of dev time and we want the most important issues to be dealt with first.
The CSM process is fully documented and the meeting minutes from each, including a TL:DR summary of the voting are produced each time. No we have not tried to discuss and vote on each and every issue in the assembly hall forum, simply because there are so many issues with only a handful of supporters.
If there is a specific proposal you want to see pushed forward then try to get a good number of players to support it and we'll include it for discussion in the next meeting.
|
Pottsey
Enheduanni Foundation
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 09:36:00 -
[65]
Edited by: Pottsey on 13/03/2010 09:36:50 TeaDaze said "The list of topics that were taken by CSM to CCP were not all discussed during the summit simply because many of them didn't require further discussion" The problem is there is no feed back to us players. Like the major problem of the highly experimental missions that have destroyed Gallente PvE for a large amount of players. It's a major issue but we have zero feedback on if the CSM even gave the problem to CCP and if CCP are doing anything about it or even aware of it.
There is also no feedback on core parts of the Eve engine being broke like the sound engine and shadows.
It feels like CSM skipped over major problems to talk about minor stuff. But a large part of CSM was talking about CSM, not talking about the major Eve problems.
Some things like shadows have been broken over 1 year now. It's just crazy on the lack of feedback we get. I still want to know why highly experimental missions where even put on the live server anyway, when anyway who knows anything about PvE could see they are a stupid idea.
______ How to Passive Shield Tank T2
|
ElvenLord
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 11:09:00 -
[66]
Meeting minutes only contain small part of all things discussed during summit. There where many issues about missions, Dominion, FW etc that took a lot of time but didnt get in meeting minutes, they ended up on development backlog and as such are not in meeting minutes. Also all discussions we had about summer and winter expansions are not in meeting minutes.
There is entire list of so called minor issues, that we didnt even get to cover, as they contained certain bugs or smaller corrections/balancing that where deemed simple and straight matters, that just need a fix.
|
TeaDaze
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 13:18:00 -
[67]
Originally by: Pottsey The problem is there is no feed back to us players. Like the major problem of the highly experimental missions that have destroyed Gallente PvE for a large amount of players. It's a major issue but we have zero feedback on if the CSM even gave the problem to CCP and if CCP are doing anything about it or even aware of it.
This list of issues raised by CSM and submitted to CCP is here and has been for months. The list had to be submitted to CCP a month before the summit so they could organise the relevant developers to discuss them. Major issues were up for discussion, minor issues were submitted as "just do these".
Originally by: Pottsey There is also no feedback on core parts of the Eve engine being broke like the sound engine and shadows.
Neither of those topics are on the submitted list and thus were not discussed.
Originally by: Pottsey It feels like CSM skipped over major problems to talk about minor stuff. But a large part of CSM was talking about CSM, not talking about the major Eve problems.
Some things like shadows have been broken over 1 year now. It's just crazy on the lack of feedback we get.
Can I get this straight, you accuse us of only talking about minor stuff and ignoring "major issues" like broken shadows?
I'm sorry that we discussed minor issues like account security, dominion problems, planetary interaction, factional warfare etc. instead
Originally by: Pottsey I still want to know why highly experimental missions where even put on the live server anyway, when anyway who knows anything about PvE could see they are a stupid idea.
I assume you refer to this proposal which was raised fairly close to the cut off for submissions to the Summit. It wasn't put on any meeting agenda prior to the summit due to lack of support. If it is such a game breaking issue how come only 29 people agree (at this time). If it gains more support we can discuss it with CCP at one of the online summit meetings.
I'm fine with people complaining about the CSM, but please read up about the process we are working within before doing so.
|
Galega Ori
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 14:59:00 -
[68]
I highly approve of the idea for corporate bookmarks and the suggestion of having corporate assets being available to warp to in system without having the bookmark. But something I think that would be on the same level of difficulty to implement as this and wasn't discussed was the lack of implants on a kill mail for a pod kill. This is something that I really think should have been implemented by CCP a long time ago and am disappointed that it seems to still not be important enough to discuss.
This is something that is needed for players like me who regularly get pod kills during wars and roams in null sec or wormhole space. As this helps us to keep track of the ISK damage we are doing to our targets. On the other hand, the satisfaction you get from sending someone on the pod express back home is great but it's lacking the satisfaction of finding out how many billions of ISK in damage you cost that player.
Hears to looking forward to seeing this implemented soonTM.
|
Pottsey
Enheduanni Foundation
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 17:33:00 -
[69]
TeaDaze said "I assume you refer to this proposal which was raised fairly close to the cut off for submissions to the Summit. It wasn't put on any meeting agenda prior to the summit due to lack of support. If it is such a game breaking issue how come only 29 people agree (at this time). If it gains more support we can discuss it with CCP at one of the online summit meetings." That just shows how poor the CSM is. It should not need more support before you will discuss it with CCP. If you come across something that is clearly a large problem but with few votes you should apply common sense and discuss it. Things like why highly experimental missions where skipped from the test server and dumped right on the live server need talking about. You should not dump anything highly experimental straight on the live server without testing. http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1228466&page=1#5
We can have a major game breaking problem which anyone with a little common sense can see is a major problem. But it doesn't get acted on because of how poor the CSM are and how poor the voting system is. If the devs or CSM just read the comments in the dev blog about the missions they would have seen how unhappy Gallante players are.
It only affects Gallente mission runners so it's going to get less support then other problems that affect everyone. But still missing up missions and PvE for one whole race is a major issue. http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1228466
Notice how like 99% ish of people who posted on the topic agree. The player base is not even split about the problem. 99% of posts about the problem are against the missions. The dev blog about the missions was also full of people saying what a bad idea it was and how many problems it caused. Why do devs ingnore player comments on dev blogs?
Only 29 people agree because the vast majority of people who are effect by it do not know about that CSM thread and many do not even know about the CSM. Most of the posts about the problem where done in the missions forums where there is a much longer thread on it and more than one thread. The dev blog about the new missions was also full of people saying how bad it is. The other problem is anyone who bug reported the problem and the problem is that bad many thought it was a bug they get told to post in the missions forum or Issues, Workarounds & Localization forum not the CSM forum. Consequently when there is a major game breaking issue you get long threads in the . Issues, Workarounds & Localization thread not the CSM forum.
http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1018419&page=15 is a classic example. People have a major problem with the sound engine. They don't know about the CSM and they bug report it. No response from bug reporting and if they do get a response it's to be told to post in the or Issues, Workarounds & Localization forum instead of CSM. When players are told to post problems some place other then CSM is it any wonder CSM gets so few votes.
