Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Aelius
Caldari Mnemonic Enterprises
|
Posted - 2010.07.08 13:36:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Aelius on 08/07/2010 13:37:01
Dear fellow EVE players and CCP. I'm Aelius
Been with EVE since beta 4 back in December 2002.
This is something i wanted to do for a long time for several reasons, the main reason being that i keep asking myself the same question: "How can i help EVE become a better space MMO?"
So it's my plan to run for the next CSM.
During this winter (northern hemisphere) i hope to have enough RL time to come up with a strong candidacy to do just that. Run for elections and win a sit in CSM.
I realise that the actual CSM was just formed, and some of you might think this is, perhaps, premature. But i want to have time to grow up support, to ear the players and CCP, to have a better understanding what needs to be done and what people want, so i am fully ready as a candidate when the time comes.
In this 1st post i want to ear, from you (players and CCP) what are the qualities required to a CSM candidate to run for elections and win. ie: Is he required to know code or to be a computer freak? Are the ideas that he carries more important that the his technical capability?
In case of winning a sit in CSM, what is to be expected from such a person.
Please don't troll or flame, try to be constructive when replying.
Tks
_________________________
If you can read this you don't need glasses _________________________
|
IQ 001
|
Posted - 2010.07.08 13:38:00 -
[2]
Edited by: IQ 001 on 08/07/2010 13:39:40 I wanna CSM who just wants to watch New Eden burn!
no need for fancy excuses "dont fly what you cant afford to lose" or "your fault for not x,y,z" or "i should be allowed play the way I want to play".
JUST LET IT BURRNNNNNN
|
ObviousTroll Alt
Gallente Hulkageddon Orphanage
|
Posted - 2010.07.08 13:43:00 -
[3]
To be perfectly honest, CCP's response to the current CSM pretty much places the CSM in line with such things as window dressing and fluff that has no meaning, or ability to do anything of value or worth. My personal opinion is that CCP just needs to finally admit the CSM was nothing more than wool, to pull over the players eyes to shut them up while CCP continued to do the very things the CSM was supposedly created to address in the first place.
So.. what I am looking for in a CSM candidate? Nothing, because they do nothing, effect nothing, and mean exactly... Nothing.
|
Kendon Riddick
|
Posted - 2010.07.08 13:47:00 -
[4]
yeah i too get the feeling that the power of a CSM stops at rearranging office furniture, or re filling the water cooler.
latly semes like a bit of a school prom style popularity contest with the general eve player base as loosers.
if you want to improve eve, improve csm itself and make sure they are listened to and things actually happen because of it.
|
|
CCP Navigator
C C P C C P Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.07.08 13:52:00 -
[5]
Moved from General Discussion to Jita Park Speakers corner.
Navigator Senior Community Representative CCP Hf, EVE Online
|
|
Furb Killer
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.07.08 14:00:00 -
[6]
CCP wants you to be nice and just accept everything CCP says, without any kind of critical thought.
Players just want amusement out of CSM since they dont have any influence anyway.
|
Aelius
Caldari Mnemonic Enterprises
|
Posted - 2010.07.08 14:02:00 -
[7]
Edited by: Aelius on 08/07/2010 14:03:48
Originally by: ObviousTroll Alt To be perfectly honest, CCP's response to the current CSM pretty much places the CSM in line with such things as window dressing and fluff that has no meaning, or ability to do anything of value or worth. My personal opinion is that CCP just needs to finally admit the CSM was nothing more than wool, to pull over the players eyes to shut them up while CCP continued to do the very things the CSM was supposedly created to address in the first place.
So.. what I am looking for in a CSM candidate? Nothing, because they do nothing, effect nothing, and mean exactly... Nothing.
Noted.
My candidacy is NOT "let's go to Iceland meet the devs and have a beer with Oveur" kind of idea.
I too have grasped during my EVE years what you stated above. This candidacy was something i have put a lot of thought into along the years, theres a time when something must change, and my candidacy after more than 7 years in EVE illustrates just that. I'm not the owner of the ultimate truth nor my plan is to go to Iceland to tell them CCP how to run their own game, i have a very distinct and well visioned idea how things could be a lot better in EVE.
I also have very strong ideas on how a CSM with "true power" could enhance the EVE experience for all of us and for other players out there that never tried it before.
_________________________
If you can read this you don't need glasses _________________________
|
iP0D
|
Posted - 2010.07.08 14:08:00 -
[8]
Short version: CCP wants obedience and feedback that does not go against their perception of the state of the product, for succesfull PR. Players want results, which requires long lasting and carefully executed professional approach.
Not a troll btw. Just look at CCP's marketing efforts, compare to original statements on CSM mission, scroll forward through time from there and keep watching the various Dev interviews on gaming sites.
|
Radgette
|
Posted - 2010.07.08 14:26:00 -
[9]
personally i'm looking forward to the minutes ccp release before passing judgement on this CSM
if it's anything similar to the QEN ie a marketting stunt with very little real info then the CSM is worthless
if it has some meat and potatoes discussions with more than simple "ye ofc we'll fix that soon" then maybe there is still hope.
personnaly i want a candidate who understands that PvE is part of this game as well as PvP and that while not everyone PvP's almost everyone PvE's for isk and making PvE more fun only adds to the game not detract, but i also pvp so i want someone who will help improve that side of things just as much
i don't want someone overzealous and bat**** crazy like ankh or someone who's only response to detractors is "your stupid" or "good troll" like sok. i like teadaze level headed responses to things, he seems good at standing back and looking at things objectively which is quite difficult with something you enjoy, but you also have to be able to stand up to ccp and say your ****ing wrong and not back down when they "go defensive and bring out charts and tables" after all thats what the CSM is for imo
|
khazak mokl
|
Posted - 2010.07.08 14:33:00 -
[10]
From the latest scandel I would say someone who can keep there word and not break the non-disclosure agreement and knowing personaly that you are a stand up guy,honourable and trust worthy you get my vote.
We need more people who would go out of there way to make Eden a better place for all involved, be it carebearing, or those of the more violent persuasion. Not just those who would use the position to line their or there friends pockets with isk.
|
|
Cailais
Amarr THE ORDAINED
|
Posted - 2010.07.08 14:45:00 -
[11]
I dont need a CSM member to 'have ideas'. I've got lots. So have others. You take our (the players) ideas and represent them.
That's it. Its not difficult but successive CSMs seem to have made it the most convoluted process imaginable.
C.
the hydrostatic capsule blog
|
Larkonis Trassler
EMIX INC
|
Posted - 2010.07.08 14:51:00 -
[12]
The potential to generate drama in large quantities is a desired quality.
|
Qoi
New Eden Warriors
|
Posted - 2010.07.08 15:12:00 -
[13]
They should bring the issues of the players to the CSM, not have their own agenda and ignore everything else.
They should be trustworthy (see Larkonis and Ankhesetapemkah for bad examples).
They should be able to talk about any topic in a civilized manner. (See Sokratesz for bad example).
I think apart from the two mentioned above, the CSM has a very good setup this year. Especially Mynxee and Teadaze are doing their job very well.
|
War Kitten
|
Posted - 2010.07.08 15:24:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Kendon riddick yeah i too get the feeling that the power of a CSM stops at rearranging office furniture, or re filling the water cooler.
latly semes like a bit of a school prom style popularity contest with the general eve player base as loosers.
if you want to improve eve, improve csm itself and make sure they are listened to and things actually happen because of it.
That's my favorite complaint against elections. "It's nothing but a popularity contest."
Think about that for a few minutes and let me know when the "Well duh" moment hits.
(Hint, a democratic election is, by very definition, a _______ ______)
|
Aelius
Caldari Mnemonic Enterprises
|
Posted - 2010.07.08 15:33:00 -
[15]
Edited by: Aelius on 08/07/2010 15:37:06
Originally by: Cailais
That's it. Its not difficult but successive CSMs seem to have made it the most convoluted process imaginable.
Thats because CSM is often used as a vanity fair for either players and/or alliances.
Good ideas and goals are related to second plan. Fortunately i am not in a big alliance nor i have a big ego to defend. That is going to add an extra level of challenge to my candidacy since i am not "notorious" or "famous", but will give me the necessary focus to the task at hand.
_________________________
If you can read this you don't need glasses _________________________
|
Cailais
Amarr THE ORDAINED
|
Posted - 2010.07.08 15:37:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Aelius
Originally by: Cailais
That's it. Its not difficult but successive CSMs seem to have made it the most convoluted process imaginable.