You shouldn't judge an issue solely by how many people agree with it anyway. You should use common sense. If something is very clearly causing major problems with forums post all over the place saying how bad it is and people in game all saying how bad it is. You don't ignore is just because it got less votes then something else.
If CSM come across a major issue like the sound engine or Gallante mission threads in the CSM forum they should act on it no matter how many votes it gets. Saying it only got 30 votes is stupid. Ingoing problems due to low voting is silly. Apply of bit of common sense. If the problem is clearly a major problem look into it. ______ How to Passive Shield Tank T2
|
Pottsey
Enheduanni Foundation
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 17:44:00 -
[70]
TeaDaze said " Can I get this straight I get this straight, you accuse us of only talking about minor stuff and ignoring "major issues" like broken shadows?" Ok shadows by themself are not major, but the graphics and sound engine problems as a whole are major. Core parts of the engine being broke like sound and graphics need looking into. Ok it's not as important as account security and some other things but it matters a lot. Having many graphic effects being broke and/or looking worse than 2 years ago is a problem that needs looking into. Or in the case of shadows worse than a 10 year old game. I bought up shadows as they are some of the worse but not only graphics problems we now have. When you have playres saying Isendre said "I just returned after a long break and sound is even worse if that's even possible." warning lights should go off.
Not only do these problems ruin the atmosphere of the game, it hurts sales and puts off new players and irritates older players. Do you know how many new players quit saying this game looks and sounds rubbish? How can you blame them when the sound is as broke, music is broke and many graphics effects have taken a giant leap backwards? Some graphics like shadows are now worse than when the game first shipped. Music is mostly gone and there is just a long list of problems. This looks real good for new playres and makes it look like CCP care for the game .
To me any many people core parts of the game being broken like sound and graphics are far more important then talking about a alliance tournament once a year, battle recorders, logos and other less important things.
What other high end MMORG would live with music being broken, sound engine being broke and parts of the graphics being broken for so long without any comment.
______ How to Passive Shield Tank T2
|
|
TeaDaze
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 19:33:00 -
[71]
Originally by: Pottsey That just shows how poor the CSM is. It should not need more support before you will discuss it with CCP. If you come across something that is clearly a large problem but with few votes you should apply common sense and discuss it. Things like why highly experimental missions where skipped from the test server and dumped right on the live server need talking about. You should not dump anything highly experimental straight on the live server without testing. http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1228466&page=1#5
Even after you insult my intelligence I will attempt to address your points.
Firstly the CSM cannot be expected to go looking in every forum for problems, we have enough issues in the Assembly Hall forum to last more than a year. If people are unwilling to follow the CSM process then the CSM will instead pick issues from people who have.
Look at it from our point of view for a second. An 8 page thread in the mission runner forum but only 29 supports (at the time I last checked) in the Assembly forum? How hard is it to link that thread to the Assembly forum thread and suggest people support it there?
Originally by: Pottsey If CSM come across a major issue like the sound engine or Gallante mission threads in the CSM forum they should act on it no matter how many votes it gets. Saying it only got 30 votes is stupid. Ingoing problems due to low voting is silly. Apply of bit of common sense. If the problem is clearly a major problem look into it.
Saying it only had 29 supports is an accurate statement, not stupid at all. Without good support or a CSM rep on board it isn't likely to go forward. Did you try to follow the process?
I don't do Gallante missions and don't have a major issue with sound (ok the shield hardener noise is a bit loud but I tend to zoom out a bit and besides it has been bug reported already, right?) thus it isn't clear these are major issues to anyone but you and 28 other people.
Using my common sense I have instead raised issues that people have spoken to me about and were well supported in the Assembly hall. The other reps have done the same from their areas of gameplay.
Originally by: Pottsey To me any many people core parts of the game being broken like sound and graphics are far more important then talking about a alliance tournament once a year, battle recorders, logos and other less important things.
What other high end MMORG would live with music being broken, sound engine being broke and parts of the graphics being broken for so long without any comment.
Firstly CCP scheduled a meeting with the CSM about the Alliance Tournament, it wasn't an issue we raised. The summit is a two way process and CCP requested our input on some things as we requested answers to others.
Secondly CSM are not bug hunters and anything that is not working needs to be bug reported in the first instance. However if it has been bugged and still isn't being fixed then and only then should an issue be raised to the CSM in the usual way.
If you want to get stuff looked at then please follow the process and refrain from name calling.
|
Pottsey
Enheduanni Foundation
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 23:42:00 -
[72]
Of course the CSM cannot be expected to go looking for every problem. But when a problem is a long thread thats been on the first pages for weeks and is repeated in the dev blog thread thread you expect at least one CSM to notice.
Do CSM not read dev blog threads? If a blog thread is full of comments about problems related to that dev blog why not follow up on it? Why do the devs not follow up as well?
"An 8 page thread in the mission runner forum but only 29 supports (at the time I last checked) in the Assembly forum? How hard is it to link that thread to the Assembly forum thread and suggest people support it there?" It was linked but for various reason people didn't use it,I think it might have got linked to different assembly threads, I need to go back and re-read to double check. Anyway that aside people in game who bug reported the problem and other problems don't get told to post in assembly. They follow the GM's advice and post outside the assembly forums. They don't read 8+ pages looking for a link they don't know about. They post on the end of the chat thats already going off. A large amount of players do what the GM's say and the GM cause the players to bypass the CSM forum.
ôSaying it only had 29 supports is an accurate statement, not stupid at all.ö What I meant was, saying a major problem only has 29 supports so its not worth looking at is stupid way to do things. Just because something only got a few votes it does not mean its not worth looking at. CSM shouldn't be just looking at things with high votes. They should read things with a decent amount of votes and use common sense on if it needs reporting. The way you wrote your post sounded like it doesn't matter how major a problem is if it doesn't get x amount of votes you ignore the problem. Which to me seems like a very poor way of working.
ôIf you want to get stuff looked at then please follow the process and refrain from name calling.ö The process is heavily flawed and not working. You get votes split all over the place meaning problems that need looking at don't get looked at as the vote numbers appear low. You get GM's telling people to post problems elsewhere over CSM areas meaning a large amount of the player base do not post the problem in a way CSM will look at it. Then you have a large amount of players not even being aware of the CSM (partly the fault of GM's who should say post in CSM areas not the other fourm section). There is no way to search for and vote for current problems you might have without somehow knowing about 3rd party search pages or geting lucky and finding the right thread. The whole system is sub optimal.
As for name calling I have every right to call the CSM poor. Have you ever stopped to think why a lot of players don't like the CSM? The idea is great, the way its been implanted and its effectiveness is pretty poor. I am not the only one who thinks this. The main problem is not the CSM people. The problem is the way we have to report problems and the website layout being so bad and not setup decently for this. For example in STO when I had a problem it took me 4 ish clicks and 20 ish seconds to find out alist of people with the same problem. I then added my tag onto the end of the main list. A system like they use would be way better for CSM then the current system. I dont have time right now to go into details. But I can post screenshots of there system another day. ______ How to Passive Shield Tank T2
|
TeaDaze
|
Posted - 2010.03.14 00:33:00 -
[73]
Originally by: Pottsey Do CSM not read dev blog threads? If a blog thread is full of comments about problems related to that dev blog why not follow up on it? Why do the devs not follow up as well?
I read dev blog threads and frequently comment on them. However only threads raised in the Assembly forum can be voted on and taken to the CSM meetings. If these are such important issues people need to raise them in the correct forum.
Number of posts is not a good indication of support which is why the Assembly hall forum has a vote system in it.
Originally by: Pottsey It was linked but for various reason people didn't use it,I think it might have got linked to different assembly threads, I need to go back and re-read to double check.
I can't help it if people don't want to support the issue in the correct place. The rules on CSM submissions are pretty clear.
As to GMs telling people where to post feedback, they are probably correct. However once people have an agreement on the problem then one of them should raise a thread in the Assembly forum and get people to support it. If in doubt post your concerns in the Jita park forum and we'll discuss the next step there.
Originally by: Pottsey What I meant was, saying a major problem only has 29 supports so its not worth looking at is stupid way to do things. Just because something only got a few votes it does not mean its not worth looking at. CSM shouldn't be just looking at things with high votes. They should read things with a decent amount of votes and use common sense on if it needs reporting. The way you wrote your post sounded like it doesn't matter how major a problem is if it doesn't get x amount of votes you ignore the problem. Which to me seems like a very poor way of working.
Once again you call this a major issue that should have been addressed ASAP, but the level of support just doesn't reflect that. Is it an issue, undoubtedly people think so, but if it is truly a major issue I would expect 50-100 supports in a matter of days not 29 in 2 months.
We have a limited amount of time, and my common sense tells me that I'm better off spending that time on the issues that other people have bothered to support. If something major is being overlooked in your opinion then post a polite thread in the Jita park speakers forum and we will look into it.
Originally by: Pottsey The process is heavily flawed and not working. You get votes split all over the place meaning problems that need looking at don't get looked at as the vote numbers appear low. There is no way to search for and vote for current problems you might have without somehow knowing about 3rd party search pages or geting lucky and finding the right thread. The whole system is sub optimal.
The CSM process itself is working, however you are correct that the forums are hampering the submission process and this has been flagged up to CCP already.
Originally by: Pottsey As for name calling I have every right to call the CSM poor. Have you ever stopped to think why a lot of players don't like the CSM? The idea is great, the way its been implanted and its effectiveness is pretty poor.
You are certainly able to complain that the CSM process or otherwise is poor, what I object to is this insinuation that I have no common sense because I've overlooked "major issues" such as broken shadows.
I am fully aware of issues such as the experimental missions but without people actively supporting the proposals in the Assembly hall forum we have to assume it isn't actually a major issue to most players.
There are only two forums you need to look at for the CSM. Assembly hall forum for proposals and voting on them, Jita park speakers corner for anything else CSM related including asking questions about various issues.
We try to be approachable and you can evemail us etc, but flat out calling us stupid for ignoring issues isn't going to get you anywhere.
|
Pottsey
Enheduanni Foundation
|
Posted - 2010.03.14 08:56:00 -
[74]
TeaDaze said "I am fully aware of issues such as the experimental missions but without people actively supporting the proposals in the Assembly hall forum we have to assume it isn't actually a major issue to most players." This is where I don't agree and say common sense is lacking. The proposal was actively supported considering the ratio of Gallante mission runners that use the CSM forum area. As the amount of Gallante mission runners who use the CSM forum is so low there is no way to get the problem supported by CSM as they refuse to look at anything that doesn't get high votes. Of course it not a major issue to most players. It only affects Gallente mission runners. That alone means it's going to get less votes then other things but it doesn't mean it's no less a major issue. A major issue that only affects one part of the player base instantly cuts down the votes.
Let's take a more extreme example. CCP remove level 4 missions from the Gallante faction. It's a major problem but it gets few votes as a large amount of the player base do not know about the problem as they run missions for other race's. Those that are affected by the problem bug report it and get told to post it in places other than CSM. The few who know about CSM post in different threads splitting the few votes around. CSM then ignore the problem as it's not major as it got few votes. Even though there are long threads on the problem.
The ratio of players who post on the forums is small, the ratio of Gallente missions runners is smaller, the ratio of Gallante mission runners who know about CSM is even smaller, the amount left who can vote in the same place is even smaller as people end up split voting over threads. By the time you get a down to the group of people able to vote in one place there are so few that the problem cannot get enough votes to be looked at. Even though a very large amount of people are affected by the problem.
Anyway I am not convinced voting works even if we could get enough people. Didn't the sound problems get a ton of votes and didn't get bought up at the meetings?
TeaDaze said " However only threads raised in the Assembly forum can be voted on and taken to the CSM meetings." That seems a bad way to do things. CSM members should be allowed to take the initiative and bring up problem they come across. What is the minimum amount of votes something needs to be bought to CSM meetings?
TeaDaze said " Using my common sense I have instead raised issues that people have spoken to me about and were well supported in the Assembly hall. The other reps have done the same from their areas of gameplay." That's another problem. Unless I am missing something there is no list of reps and what they represent. There is no easy way to contact the rep(s) whose area is PvE. How are we meant to know which rep to talk to? Which rep area is PvE?
TeaDaze said " Number of posts is not a good indication of support which is why the Assembly hall forum has a vote system in it." OK if the number of people posting saying there is a problem is not a good indication of support. Then how on earth can voting be a good indication? To me 15 pages of posts is just as good an indication of support for a problem as votes. Ok it's harder to read and sort out but it's just as valid that there's a problem.
This is where I see common sense as lacking. If someone posts in assembly hall a thread linking to 10 threads each with 100's of posts of support for the problem with 20+ pages of support in the links. The CSM should act on it. Not say it's a bad indication those people should vote.
We are getting into situations where 100's if not 1000's of players are posting about a problem. But as CSM only acknowledge the votes not posts nothing gets acted on. That is a very poor system. ______ How to Passive Shield Tank T2
|
Pottsey
Enheduanni Foundation
|
Posted - 2010.03.14 09:04:00 -
[75]
Edited by: Pottsey on 14/03/2010 09:05:23 TeaDaze said " what I object to is this insinuation that I have no common sense because I've overlooked "major issues" such as broken shadows." I already explained that I didn't mean just shadows. My first post was unclear and perhaps to harsh. I mean a broken graphics engine and sound engine with lots of effects being broken or downgraded over 2 years ago with shadows being an example. Common sense says this is a major problem. The amount of votes should not matter. The amount of posts and the problem itself should be a good indication there is a real major problem that needs fixing. Some things you should read and realise it needs looking into without looking at how many votes it gets.
Sorry if I offended you. But I think the whole system is very poorly implanted and not working very well. Me and a large amount of Gallante mission runners have had our storyline PvE destroyed and ruined. CSM was meant to pickup and fix things like this. But it's not working. Surly CSM are ment to pick up things like a broken sound engine with tons of votes.
______ How to Passive Shield Tank T2
|
TeaDaze
|
Posted - 2010.03.14 11:59:00 -
[76]
Edited by: TeaDaze on 14/03/2010 12:01:02
Originally by: Pottsey This is where I don't agree and say common sense is lacking. The proposal was actively supported considering the ratio of Gallante mission runners that use the CSM forum area.
There are sure to be more that 30 odd mission runners effected by a "Major" issue, right?
Originally by: Pottsey As the amount of Gallante mission runners who use the CSM forum is so low there is no way to get the problem supported by CSM as they refuse to look at anything that doesn't get high votes.
We don't refuse to look at topics without high votes, what I said was that there are better supported proposals and it isn't obvious that this is a major issue from the level of support.
Originally by: Pottsey Even though there are long threads on the problem.
People were able to complain in an 8 page thread in one section of the forum but totally unable to go to the Assembly hall and click the "Support" option on a reply?
Originally by: Pottsey Even though a very large amount of people are affected by the problem.
I say again, if this is such an issue surely people can get behind a proposal on the assembly hall forum. Logically if there are hundreds or thousands of people effected by a change I should expect to see more than 30 people support the issue. Right?
Originally by: Pottsey That seems a bad way to do things. CSM members should be allowed to take the initiative and bring up problem they come across.
Yes CSM members can raise an issue but it still has to follow the procedure. You think it is bad that we have a process that even CSM members have to follow?
Issues must be raised in the Assembly Hall forum for 7 days before they can be put into the CSM meeting and if they are then passed by the CSM to be passed on to CCP for discussion.
Why haven't we gone searching round all the various forums looking for issues? Simply because as I have repeatedly stated we have at least 1 years worth of stuff in the Assembly hall that we can pick from. If you are waiting for CSM to have time to go looking for issues then you'll be waiting for a while. If however you mobilise people to support an Assembly hall thread then it will get looked at.
Originally by: Pottsey What is the minimum amount of votes something needs to be bought to CSM meetings?
25% of the voter turnout from the last CSM election which means around 5000 supports for something to be forced onto the agenda. However CSM reps have the discretion to pick up issues with less support and raise them. Usually this is done by people talking directly to reps to highlight issues.
Originally by: Pottsey That's another problem. Unless I am missing something there is no list of reps and what they represent. There is no easy way to contact the rep(s) whose area is PvE. How are we meant to know which rep to talk to? Which rep area is PvE?
The list of reps should be on the Wiki.
If you are not sure who to speak to about an issue, post in the Jita Park Speakers Corner and we'll get the relevant person to take a look.
|
TeaDaze
|
Posted - 2010.03.14 12:00:00 -
[77]
Originally by: Pottsey OK if the number of people posting saying there is a problem is not a good indication of support. Then how on earth can voting be a good indication? To me 15 pages of posts is just as good an indication of support for a problem as votes. Ok it's harder to read and sort out but it's just as valid that there's a problem.
There is a difference here that you seem to have missed.
Those 15 pages could be 15 pages of the same 2 people arguing back and forth, or could be filled with people trolling the OP. There is no way to tell from the outside the level of actual support.
The Assembly Hall forum has a vote mechanism that allows people to tick a box and support a proposal. This vote count is displayed in the forum itself which easily allows the actual amount of support to be identified.
Originally by: Pottsey This is where I see common sense as lacking. If someone posts in assembly hall a thread linking to 10 threads each with 100's of posts of support for the problem with 20+ pages of support in the links. The CSM should act on it. Not say it's a bad indication those people should vote.
Again with the attacks on my common sense.
I'm sorry that I won't ignore issues that people have flagged up to me or have lots of support in favour of issues that apparently I should have raised from a forum I don't read. Apparently they are "major" problems that nobody can be bothered to support a proposal thread about.
If you want to flag up a specific proposal then post in the Jita park speakers forum or get some of the hundreds of supporters to support this "major" issue and we'll take a look.
I'm done here.
|
Pottsey
Enheduanni Foundation
|
Posted - 2010.03.14 13:52:00 -
[78]
TeaDaze said " There are sure to be more that 30 odd mission runners effected by a "Major" issue, right?" Yes going by all the 100's if not 1000's of posts and threads on the topic.
TeaDaze said " I say again, if this is such an issue surely people can get behind a proposal on the assembly hall forum. Logically if there are hundreds or thousands of people effected by a change I should expect to see more than 30 people support the issue. Right?" No. After bug reporting, posting in the forums related to the problem. Then having a GM telling them to post in a 3rd area. People are now fed up and don't want to waste more time posting a 4th time in assembly that's if they can even find the problem in assembly which most of the time you cannot. That's also assuming after posting in 3 places they even know about assembly. Most people think after the bug report and posting as the GM said they have done enough. Then after all that is you somehow get all the people voting in the same place chances are CSM don't act on it or miss it them self's due to the bad layout of the forum.
TeaDaze said "You think it is bad that we have a process that even CSM members have to follow?" A process that does not allow CSM to take the initiative is a bad process.
TeaDaze said "I'm sorry that I won't ignore issues that people have flagged up to me or have lots of support in favour of issues that apparently I should have raised from a forum I don't read. Apparently they are "major" problems that nobody can be bothered to support a proposal thread about." What about problems which did get flagged up to CSM and did get lots of votes like the sound engine problems?
You are still not getting it either. It's not that no one can be bothered to support the proposal thread. It's that due to the very poor system most of the people with the problem are not even aware of the proposal thread and those that are aware end up splitting votes over different threads about the same thing.
That and if you take one subsection of players like gallante missions runners then well 30 votes on a CSM forum is a lot considering the situation. Something that only effects 1/4th of mission runners is logically going to get 1/4 the votes of something that effects all mission runners. I will follow you advice and try and contact the CSM who has PvE as his area.
TeaDaze said "Those 15 pages could be 15 pages of the same 2 people arguing back and forth, or could be filled with people trolling the OP. There is no way to tell from the outside the level of actual support." Apart from of course reading the threads and seeing it's not the same two people arguing back and forth or full of trolling. Which is why I say common sense is lacking. If a CSM member reads a proposal thread and applies common sense sometimes the amount of votes do not matter. With a little common sense and reading the proposal some things should stand out as need looking at even if the votes are low. Votes alone should not matter on a proposal.
If a proposal links to 100's or 1000's of posts which are not the same two people arguing back and forth or full of trolling it's a good indication there is a problem that needs looking at even if the votes are low.
It's fair enough if you're not a PvE guy or read the missions forums. But there is no easy way for us to know who the PvE rep is and point him towards the problem and posts. There is no easy way to get enough votes due to the poor system and way it's implanted. Even if we did get enough votes chances are it would be ignored or missed like the sound problems.
______ How to Passive Shield Tank T2
|
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.03.14 23:37:00 -
[79]
Edited by: Venkul Mul on 14/03/2010 23:45:05
Originally by: TeaDaze Edited by: TeaDaze on 14/03/2010 12:01:02
Originally by: Pottsey This is where I don't agree and say common sense is lacking. The proposal was actively supported considering the ratio of Gallante mission runners that use the CSM forum area.
There are sure to be more that 30 odd mission runners effected by a "Major" issue, right?
Some people has the decency not to vote with more than one character even if he has several accounts.
Evidently it is an error as we can spot several alts voting for the same issue. It mean we will do the same.
And, TeaDaze, what you say essentially boil down to: "If we (the CSM members) are interested in a matter, we will present it even if it has a few supporters, if it is not interesting for us it will require a very large body of supporters to be considered."
And then it will fail for lacking of a good presentation as no CSM member will spend the time to prepare one, something that happened to worthy argument.
|
Delenne Sheridan
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 19:28:00 -
[80]
Originally by: TeaDaze
Why arent you looking in the Features and Ideas Discussion forum? They have a list there of commonly proposed ideas. here they are.
Common Idea Link Library:
Feature additions: Ship Crews Some Ideas for Dedicated Miners (Is in General Discussion, not F&I) Salvaging Drones Combat Simulator Bounty Hunting Improvements A Joystick Compatible Eve Insurable Modules/Faction Kits Player-Made Ship Skins Alliance-Accesible Corporate Hangers New Implants Ideas. Module that converts cargo space-drone bay space Heat-based weapons/EWar Bounty hunting revisited mine tactic for warfare:(need tweaking but the idea is good) Remote Skill Access Station and Ship to ship Hacking Game Masters running events space anomalies Bringing life to the transport game Tractor drones Class Specific Region Shares upgrade Archeology revisited "Commercial" Cynos and Jump Drives Explosive Cargo Aliens, Zoology, Archaeology! Boarding Ships Several threads about this topic can be found in F&I. Sometimes they're just a "make marines useful" request. Tactics and gangs. Reduce the blob! Emergency Retreat function STACK items remotely!!! New profession: The Scientist 48 hour Skill Queue Incarna Ideas
CCP Zymurgist
Gallente C C P Posted - 2009.06.28 15:28:00 - [3] - QuoteReport
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Game balance related:
Ideas for NOS Cloaking Device Fuel/Counters Anti-Cloaking Weapon Empire Gank Insurance Payout make PvE more like PvP: my idea to reuse "wasted" 0.0 space Remove Stargates Drugs revisited End corp theft Afterburner / Microwardrive Throttling Affects Cap Usage Minmatar Tempest and Projectile Issues
Miscellaneous: In-game Calender Battle-Recorder & Player - Built-In Fight-Record Tool Skill buyback removal cleansing Stopwatch New rights for corpmates Editable Data Sheets Unrealistic Universe Radio Stations Bookmarks improvment Free Slaves!
Mining: Making mining fun and hard to macro at the same time Improve mining, make macroing even harder Mining Overhaul
CCP Zymurgist
Gallente C C P Posted - 2009.06.28 15:29:00 - [4] - QuoteReport
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gameplay changes:
Autopilot to Zero Multiple Level Pods Speeding Up Skills Through Actions Transferable Kill Rights Rig-Equiped Ship Transport CONCORD & NPC Patrols For more players and action in lowsec Bounty System Full Coverage Insurance drone bay expansion character lobby and skills training validate npc stations Spinal mounted weapons Blatantly Obvious Killmails from Pod self desruct Distress calls Directional scanner - add features + skills A Ninja Salvaging Idea
Combat: turn of missile effects: why pvp need to change and how, and what effect it have evolved towards etc. new type of EW primary on blobs Missile Velocity/Explosion Velocity thread blob stopping and just generel 0.0 concern Testing Facility
POS:
POS improvement!!! Indusrty Focused Stations Battle Stations POS deployment is boring Small Single Player Owned Structures Mobile Labs T2 Salvage BPs Guns or some other way of defending an outpost Opening containers in POS hangar
CCP Zymurgist
Gallente C C P Posted - 2009.06.28 15:30:00 - [5] - QuoteReport
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Missions: Cosmos Linky PvP missions Ninja Sal... Capping Effective Agent Quality Reasons to update the rats, mission enemies and other NPCs
Technical stuff: Dual Monitor Support and Ideas Colorblind Mod (Yes - Color ) Data Tracking an Export Low graphics client Changes to file structure Ingame Physics(Keep Momentum)
Industrial
Makes BPOs and BPCs distinguishable T2 BPO Holders Make 1/3 of T2 Items (and all the profit?) Making ME/PE of the T1 BPO influence the ME/
|
|
Delenne Sheridan
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 19:34:00 -
[81]
Out of all those topics you couldnt find any to talk about? Basically the CSM's handpicked a lot of stuff they liked and dumped on the rest.
And yes, those gallante missions are bugged, why would anyone want to go 25+ jumps for a basic implant as a reward? Most people are just skipping them. If you would have tried to find out more on the issue you would have seen what a problem it is...
|
Perrigrene
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 03:57:00 -
[82]
Edited by: Perrigrene on 16/03/2010 04:03:33 Edited by: Perrigrene on 16/03/2010 04:01:56
Originally by: Delenne Sheridan Out of all those topics you couldnt find any to talk about? Basically the CSM's handpicked a lot of stuff they liked and dumped on the rest.
And yes, those gallante missions are bugged, why would anyone want to go 25+ jumps for a basic implant as a reward? Most people are just skipping them. If you would have tried to find out more on the issue you would have seen what a problem it is...
If you browsed the assembly hall or jita speaks forums you'd have seen many of those issues are brought up and don't get enough support for the actual idea/proposal. Salvage drones for example IIRC the issue is how much salvage can they carry or take from a wreck they salvaged, the idea is more than a few words describing it. There has to be a pretty clear and well thought out way to do it in game that doesn't break the game mechanics and doesn't suck huge amounts of developer time when CCP has their own ideas on what they want to do with their product.
I 'blame' ccp more than the CSM and it is easy to pick on the CSM because ultimately they decide which 'popular' supported proposals they agree with and take to the CSM council to vote on, if no one chooses the issue it doesn't get a chance to be voted on whether the CSM will bring it up to CCP. The only thing you can do with that is try to vote in people that will pick your side on issues you care about or do your best to make your views/ideas proposals that a large enough number of playes can see so they can support it.
When it comes down to it there are ideas/features that I feel are/were lacking from 'day one' that CCP should have fixed or addressed but they ignore them or have it on the back burner. Factor in players bringing these issues/ideas to light in CSM or features/suggestions I don't feel CCP really has a leg to stand on why they don't do more of them, especially the screwed up things or non intuitive ones.
I only speak for myself but I'd rather skip an expansion to get half or a good third of the old standby ideas done properly by CCP over a new pack of ships or missions/etc whatever graphics updates.
PS: About half of those 'ideas' you listed would just break the game, a few might even have been addressed too, like the slaves were freed.
|
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 13:10:00 -
[83]
Originally by: TeaDaze
Originally by: Pottsey I still want to know why highly experimental missions where even put on the live server anyway, when anyway who knows anything about PvE could see they are a stupid idea.
I assume you refer to this proposal which was raised fairly close to the cut off for submissions to the Summit. It wasn't put on any meeting agenda prior to the summit due to lack of support. If it is such a game breaking issue how come only 29 people agree (at this time). If it gains more support we can discuss it with CCP at one of the online summit meetings.
I'm fine with people complaining about the CSM, but please read up about the process we are working within before doing so.
Tea, you have just presented a proposal to the CSM that has, at this moment, 17 supporters: localise the CSM .
I am not arguing if that is a good proposal or not, but in your post here you say that 29 supporters are too few to make a proposal worthy of presentation while at the same time you are presenting a proposal with 17 supporters.
Originally by: ElvenLord
The sixth issues meeting of CSM4,Sunday March 14th at 18:00 eve time .... 8. Localise the CSM Output wiki
You don't feel that you (and the CSM) are using 2 weight and 2 measures when an argument interest you and when it don't touch you?
I agree that is a normal human behaviour, especially as the CSM members are unpaid volunteers, but it hamper EVE development as some argument is pushed by the CSM while others are left behind.
|
TeaDaze
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 13:35:00 -
[84]
Originally by: Venkul Mul Tea, you have just presented a proposal to the CSM that has, at this moment, 17 supporters: localise the CSM .
I am not arguing if that is a good proposal or not, but in your post here you say that 29 supporters are too few to make a proposal worthy of presentation while at the same time you are presenting a proposal with 17 supporters.
I raised this proposal after extensive discussion in game with the proposer as well as discussions with the rest of the CSM during "downtime" at the CSM summit.
Because the proposer put time into discussing the issue it got picked up and put on the agenda. Anyone with an issue is free to do the same.
Remember that the rules state an issue must be posted into the Assembly Hall forum at least a week before the next CSM meeting to be eligible. Some of the issues with limited support on the agenda are there to satisfy the rules.
I brought up the level of support in the original discussion due to the poster calling the CSM poor because a "major" issue hadn't been addressed, going on to accuse us of not using our common sense for not spotting it. I simply pointed out that for a "major" issue the level of support for the proposal was not there. If the proposer of the faction warfare topic had contacted the CSM to discuss the issue it might have been picked up by now.
So, why CSM don't go hunting for issues in other forums? Simply put (again) we have a forum for issues to be raised (Assembly Hall) and there are enough topics in there (plus the ones raised to us directly) to keep us busy for the rest of the year at least.
I'm sorry that this means people have to put some effort in to raise the issues in the correct place and to get people to support them, but that is the way it works. I spend 10-15 hours a week dealing with CSM issues and don't want to lose even more game time to do the proposers job for them
|
Delenne Sheridan
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 14:06:00 -
[85]
Assembly hall or jita speaks is not the end all and be all of the forums, otherwise why would there be a independant "Features and ideas" forum as well. And these are not the random idea that comes up, they are the ideas that are so commonly proposed that they made their own thread of them to try and stop the threads from being posted.
and if you read objectively there is a very active and vocal crowd that doesnt want anything changed in "their game" because they dont want to have to learn anything new. Not to mention the PVP'ers want everything in their favor so they can go out and grief people at will. Yes, Eve and CCP are proud in announcing this is the game where everybody gets to be an jerk. And ya'll wonder why nobody wants to go to low sec space...
Yep, this CSM meeting was a bust, maybe in a year or so there will be another chance to get a decent board....Doubt it, but there is always a chance....
|
Delenne Sheridan
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 14:28:00 -
[86]
Originally by: TeaDaze
Fixed your problem now. You wont like the answer I came up with in Assembly forum, but it is what you asked for....
|
TeaDaze
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 15:13:00 -
[87]
Originally by: Delenne Sheridan Assembly hall or jita speaks is not the end all and be all of the forums, otherwise why would there be a independant "Features and ideas" forum as well. And these are not the random idea that comes up, they are the ideas that are so commonly proposed that they made their own thread of them to try and stop the threads from being posted.
The Assembly hall is the only forum that proposals can be raised in and voted on. Is this concept really that hard to understand?
Discuss features and ideas anywhere you like, but until it hits the Assembly hall forum it cannot be discussed at a CSM meeting and thus it cannot be submitted to CCP.
Is that clear enough for you?
Originally by: Delenne Sheridan and if you read objectively there is a very active and vocal crowd that doesnt want anything changed in "their game" because they dont want to have to learn anything new. Not to mention the PVP'ers want everything in their favor so they can go out and grief people at will. Yes, Eve and CCP are proud in announcing this is the game where everybody gets to be an jerk. And ya'll wonder why nobody wants to go to low sec space...
This kind of comment is exactly why proposals need to be raised in the Assembly hall forum where people can actually support an idea and the number of supports be counted.
Originally by: Delenne Sheridan Yep, this CSM meeting was a bust, maybe in a year or so there will be another chance to get a decent board....Doubt it, but there is always a chance....
It was a bust in your opinion because ideas you didn't submit were not discussed
If you don't participate in the process by raising proposals or supporting ones already raised then you have no say in what is discussed. Sorry that is the way it is.
Originally by: Delenne Sheridan Fixed your problem now. You wont like the answer I came up with in Assembly forum, but it is what you asked for....
You haven't raised any proposals, you have just posted a huge list of one line ideas without any detail thus it will not be looked at. Proposals are supposed to be a stand alone thread with all the relevant detail captured in the first couple of posts not require the CSM to assemble it for you from 100s of other threads.
If you can't be bothered to follow the correct procedure when raising proposals then don't blame the CSM for not spending time on them.
|
Pottsey
Enheduanni Foundation
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 17:00:00 -
[88]
TeaDaze said " Discuss features and ideas anywhere you like, but until it hits the Assembly hall forum it cannot be discussed at a CSM meeting and thus it cannot be submitted to CCP. Is that clear enough for you?" We get it, we don't agree with it. It's a limiting poor system that does not allow CSM to take the initiative or raise serious problems they might come across. Not only that but players are told by CCP to post serious problems outside Assembly hall and CSM are told to only use Assembly hall. See the problem?
The procedure players are given by GM's is not to use Assembly hall, but to use features and ideas or Issues or Workarounds & Localization. So players think they are following procedure posting outside Assembly.
______ How to Passive Shield Tank T2
|
TeaDaze
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 17:50:00 -
[89]
Originally by: Pottsey We get it, we don't agree with it. It's a limiting poor system that does not allow CSM to take the initiative or raise serious problems they might come across.
At no point did I state that CSM members couldn't take an issue from another forum, turn it into a proposal in the Assembly hall and then submit it.
What I am trying to impress upon you is that expecting CSM to do that because in your opinion something is a "major" issues isn't going to work. However all you have to do is raise it yourself and get support for it (or contact a CSM rep to take it forward).
Originally by: Pottsey No one expects CSM to spend countless hours reading every forum section. But if you happen to come across a decent thread outside Assembly you should be allowed to act on it and bring its attention to CCP.
Still needs to go into the Assembly Hall forum, that is a restriction on the process.
The other problem is that if CSM reps keep writing proposals for people instead of encouraging people to raise stuff themselves then it simply looks like CSM reps are only raising issues they want to look at. You can argue the toss that the accepted issues list is that anyway but that is your opinion.
Originally by: Pottsey Anyway correct procedure doesn't work when things like http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1262938get ignored over what was bought up at the meeting.
In your opinion the CSM fails because your pet issues are not being looked at instantly. I raised issues I'd had on my list for a while, or ones I had already discussed with people in game.
The bigger question is why half the CSM seem unwilling to raise any issues in the first place. Sadly because I actively try to engage with the playerbase I get the brunt of your complaining and it makes me less willing to spend more than the 10-15 hours a week I spend on CSM already...
|
Pottsey
Enheduanni Foundation
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 18:19:00 -
[90]
Edited by: Pottsey on 16/03/2010 18:20:44 In that case I apologise for misunderstanding. I was not aware CSM could take our problems they come across outside Assembly and post a proposal. A lot of my negatively about CSM isn't directly at you. It's directed at CCP and the CSM as a whole. Like the tools you are given to view our proposal's is not good enough for the job.
Saying CSM is not working very well while might be our opinion but that does not mean it's wrong. A lot of people don't like the way major things like that sound thread get ignored and instead the CSM seem to bring up there minor in comparison pet proposal's instead.
It's not just our opinion CSM is failing. It's a fact CSM have either been ignoring or missing due to bad forum layout and poor tools major issues and instead bringing up much more minor stuff instead. That's not to say everything CSM brings up in minor. You did bring up some good stuff at last meeting.
But it appears CSM have time to talk about minor things, but no time to talk about core parts of the game being broken. Then say "In your opinion the CSM fails because your pet issues are not being looked at instantly." it's hardly a pet issue. It's a core part of the game that needs fixing and should have been fixed a very long time ago. But instead CSM talked about battler recorder, logos and other minor stuff in comparison. So yes CSM is failing or at least is working at a very suboptimal level. Anyway I don't mean to put the bunt of my complaining on you. From the sounds of it you are doing half the work while the other CSM members are doing little or not enough.
TeaDaze said "However all you have to do is raise it yourself and get support for it (or contact a CSM rep to take it forward)." We have tried that and it has not worked. Lots of votes check, major issue check, well posted proposal check, CSM rep onboard check, action none. ______ How to Passive Shield Tank T2
|
|
TeaDaze
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 19:02:00 -
[91]
Originally by: Pottsey In that case I apologise for misunderstanding. I was not aware CSM could take our problems they come across outside Assembly and post a proposal.
No worries, I try to clarify things if I can.
There are certainly ways to improve the CSM proposal process and we have discussed a few with CCP already. The forums are terrible and this has also been flagged up many times.
Originally by: Pottsey We have tried that and it has not worked. Lots of votes check, major issue check, well posted proposal check, CSM rep onboard check, action none.
It bothers me if a CSM rep is on board a proposal and it still doesn't get looked at.
As to the sound issues proposal. At first glance it looks to me like it is bugged which isn't the sort of things that usually should be put through the CSM process (they will normally get a faster response through the dedicated bug reporting mechanism).
However, if they have been bug reported and still haven't been addressed then by all means we'll chase it up. If you have any bug id numbers or the like feel free to evemail them to me and I can try to get an update.
|
Ban Doga
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 19:41:00 -
[92]
Originally by: TeaDaze
Originally by: Pottsey We have tried that and it has not worked. Lots of votes check, major issue check, well posted proposal check, CSM rep onboard check, action none.
It bothers me if a CSM rep is on board a proposal and it still doesn't get looked at.
As to the sound issues proposal. At first glance it looks to me like it is bugged which isn't the sort of things that usually should be put through the CSM process (they will normally get a faster response through the dedicated bug reporting mechanism).
However, if they have been bug reported and still haven't been addressed then by all means we'll chase it up. If you have any bug id numbers or the like feel free to evemail them to me and I can try to get an update.
You seriously think there is a possibility no one has made a bug report about the audio system *at all*?
I don't expect the CSM to fullfil everyone's expectations but the list of reasons why a certain proposal is ignored appears to get longer by the minute:
- must be a major issue
- must be in assembly hall
- must have enough voters
- must have CSM support
- etc
And when people point to an issue which has all that it's suddendly "well that looks like a bug and must be bug reported before something can be done". That's not very convincing IMO...
|
TeaDaze
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 23:16:00 -
[93]
Originally by: Ban Doga You seriously think there is a possibility no one has made a bug report about the audio system *at all*?
I know what people are like so assume nothing. I've worked as a software engineer for 12 years and frequently bugs fall into the category of "this is so obvious somebody else must have reported it so I won't bother" and then nobody reports it...
I simply asked if somebody had bug reported to let me have the bug ID number so I can chase it up. It seemed like a reasonable plan of action to me.
If you want to put bugs through the CSM process then it will simply take longer to get to CCP than raising a bug report with them directly.
Originally by: Ban Doga I don't expect the CSM to fullfil everyone's expectations but the list of reasons why a certain proposal is ignored appears to get longer by the minute:
- must be a major issue
- must be in assembly hall
- must have enough voters
- must have CSM support
- etc
And when people point to an issue which has all that it's suddendly "well that looks like a bug and must be bug reported before something can be done". That's not very convincing IMO...
You misrepresent my comments. I never said anything had to be a major issue, I simply disagreed with the assessment that something was "obviously a major issue" when there wasn't much support for the proposal.
Sometimes what you might class as a minor issue has actually a fairly large impact on the "quality of life" in game.
As for the rules, the dev blog you need to look at is here
You will see the rule about things being raised in the Assembly Hall was set by CCP and applies to CSM reps raising their own proposals too. I still fail to see why this is somehow such a terrible imposition.
You'll also notice the level of support was set at 25% of the voters from the last CSM election (which works out to around 5000 supports). Not even the huge issue of the sounds being "utterly broken" has got more than 100 supports. If you want something put on the CSM agenda without a rep on board this is the level of support you need. However as stated by those rules if a CSM rep wishes they can put a proposal on the next CSM meeting agenda at their discretion no matter the level of support. This is why rather that jumping up and down and shouting about how the CSM process is rubbish, people have the option to speak to us politely and get things moving.
At the end of the day we are working within the rules set by CCP and until those change we are where we are.
Now I am only one of 9 reps and I don't pick all the issues. We have limited amounts of time during each meeting so we would normally get to raise 1 or 2 issues each. Thus far I have picked my issues based on gameplay/balance or quality of life features.
I can't please everyone
|
Ban Doga
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 07:08:00 -
[94]
Originally by: TeaDaze
Originally by: Ban Doga I don't expect the CSM to fullfil everyone's expectations but the list of reasons why a certain proposal is ignored appears to get longer by the minute:
- must be a major issue
- must be in assembly hall
- must have enough voters
- must have CSM support
- etc
And when people point to an issue which has all that it's suddendly "well that looks like a bug and must be bug reported before something can be done". That's not very convincing IMO...
You misrepresent my comments. I never said anything had to be a major issue, I simply disagreed with the assessment that something was "obviously a major issue" when there wasn't much support for the proposal.
Sometimes what you might class as a minor issue has actually a fairly large impact on the "quality of life" in game.
As for the rules, the dev blog you need to look at is here
You will see the rule about things being raised in the Assembly Hall was set by CCP and applies to CSM reps raising their own proposals too. I still fail to see why this is somehow such a terrible imposition.
You'll also notice the level of support was set at 25% of the voters from the last CSM election (which works out to around 5000 supports). Not even the huge issue of the sounds being "utterly broken" has got more than 100 supports. If you want something put on the CSM agenda without a rep on board this is the level of support you need. However as stated by those rules if a CSM rep wishes they can put a proposal on the next CSM meeting agenda at their discretion no matter the level of support. This is why rather that jumping up and down and shouting about how the CSM process is rubbish, people have the option to speak to us politely and get things moving.
At the end of the day we are working within the rules set by CCP and until those change we are where we are.
Now I am only one of 9 reps and I don't pick all the issues. We have limited amounts of time during each meeting so we would normally get to raise 1 or 2 issues each. Thus far I have picked my issues based on gameplay/balance or quality of life features.
I can't please everyone
OK, I'll try to put it another way.
You use arguments like "Without good support or a CSM rep on board it isn't likely to go forward.", "If it gains more support we can discuss it with CCP at one of the online summit meetings".
Nothing wrong with that.
Yet looking at the issue list from the meeting minutes you linked I can see issues that have less votes on them. You explain this with "if a CSM rep wishes they can put a proposal on the next CSM meeting agenda at their discretion no matter the level of support".
And I think this is really what this boils down to: There is an amount of hand-picked proposals in the list of the meeting minutes that some people don't agree with. Why do you try to explain that with "rules", "regulations" and "support"?
There is nothing wrong with pitching proposals you prefer. Just don't try to tell people this is all based on rules you can do nothing about.
|
Bomberlocks
Minmatar Star Bombers
|
Posted - 2010.03.18 02:35:00 -
[95]
Tea, again, I'm actually astounded that you actually take the time to discuss Pottsey's Gallente mission problem with him over 3 pages. Thumbs up to you, man.
As a Minnie player I was seriously starting to hate CCP last year because of the eternal BS projectile weapons. Things have improved immensely since the buff and now I like playing the game again (even if I couldn't really care about missions personally). I'm saying this because I can understand the hisec missioner's frustration. They are the majority of all Eve's players and CCP has sort of openly admitted that they mostly only care about nullsec.
It would be an excellent idea if one of you CSM guys pointed this fact out to the devs: They're not playing the same game as the majority of their customers. The experimental mission thing as a tool to get hisec players into nullsec is about as much of a failure as the Dominion patch was. They should just face the fact that the bears will stay in hisec and live with it.
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page] |