Thats because CSM is often used as a vanity fair for either players and/or alliances.
Good ideas and goals are related to second plan. Fortunately i am not in a big alliance nor i have a big ego to defend. Although that is going to add an extra level of challenge to my candidacy since i am not "notorious" or "famous", that also gives me the X factor that has been missing in CSM (overinflated ego or personal interests to defend) thus giving me the necessary focus to the task at hand.
Unfortunately it also means you will have to work absurdly hard to win sufficient votes - although its by no means impossible.
C.
the hydrostatic capsule blog
|
TeaDaze
|
Posted - 2010.07.08 15:49:00 -
[17]
Originally by: iP0D Short version: CCP wants obedience and feedback that does not go against their perception of the state of the product, for succesfull PR. Players want results, which requires long lasting and carefully executed professional approach.
I don't agree that CCP want a sycophantic council, far from it. The direct and often critical feedback is well received and has resulted in some productive discussions the results of which will not be seen for many months. Adding the CSM's approval to something can support the Devs within CCP who want to work on those specific features.
Originally by: Cailais I dont need a CSM member to 'have ideas'. I've got lots. So have others. You take our (the players) ideas and represent them.
I agree totally. I ran on that platform which is partly why I've been elected twice. Over and above that I think player ideas should be presented to CSM as raised by the players before any discussions start so that any changes made by CSM are clearly documented. I believe in accountability and transparency of the CSM process. Sadly as seen recently we are sometimes restricted when CCP are involved in discussions due to NDA etc...
Originally by: Cailais That's it. Its not difficult but successive CSMs seem to have made it the most convoluted process imaginable.
The issue raising process is pretty much unchanged since CSM1 (though IIRC entering items on the Wiki was added later). CSM5 have been discussing ways to improve the raising and supporting of issues by the players but I don't know when this will result in any improvement. As a stop gap we are working on tools to make tracking raised proposals easier and to add searching of existing issues.
What people don't realise is that the CSM process has been evolving all the time. The biggest change was with CSM4 when the summit format changed and stakeholder status was granted.
It would of course be nice to be able to point to a list of issues raised by players via CSM which are now in game. Whilst the CSM does have some influence in setting priorities it doesn't have the absolute power to force CCP to develop anything. This is not a failing in the CSM as such (other stakeholders within the eve project have exactly the same restriction) but players are a demanding bunch and without quick and tangible results they are quick to write-off the CSM as a publicity stunt.
TeaDaze.net Blog | CSM Database |
iP0D
|
Posted - 2010.07.08 16:06:00 -
[18]
Originally by: TeaDaze
Originally by: iP0D Short version: CCP wants obedience and feedback that does not go against their perception of the state of the product, for succesfull PR. Players want results, which requires long lasting and carefully executed professional approach.
I don't agree that CCP want a sycophantic council, far from it.
You just don't want to rock the boat because you want to work there? At least I am really starting to get that impression. Either that, or you are very, very naive.
Let's be straight for a sec. While devs may love, and they probably do love, direct and critical feedback, the people who make the decisions don't. If they did, then a lot of things we've seen over the years would have been signalled by devs to their bosses and acted upon. Look at how things were in the running up to Dominion, great work, great support, everybody was happy. Then what happened? Yeah, half was torn out and they unleashed Nozh, a very typical action to do.
|
TeaDaze
|
Posted - 2010.07.08 16:59:00 -
[19]
Originally by: iP0D You just don't want to rock the boat because you want to work there? At least I am really starting to get that impression. Either that, or you are very, very naive.
I'm not naive, I am simply working with more information, such as items under NDA and even the attitude and body language when talking to Devs at the summit. Trust me the boat was well and truly rocked during many discussions and CCP were actually surprised at the reaction to certain things
Originally by: iP0D Let's be straight for a sec. While devs may love, and they probably do love, direct and critical feedback, the people who make the decisions don't. If they did, then a lot of things we've seen over the years would have been signalled by devs to their bosses and acted upon.
Devs working daily on a feature are not always able to see the shortcomings and escalate those to their bosses. There is a technique in programming called "buddy checking" to avoid this which is where you bring in a fresh pair of eyes who can frequently spot issues in the code which somebody who has spent weeks working on it has missed. A similar rule applies with testing, you need fresh eyes from somebody to see the problems you've missed.
I've not worked under the scrum system, but by having a self contained team of game designers, programmers, QA and so on I wonder if they are too close to give objective feedback amongst themselves until it is too far advanced to make widescale changes. Somebody with more experience of scrum should chime in though.
The decision makers at CCP have made mistakes, sure. We called them out on on some. But to think that they stick their heads in the sand and ignore negative criticism is ridiculous. Another problem is the long planning stages of a project like Eve, the short term planning covers 6-12 months of development which doesn't leave much spare for working on additional issues. This isn't an excuse for inaction but it does add context.
Originally by: iP0D Look at how things were in the running up to Dominion, great work, great support, everybody was happy. Then what happened? Yeah, half was torn out and they unleashed Nozh, a very typical action to do.
Apocrypha was certainly a good expansion and it raised the expectations for Dominion which in the end were not met (at least the players don't think they were and fleet fights etc certainly took a hammering).
We spent a great deal of time criticizing various aspects of Dominion at the CSM4 summit. Sadly it wasn't early enough in the Dev cycle to discourage them from then rushing the release of Tyrannis and so we spent a great deal of time criticizing that. I dislike forcing teams to hit arbitrary release dates and releasing whatever results (or dumping partly developed features, never to be completed). It would be better (IMO) to have more flexible release schedules based on the progress of features.
I'm hopeful that they won't make the same mistake again but if they do then I'll give up on the CSM process too...
TeaDaze.net Blog | CSM Database |
Lilith Agora
Perkone
|
Posted - 2010.07.09 00:24:00 -
[20]
Can we get some candidates that aren't dikridding CCP for that 10%bonues to (shiptype) for thier alliance. These guys are all talk and no voting record, and consistently bring us useless features and are often made using IF statements in the games code.
|
|
Tolis Irithel
Northstar Cabal R.A.G.E
|
Posted - 2010.07.09 16:38:00 -
[21]
"I've not worked under the scrum system, but by having a self contained team of game designers, programmers, QA and so on I wonder if they are too close to give objective feedback amongst themselves until it is too far advanced to make widescale changes. Somebody with more experience of scrum should chime in though."
This is pretty much accurate. I've worked using this system twice; once it worked, because there were people outside, watching closely. Once it failed, because the team was so convinced our idea was brilliant, we never really stopped to think.
|
Sokratesz
|
Posted - 2010.07.09 16:44:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Lilith Agora Can we get some candidates that aren't dikridding CCP for that 10%bonues to (shiptype) for thier alliance. These guys are all talk and no voting record, and consistently bring us useless features and are often made using IF statements in the games code.
Sense. You are not making very much. á
I think CSM is a pretty cool guy. eh creates e-drama and doesnt afraid of anything. |
Borun Tal
Minmatar Virtual Rock Industries
|
Posted - 2010.07.09 20:17:00 -
[23]
Edited by: Borun Tal on 09/07/2010 20:26:18 Edited by: Borun Tal on 09/07/2010 20:24:00 The FIRST question that must be asked and answered is this: What is CCP willing to do on the scale of the Eve Online product to address player concerns & desires, what resources are they willing to dedicate to those concerns, and what amount of time in the development cycle to address/examine those concerns? Without an answer to that single question any others are irrelevent.
ps: and there's the friggin' 5 minute delay.
pps: From Mynxee's latest blog (http://lifeinlowsec.blogspot.com/):
Quote: During the course of discussions on various topics, CSM was consistently told that CCP cannot guarantee putting any resources on our current or future backlogged changes. This was a huge ôWTFö moment for me. As in, ôWTF does CSM-as-stakeholder mean if we canÆt influence priority any more than that?ö
|
Ban Doga
|
Posted - 2010.07.09 20:34:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Tolis Irithel "I've not worked under the scrum system, but by having a self contained team of game designers, programmers, QA and so on I wonder if they are too close to give objective feedback amongst themselves until it is too far advanced to make widescale changes. Somebody with more experience of scrum should chime in though."
This is pretty much accurate. I've worked using this system twice; once it worked, because there were people outside, watching closely. Once it failed, because the team was so convinced our idea was brilliant, we never really stopped to think.
IMO that's not inherent to Scrum itself but more to the people in the team(s). If the team members are capable of questioning and adjusting ideas, plans and features then they don't need an "external advisor".
OTOH Scrum is centered on the management of a project. It focuses on efficiency (the "burn down") and getting done all the things that are mentioned in the release plan. IMO it's rather easy to forget about solid quality and basic common-sense for creating software because you can convice yourself everything is running fine as long as the process is still running fine - even if the result is not really under control.
Extreme Programming as another agile method is clearly centered on the software ("code matters") but might not be so popular with the management ("You mean 2 people are working on 1 problem at the same time?", "We have to write code that tests our code before we are allowed to change it? You're kidding, right?!")
|
Tellenta
Gallente Invicta. Cry Havoc.
|
Posted - 2010.07.10 12:38:00 -
[25]
My requirements are rather strict. The CSM candidate must amuse me in some way. Dance for me my puppets dance!!!
Which oddly enough the now-ex CSM member who amused me greatly I did not vote for. So that just goes to show you...
|
Sarina Berghil
Minmatar New Zion Judge Advocate
|
Posted - 2010.07.10 15:05:00 -
[26]
The CSM I would vote for would be one that has experience with a wide span of gameplay styles.
I'm interesting in a living world where different players and playstyles can coexist in a balanced way, because thats what makes Eve unique and interesting. My kind of candidate would work for the good of Eve, and not for a specific gamestyle or player faction.
I was pleasantly surprised that Trebor Daehdoow got elected. Since he seems to be a candidate that is at least for now beyond personal agendas. I disagree with some of his visions and ideas, but I like the well-rounded approach he has.
Although most of the current CSM seems to have left the limited agendas behind, and have started having a broader view, thats a very positive development.
|
Sokratesz
|
Posted - 2010.07.10 15:10:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Sarina Berghil The CSM I would vote for would be one that has experience with a wide span of gameplay styles.
I'm interesting in a living world where different players and playstyles can coexist in a balanced way, because thats what makes Eve unique and interesting. My kind of candidate would work for the good of Eve, and not for a specific gamestyle or player faction.
I was pleasantly surprised that Trebor Daehdoow got elected. Since he seems to be a candidate that is at least for now beyond personal agendas. I disagree with some of his visions and ideas, but I like the well-rounded approach he has.
Although most of the current CSM seems to have left the limited agendas behind, and have started having a broader view, thats a very positive development.
I agree that trebor is a very good candidate, but I don't believe that there are any members with a 'personal agenda' at the moment. á
I think CSM is a pretty cool guy. eh creates e-drama and doesnt afraid of anything. |
Loi Shaini
Caldari Perkone
|
Posted - 2010.07.11 22:41:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Sokratesz
Originally by: Sarina Berghil The CSM I would vote for would be one that has experience with a wide span of gameplay styles.
I'm interesting in a living world where different players and playstyles can coexist in a balanced way, because thats what makes Eve unique and interesting. My kind of candidate would work for the good of Eve, and not for a specific gamestyle or player faction.
I was pleasantly surprised that Trebor Daehdoow got elected. Since he seems to be a candidate that is at least for now beyond personal agendas. I disagree with some of his visions and ideas, but I like the well-rounded approach he has.
Although most of the current CSM seems to have left the limited agendas behind, and have started having a broader view, thats a very positive development.
I agree that trebor is a very good candidate, but I don't believe that there are any members with a 'personal agenda' at the moment.
Aside from yourself and the other members of the CSM you mean? I guess if you keep telling yourself this you may eventually convince yourself that it's true.
But spare the player base the sarcasm, the CSM members are there purely for self serving interests and they all have their personal agendas (I mean, how else are you going to pay back all your supporters in your various power blocs? )
Pity though that the facts speak for themselves and that the current CSM represents less than 10% of the existing player base, and from a game POV represents only one segment of the game - that of the Alliance based PVP'ers. Such a broad church of players they are
|
Shawna Gray
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.07.11 23:40:00 -
[29]
Be a forum***** or otherwise EVE-famous (big alliance). Have great potential for drama.
|
Fatmarrow
Minmatar Galactic-Empire
|
Posted - 2010.07.12 10:01:00 -
[30]
I had a theory that a legal background would be a useful attribute for a CSM member, especially with issues relating to negotiations, NDAs and the like, but approximately 98% of voters disagreed with me :)
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |