Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Poetic Stanziel
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
1336
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 20:57:00 -
[1] - Quote
from http://poeticstanziel.blogspot.ca/2012/10/csm7-transparency.html
One of the favourite lines of CSM7, when they're faced with criticism is: "You don't know what's happening behind the scenes."
That's because there's a serious lack of transparency.
It would seem that, to CSM7, transparency is writing out a 165 page document on a three day meeting. That is the sum total of their transparency. The document is less about what CSM7 cares about, and more about what CCP is planning.
From the outside looking in, CSM7 seems to be nothing more than CCP cheerleaders. Criticise the direction in which CCP seems to be taking the game, rather than CCP explaining their position, defending their development, you have the CSM coming down on anyone daring to criticize their keepers. CSM7 is less a player proxy and more a buffer between CCP and the players. Call me crazy, but I'm pretty sure that's not the role the players want their CSM to play.
Devblogs on Retribution are starting to roll out. So, as each feature is announced and explained, the NDA on that feature is effectively dropped. It would be of immense value to the players to now learn where the CSM stands on those features. Where they very much agree with specific feature-sets, where they butted heads with CCP. Where they agreed and disagreed. That's transparency. Information on how CSM7 is actively trying to represent the players to CCP.
Again, from the outside looking in, it appears that CSM7 is more concerned with not pissing off CCP. Because, in their minds to **** off CCP is to anger CCP which might lead to less access to CCP down the road. I'm pretty sure we voted our selected representatives to have actual opinions, perhaps even strong opinions on the way in which this game should be developed. What use is having more access, if you're too afraid to speak your mind when presented with this increased access. So, you get to see things you might not otherwise have got to see, but if you have concerns about those things, being afraid to speak up about them, because you might offend someone, because you're afraid of blowback, well, that's not particularly useful at all.
CSM7 may in fact be butting heads with CCP. We don't know what's happening behind the scenes. And that's a shame, because a few of these representatives ran on platforms promising to open up and reveal the process to their constituents. While NDAs are in effect, obviously they are hog-tied with respect to how much they can reveal. But the moment the NDAs become moot, we should be seeing lengthy articles on each new feature, the opinions on it from CSM7, where they agreed and where they disagreed.
It's of value to the players to know where their representatives stand. What has made them happy, what has made them sad about an upcoming expansion. Where they think CCP could have done better, where they think CCP had failed.
It can't all be puppy dogs and ice cream between CSM7 and CCP. Yet, from the outside looking in, that's exactly the fa+ºade we're all presented with. A big unified front of "everything is working as intended and let's give CCP the benefit of the doubt. Bitching about stuff leads to nowhere good."
Actually, bitching lead to the cancellation of Incarna and a refocus on spaceships. Bitching has been very good for the players. I think we'd like to see where our representatives have spent some time bitching, because it would be disappointing to learn that it's all been lollipops. Caldari Militia |
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
921
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 21:14:00 -
[2] - Quote
In earlier CSMs, where interaction with CCP was largely confined to the Summits and the company pretty much ignored them for the remainder of the term, the CSM communicated loudly and frequently with the wider playerbase because that was the only party listening. Today the pendulum swings in the opposite direction - since chatting it up in secret with devs in the NDA-sealed skype channels is always going to be sexier than the plodding groundwork of public relations, that's the direction of communication CSM7 is naturally favouring. Titans were never meant to be "cost effective", its a huge ****.-á- CCP Oveur, 2006
~If you want a picture of the future of WiS, imagine a spaceship, stamping on an avatar's face. Forever. |
Dersen Lowery
Knavery Inc. StructureDamage
117
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 21:21:00 -
[3] - Quote
Scatim Helicon wrote:In earlier CSMs, where interaction with CCP was largely confined to the Summits and the company pretty much ignored them for the remainder of the term, the CSM communicated loudly and frequently with the wider playerbase because that was the only party listening. Today the pendulum swings in the opposite direction - since chatting it up in secret with devs in the NDA-sealed skype channels is always going to be sexier than the plodding groundwork of public relations, that's the direction of communication CSM7 is naturally favouring.
And with CCP directly engaging the players, in General Discussion and Features & Ideas and elsewhere, it's not hard to argue that this is an attractive direction for them to be going in, in purely pragmatic terms.
Some of them might have learned that effective public relations is really hard, too.
|
Darth Gustav
Interwebs Cooter Explosion Fatal Ascension
1479
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 21:25:00 -
[4] - Quote
Transparency is a lofty ambition. Access and reasonable dialogue, though, would be almost just as nice.
I know getting a straight comment on this forum from a certain "High-sec CSM Representative" regarding valid issues was literally impossible. The only opinion I was ever able to garner was a philosophical one about the economics of happiness which was nominally unrelated to any of the issues I tried to address. I do not wish to launch personal attacks, but the evidence should be pretty apparent to anybody willing to look.
If we can't even get a CSM Representative to give a simple opinion about the unintended effects changes are having on Eve, how can we expect to be adequately represented? In the particular case I'm referring to, botting was among my concerns. Never was an opinion expressed by the CSM in question pertaining to botting in any way. Instead I got a boilerplate response, over and over: Essentially it can be summarized as, "These changes were not meant to address those issues."
One of the only routes of access we, as players, have to the CSM is through these forums. How disenfranchising it feels to be treated like a second-class player undeserving of even an opinion, I can tell you quite personally. I felt like this CSM Representative was telling me in no uncertain terms that I was not worth the relevant opinions, and that my playstyle made me an enemy by proxy.
That's not transparency. That is a brick wall. He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom |
Issler Dainze
Tadakastu-Obata Corporation The Honda Accord
2184
|
Posted - 2012.10.11 06:14:00 -
[5] - Quote
Darth Gustav wrote:Transparency is a lofty ambition. Access and reasonable dialogue, though, would be almost just as nice.
I know getting a straight comment on this forum from a certain "High-sec CSM Representative" regarding valid issues was literally impossible. The only opinion I was ever able to garner was a philosophical one about the economics of happiness which was nominally unrelated to any of the issues I tried to address. I do not wish to launch personal attacks, but the evidence should be pretty apparent to anybody willing to look.
If we can't even get a CSM Representative to give a simple opinion about the unintended effects changes are having on Eve, how can we expect to be adequately represented? In the particular case I'm referring to, botting was among my concerns. Never was an opinion expressed by the CSM in question pertaining to botting in any way. Instead I got a boilerplate response, over and over: Essentially it can be summarized as, "These changes were not meant to address those issues."
One of the only routes of access we, as players, have to the CSM is through these forums. How disenfranchising it feels to be treated like a second-class player undeserving of even an opinion, I can tell you quite personally. I felt like this CSM Representative was telling me in no uncertain terms that I was not worth the relevant opinions, and that my playstyle made me an enemy by proxy.
That's not transparency. That is a brick wall.
Since you are talking about me I was very forthright about answering you. The problem is that you couldn't accept that the question you asked was based on agreeing on how to evaluate the result of the barge change. I supported them and still do based on the concept that since I ran to make miners happier and they did I was glad that happened, the fact that you continue to single me out when all the CSM 7 supported the change shows pretty clearly your question was meant as some sort of troll/personal attack. I could have ignored you but I continued to try and get some resolution to your post.
As for what has been announced to date, I am very happy with what we know about crime watch, the new ships, the balancing that has been announced. Feel free to make specific asks on a feature by feature basis and I am happy to discuss within the limits of the NDA what I think about what we can expect.
Some folks have stated that the next expansion seems light. I think part of that is that a lot of what we are going to see is the "same" stuff we have now, but having it behave differently. So not as clear as the "new shiny" many expansions have provided.
So feel free to ask about specifics. You'll get an answer from me, even if you choose to try and frame it as not answering because you were trying trying to get some "specific" answer to "trap" someone into saying something you think you want to use to affect the next election.
CSM 7 is being very transparent, you are just using some bizarre filter to pretend we aren't engaging the community.
Issler |
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
922
|
Posted - 2012.10.11 06:39:00 -
[6] - Quote
Issler Dainze wrote: Feel free to make specific asks on a feature by feature basis and I am happy to discuss within the limits of the NDA what I think about what we can expect.
This illustrates my post above fairly well.
In earlier CSMs, there were of course NDAs in place as well to restrict discussion, but since CCP was barely communicating in any depth with the CSM those restrictions were pretty much irrelevant - the CSMs couldn't really break their NDAs unless they were really trying and were essentially free to communicate openly. Titans were never meant to be "cost effective", its a huge ****.-á- CCP Oveur, 2006
~If you want a picture of the future of WiS, imagine a spaceship, stamping on an avatar's face. Forever. |
Poetic Stanziel
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
1339
|
Posted - 2012.10.11 06:53:00 -
[7] - Quote
Issler Dainze wrote:CSM 7 is being very transparent, you are just using some bizarre filter to pretend we aren't engaging the community. Appearing on a podcast is not necessarily transparency.
Telling some podcast guy that "we spend a lot of time on Skype" is not transparent. What are you talking about? What did you agree with? What did you disagree with? With the NDA for Retribution beginning to fall by the wayside (devblogs should invalidate NDAs, because the info is now out in the open), the CSM should begin detailing their opinions on the new features, the good and the bad, especially where they told CCP there would be problems, etc.
That gives us a fuller picture of how well each CSM member actually understands the game and their area of interest, and how well they are representing the playerbase.
Caldari Militia |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
4871
|
Posted - 2012.10.11 06:59:00 -
[8] - Quote
It's here: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=161013&find=unread MatrixSkye Mk2: "Remember: You consent to unconsensual PVP the moment you press the "Undock" button." |
None ofthe Above
340
|
Posted - 2012.10.11 07:02:00 -
[9] - Quote
I give CSM7 a fair amount of credit. I am pretty impressed with several of their members.
But I have to say some of this rings true to me, and echoes opinions I've held and even expressed.
I too have a concern that it is easy getting sucked into being buds with the devs.
Which would seem to be why the CSM wasn't so quick to pick up on the issues with the Unified Inventory. (Although also mitigating was there was a lot else going on at that point in time that seemed more likely to be disaster at first glance.)
I do appreciate Hans' more recent posts, but yes I agree: It would be helpful as the NDAs lift if we could here more about what happened behind the scenes. EVE is a sandbox; The only "end-game" content in EVE is the crap that makes you rage-quit.
|
Poetic Stanziel
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
1339
|
Posted - 2012.10.11 07:05:00 -
[10] - Quote
That's not transparency. That's just them talking about themselves.
Caldari Militia |
|
Poetic Stanziel
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
1339
|
Posted - 2012.10.11 07:08:00 -
[11] - Quote
None ofthe Above wrote:It would be helpful as the NDAs lift if we could here more about what happened behind the scenes. As much as most of us would love that to happen, it probably won't. CSM doesn't want to criticise CCP openly, because then CCP will cut them off. (Or so they think.) The CSM is neutered with this fear.
Oh sure, they'll tell us they've disagreed with CCP, but without knowing on what they disagreed, it's an empty statement. An easy statement to make, if you don't have to back it up.
We never got this sort of pandering when The Mittani was in charge. CSM8 needs a strong capable leader again.
Caldari Militia |
None ofthe Above
340
|
Posted - 2012.10.11 07:11:00 -
[12] - Quote
Poetic Stanziel wrote:That's not transparency. That's just them talking about themselves.
Sure it probably has room for improvement, but you give them no credit for that?
Shirley, you jest. EVE is a sandbox; The only "end-game" content in EVE is the crap that makes you rage-quit.
|
None ofthe Above
340
|
Posted - 2012.10.11 07:26:00 -
[13] - Quote
Poetic Stanziel wrote:None ofthe Above wrote:It would be helpful as the NDAs lift if we could here more about what happened behind the scenes. As much as most of us would love that to happen, it probably won't. CSM doesn't want to criticise CCP openly, because then CCP will cut them off. (Or so they think.) The CSM is neutered with this fear. Oh sure, they'll tell us they've disagreed with CCP, but without knowing on what they disagreed, it's an empty statement. An easy statement to make, if you don't have to back it up. We never got this sort of pandering when The Mittani was in charge. CSM8 needs a strong capable leader again.
Sums up my concerns pretty well.
Not sure I am dying to get The Mittani back, there were a lot of negatives to his leadership as well, but I do certainly agree that the current CSM doesn't understand what The Mittani could do with the figurehead position, or perhaps considers it beneath them. Courthouse called it "soft-power". I had a few arguments about this with Hans and a few others dating back to the election even, when they were saying the chair was a meaningless position that had no power.
The standard response to this would be "See you even say its a figurehead position, of course it has no power." It doesn't come with power or influence. It comes with the opportunity to create it.
I see this happening to an extent. The CSM's stakeholder project could lead to something truly remarkable. But if they sacrifice the ability to be critical... the ability to take a stand when something is going horribly wrong... then what good is it? On that point I think we agree, Poetic. EVE is a sandbox; The only "end-game" content in EVE is the crap that makes you rage-quit.
|
Poetic Stanziel
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
1339
|
Posted - 2012.10.11 07:59:00 -
[14] - Quote
None ofthe Above wrote:Poetic Stanziel wrote:That's not transparency. That's just them talking about themselves. Sure it probably has room for improvement, but you give them no credit for that? Some credit. They try harder than anyone (other than The Mittani) did on CSM6. But the substance of the podcasts ... it's just them trying to make themselves look good so that they're in a good position for CSM8.
So they talk a lot. I don't want CSM reps who talk a lot, especially self-serving yammer. I want CSM reps who are willing to explain to the players where they agree with CCP and where they disagree with CCP. I want CSM reps who will talk about that.
Caldari Militia |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
776
|
Posted - 2012.10.11 08:36:00 -
[15] - Quote
Yeah, in the spirit of transparency , what did the CSM think of the newest dev blog?
Personally I think it is too much for CCP Guard to sneak to close to other CCP devs, even with camoflage. Guard was obviously hacking in that video.
Also which CSM member told CCP to hire more hot women for their company? I think I smell a CSM 8 chairmen already. I will not be voting in the CSM election, so you need to go vote to make up for me. |
Snow Axe
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
510
|
Posted - 2012.10.11 13:55:00 -
[16] - Quote
rodyas wrote:Yeah, in the spirit of transparency , what did the CSM think of the newest dev blog?
They'll be happy to sort of tell you as soon as they've decided which way the winds are blowing. Of course, by "they" I mean "the 3 or 4 of them who can be assed enough to post here", and by "tell you" I mean "link to a 3 hour masturbatory podcast". |
Akrasjel Lanate
Naquatech Conglomerate
789
|
Posted - 2012.10.11 14:41:00 -
[17] - Quote
Yea, everyone would want an inside knowledge about upcoming changes(and benefit from them ?) before they will be know to the masses |
Darth Gustav
Interwebs Cooter Explosion Fatal Ascension
1484
|
Posted - 2012.10.11 17:04:00 -
[18] - Quote
Issler Dainze wrote:Darth Gustav wrote:Transparency is a lofty ambition. Access and reasonable dialogue, though, would be almost just as nice.
I know getting a straight comment on this forum from a certain "High-sec CSM Representative" regarding valid issues was literally impossible. The only opinion I was ever able to garner was a philosophical one about the economics of happiness which was nominally unrelated to any of the issues I tried to address. I do not wish to launch personal attacks, but the evidence should be pretty apparent to anybody willing to look.
If we can't even get a CSM Representative to give a simple opinion about the unintended effects changes are having on Eve, how can we expect to be adequately represented? In the particular case I'm referring to, botting was among my concerns. Never was an opinion expressed by the CSM in question pertaining to botting in any way. Instead I got a boilerplate response, over and over: Essentially it can be summarized as, "These changes were not meant to address those issues."
One of the only routes of access we, as players, have to the CSM is through these forums. How disenfranchising it feels to be treated like a second-class player undeserving of even an opinion, I can tell you quite personally. I felt like this CSM Representative was telling me in no uncertain terms that I was not worth the relevant opinions, and that my playstyle made me an enemy by proxy.
That's not transparency. That is a brick wall. Since you are talking about me I was very forthright about answering you. The problem is that you couldn't accept that the question you asked was based on agreeing on how to evaluate the result of the barge change. I supported them and still do based on the concept that since I ran to make miners happier and they did I was glad that happened, the fact that you continue to single me out when all the CSM 7 supported the change shows pretty clearly your question was meant as some sort of troll/personal attack. I could have ignored you but I continued to try and get some resolution to your post. As for what has been announced to date, I am very happy with what we know about crime watch, the new ships, the balancing that has been announced. Feel free to make specific asks on a feature by feature basis and I am happy to discuss within the limits of the NDA what I think about what we can expect. Some folks have stated that the next expansion seems light. I think part of that is that a lot of what we are going to see is the "same" stuff we have now, but having it behave differently. So not as clear as the "new shiny" many expansions have provided. So feel free to ask about specifics. You'll get an answer from me, even if you choose to try and frame it as not answering because you were trying trying to get some "specific" answer to "trap" someone into saying something you think you want to use to affect the next election. CSM 7 is being very transparent, you are just using some bizarre filter to pretend we aren't engaging the community. Issler Please give quotes showing how you answered my specific questions. You didn't answer anything until I let up and said I only wanted an answer about the value added to mining by the changes. You commented on the philosophical value of happiness rather than any sort of informed comment about the actual in-game value of mining as a profession.
You can NOT link NOR quote where you answered my original questions, because you simply didn't.
Thanks for being so interested now though.
[edit] Also, speaking purely objectively, your insistence that miners adapt to ever-lowering prices by not mining is an admittance that mining lost value because of these changes. If you don't believe me, try to put yourself into a new miner's shoes, just getting ready to be able to harvest ice. The value will soon be negligible. That miner will find his time wasted and be forced to do something else in the future so that some greedy miners can mine gank-free (and attention-free too, AFK-style) for a while until it becomes obvious that's probably going to be problematic. The only alternative is to take a pay cut every day until prices bottom out, at which point pay cuts are no longer possible due to game mechanics.[/edit] He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom |
Proclus Diadochu
Obstergo Exhale.
156
|
Posted - 2012.10.11 17:25:00 -
[19] - Quote
Poe, they come out with verbatim (save NDA material) transcripts from the meetings, they do townhalls, Dev's are communicating more, and CSM are even personally emailing back replies to any and all reasonable emails and questions to them. Case in point, Trebor and Twostep have replied to questions I have asked them about with thorough clarity and full support to discuss if required.
What more do you want from a video game? ~Boredom Breeds Direction~ |
Poetic Stanziel
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
1345
|
Posted - 2012.10.11 18:17:00 -
[20] - Quote
I'd like to see their opinions on the latest bounty/killright devblog.
Their opinions on the suspect flag being applied for activating a killright, for instance. Caldari Militia |
|
Dersen Lowery
Knavery Inc. StructureDamage
136
|
Posted - 2012.10.11 18:31:00 -
[21] - Quote
Poetic Stanziel wrote:We never got this sort of pandering when The Mittani was in charge.
Not even before the Summer of Rage? |
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
676
|
Posted - 2012.10.17 14:52:00 -
[22] - Quote
Poetic Stanziel wrote:I'd like to see their opinions on the latest bounty/killright devblog.
Their opinions on the suspect flag being applied for activating a killright, for instance. It's been a point of contention. "Alekseyev Karrde: mercenary of my heart."-á -Arydanika, Voices from the Void
CSM7 rep, CSM 4 vet Noir./Noir. Academy Recruiting: www.noirmercs.com |
None ofthe Above
349
|
Posted - 2012.10.20 02:21:00 -
[23] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:Poetic Stanziel wrote:I'd like to see their opinions on the latest bounty/killright devblog.
Their opinions on the suspect flag being applied for activating a killright, for instance. It's been a point of contention.
That's one thing I hate about you Alex, once we get you started talking can't get you to shut up. Can count on you to elucidate on a point until ... oh wait. That's Hans I am thinking of. Sorry.
So the contention here is with the other members of the CSM? With CCP? Can you perhaps discuss who is taking what position and what alternatives are being proposed.
I'll note this thread is about transparency, after all. EVE is a sandbox; The only "end-game" content in EVE is the crap that makes you rage-quit.
|
Poetic Stanziel
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
1385
|
Posted - 2012.10.20 03:25:00 -
[24] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:Poetic Stanziel wrote:I'd like to see their opinions on the latest bounty/killright devblog.
Their opinions on the suspect flag being applied for activating a killright, for instance. It's been a point of contention. Wow. This is what you call transparency? Or you just scared to upset CCP, figuring they could cut off access? What good is the access if you're unable to publicly criticise, so that your constituents know where you stand?
Caldari Militia |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
793
|
Posted - 2012.10.21 04:19:00 -
[25] - Quote
^ Poetic most people on CSM are from null sec. DUH, of course they don't care about hi sec changes. Of course a good question would be if kardde's merc corp would ever come to hi sec to chase bounties or if he plans to stay in null or low after the bounty change. I'm not shitposting. |
Poetic Stanziel
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
1387
|
Posted - 2012.10.21 19:24:00 -
[26] - Quote
The transparency by the CSM is stifling. Stop posting you guys, so much to read. Caldari Militia |
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
706
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 07:48:00 -
[27] - Quote
Poetic Stanziel wrote:Alekseyev Karrde wrote:Poetic Stanziel wrote:I'd like to see their opinions on the latest bounty/killright devblog.
Their opinions on the suspect flag being applied for activating a killright, for instance. It's been a point of contention. Wow. This is what you call transparency? Or you just scared to upset CCP, figuring they could cut off access? What good is the access if you're unable to publicly criticise, so that your constituents know where you stand? Going through my old posts for our activity summary (gee, transparency!) and noticed responses to my earlier post.
Yes, it is what i call transparency. Discussions are ongoing via NDA channels. Other than telling you it's something the CSM was arguing about with CCP what more could I say you think needs to be heard? You wanted a position, an idea of our reaction. Not sure how anyone could read my post as anything but a public criticism, so I'll leave the rest of the bloviating alone. "Alekseyev Karrde: mercenary of my heart."-á -Arydanika, Voices from the Void
CSM7 rep, CSM 4 vet Noir./Noir. Academy Recruiting: www.noirmercs.com |
Poetic Stanziel
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
1436
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 07:58:00 -
[28] - Quote
When is the next Town Hall? Shouldn't the time and date be announced soon? You all said you wanted to have them every 4-6 weeks. I think it's been quite a bit longer since the last one.
How about a Town Hall before the next summit? You know, transparency and all, plus connecting with the playerbase. That thing you're supposed to be doing as CSM members. Amarr Militia |
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
706
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 08:37:00 -
[29] - Quote
Poetic Stanziel wrote:When is the next Town Hall? Shouldn't the time and date be announced soon? You all said you wanted to have them every 4-6 weeks. I think it's been quite a bit longer since the last one.
How about a Town Hall before the next summit? You know, transparency and all, plus connecting with the playerbase. That thing you're supposed to be doing as CSM members. We're trying to time this next town hall so players can provide us with feedback before the Reykjavik summit in December. For that to be possible, we need to have the summit topics nailed down and giveable to the playerbase. This process is happening right now, and we hope for it to be done by the weekend. We're eager to schedule the next town hall as soon as possible and have it be a productive connection between players and CSM.
EDIT: nice pivot Stan "Alekseyev Karrde: mercenary of my heart."-á -Arydanika, Voices from the Void
CSM7 rep, CSM 4 vet Noir./Noir. Academy Recruiting: www.noirmercs.com |
Poetic Stanziel
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
1437
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 08:54:00 -
[30] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:Poetic Stanziel wrote:When is the next Town Hall? Shouldn't the time and date be announced soon? You all said you wanted to have them every 4-6 weeks. I think it's been quite a bit longer since the last one.
How about a Town Hall before the next summit? You know, transparency and all, plus connecting with the playerbase. That thing you're supposed to be doing as CSM members. We're trying to time this next town hall so players can provide us with feedback before the Reykjavik summit in December. For that to be possible, we need to have the summit topics nailed down and giveable to the playerbase. This process is happening right now, and we hope for it to be done by the weekend. We're eager to schedule the next town hall as soon as possible and have it be a productive connection between players and CSM. I'm pretty sure you can set a date and time for the town hall now. The topics of discussion can be determined in about 20 minutes at some point before that date and time. Amarr Militia |
|
Vera Algaert
Republic University Minmatar Republic
426
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 13:08:00 -
[31] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote: Yes, it is what i call transparency. Discussions are ongoing via NDA channels. Other than telling you it's something the CSM was arguing about with CCP what more could I say you think needs to be heard? You wanted a position, an idea of our reaction. Not sure how anyone could read my post as anything but a public criticism, so I'll leave the rest of the bloviating alone.
We want you to tell us what each CSM member thinks about this issue so we know who we have to crucify if Crimewatch turns out to be ****.
More transparency = better informed voters on the next CSM elections (the horror) = more accountability.
The Summit minutes were a step in the right direction but now you are just trying to hide under the protection of the amorphous "the CSM" again. I'm a NPC corp alt, any argument I make is invalid. |
Vera Algaert
Republic University Minmatar Republic
426
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 13:18:00 -
[32] - Quote
What you should do is to speak to CCP as one voice (to maximize impact) but to make each CSM member's individual opinions completely transparent to your electorate (so we can make informed decisions come election day).
What you actually do is to present CCP with diluted and conflicting messages while hiding behind the collective when communicating with your voters. I'm a NPC corp alt, any argument I make is invalid. |
Abyssum Invocat
Justified Chaos
36
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 17:32:00 -
[33] - Quote
Poetic Stanziel wrote:Issler Dainze wrote:CSM 7 is being very transparent, you are just using some bizarre filter to pretend we aren't engaging the community. Appearing on a podcast is not necessarily transparency. Telling some podcast guy that "we spend a lot of time on Skype" is not transparent. What are you talking about? What did you agree with? What did you disagree with? With the NDA for Retribution beginning to fall by the wayside (devblogs should invalidate NDAs, because the info is now out in the open), the CSM should begin detailing their opinions on the new features, the good and the bad, especially where they told CCP there would be problems, etc. That gives us a fuller picture of how well each CSM member actually understands the game and their area of interest, and how well they are representing the playerbase. NDAs don't end when the information becomes publicly available, they end when either the NDA says they end or when the signatory is told they may talk about it. |
Poetic Stanziel
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
1437
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 20:14:00 -
[34] - Quote
Abyssum Invocat wrote:Poetic Stanziel wrote:Issler Dainze wrote:CSM 7 is being very transparent, you are just using some bizarre filter to pretend we aren't engaging the community. Appearing on a podcast is not necessarily transparency. Telling some podcast guy that "we spend a lot of time on Skype" is not transparent. What are you talking about? What did you agree with? What did you disagree with? With the NDA for Retribution beginning to fall by the wayside (devblogs should invalidate NDAs, because the info is now out in the open), the CSM should begin detailing their opinions on the new features, the good and the bad, especially where they told CCP there would be problems, etc. That gives us a fuller picture of how well each CSM member actually understands the game and their area of interest, and how well they are representing the playerbase. NDAs don't end when the information becomes publicly available, they end when either the NDA says they end or when the signatory is told they may talk about it. CCP should tell us when NDAs end, because I feel that the CSM uses it as an excuse to avoid criticism, even when it probably no longer is in effect. We have only their word to trust. I'd prefer CCP tell us when certain NDAs have dropped, so if the CSM refuses to talk on a subject, we know why.
Amarr Militia |
Poetic Stanziel
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
1437
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 20:18:00 -
[35] - Quote
Vera Algaert wrote:What you should do is to speak to CCP as one voice (to maximize impact) but to make each CSM member's individual opinions completely transparent to your electorate (so we can make informed decisions come election day). I was pleased to see Hans taking a first step in this direction today, discussing his opinions on ECM and the upcoming changes.
http://hansshotfirst.blogspot.ca/2012/11/the-permaproblem.html
Granted, it's not a strong-opinion, and it's carefully worded to avoid too much criticism of CCP ... but it is a step in the right direction. It might be too little too late ... but there's still time for him to go more fully into the entire expansion. Amarr Militia |
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
724
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 20:45:00 -
[36] - Quote
Poetic Stanziel wrote: I feel that the CSM uses it as an excuse to avoid criticism, even when it probably no longer is in effect
Let's have some Poetic transparency. "Alekseyev Karrde: mercenary of my heart."-á -Arydanika, Voices from the Void
CSM7 rep, CSM 4 vet Noir./Noir. Academy Recruiting: www.noirmercs.com |
Poetic Stanziel
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
1437
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 20:48:00 -
[37] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:Poetic Stanziel wrote: I feel that the CSM uses it as an excuse to avoid criticism, even when it probably no longer is in effect. Let's have some Poetic transparency. Wow. You really put me in my place.
(Is there somebody in your alliance who keeps telling you how great you are at sh!t-talking? Because they are trolling you.) Amarr Militia |
Abyssum Invocat
Justified Chaos
36
|
Posted - 2012.11.10 07:21:00 -
[38] - Quote
Poetic Stanziel wrote:Abyssum Invocat wrote:Poetic Stanziel wrote:Issler Dainze wrote:CSM 7 is being very transparent, you are just using some bizarre filter to pretend we aren't engaging the community. Appearing on a podcast is not necessarily transparency. Telling some podcast guy that "we spend a lot of time on Skype" is not transparent. What are you talking about? What did you agree with? What did you disagree with? With the NDA for Retribution beginning to fall by the wayside (devblogs should invalidate NDAs, because the info is now out in the open), the CSM should begin detailing their opinions on the new features, the good and the bad, especially where they told CCP there would be problems, etc. That gives us a fuller picture of how well each CSM member actually understands the game and their area of interest, and how well they are representing the playerbase. NDAs don't end when the information becomes publicly available, they end when either the NDA says they end or when the signatory is told they may talk about it. CCP should tell us when NDAs end, because I feel that the CSM uses it as an excuse to avoid criticism, even when they're probably no longer is in effect. We have only their word to trust. I'd prefer CCP tell us when certain NDAs have dropped, so if the CSM refuses to talk on a subject, we know why. Then make complaints to CCP or contact a representative on the CSM who you are on good terms with and get some answers or changes.
Do we have any CSM members here who would volunteer to bring this issue up with CCP? |
Abyssum Invocat
Justified Chaos
36
|
Posted - 2012.11.10 07:27:00 -
[39] - Quote
Poetic Stanziel wrote:Alekseyev Karrde wrote:Poetic Stanziel wrote: I feel that the CSM uses it as an excuse to avoid criticism, even when it probably no longer is in effect. Let's have some Poetic transparency. Wow. You really put me in my place. (Is somebody in your alliance telling you that you're great at sh!t-talking? Because they are trolling you, dude. You're terrible at it. Do your reputation a favour, stop now.) Poetic, you need to harden up and leave the trash talk and personal attacks by the wayside. Trust me when I say this, you are destroying your credibility with this kind of posting. You do not need to polarize everyone into being with you or against you. Please don't take this as an attack, it is one community writer advising another. You need to calm down and take these topics more tactfully if you want to report your findings to everyone and have them listen, because this kind of tone is one I see often from you and it serves more to isolate your points of view then to share or elucidate any possible findings. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
5086
|
Posted - 2012.11.10 08:55:00 -
[40] - Quote
ITT: "The CSM doesn't want to spend hours responding to one sperglord, therefore it's a secret cabal of HATE" MatrixSkye Mk2: "Remember: You consent to unconsensual PVP the moment you press the "Undock" button." |
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
5092
|
Posted - 2012.11.10 08:56:00 -
[41] - Quote
I hereby promise that, should I be elected to CSM8, I will not respond to a single* Poetic Stanzel post relating to the CSM
*Disclaimer: unless he makes an interesting or relevent post. MatrixSkye Mk2: "Remember: You consent to unconsensual PVP the moment you press the "Undock" button." |
Seleene
Body Count Inc. Pandemic Legion
2010
|
Posted - 2012.11.12 13:30:00 -
[42] - Quote
Poetic Stanziel wrote:CCP should tell us when NDAs end, because I feel that the CSM uses it as an excuse to avoid criticism, even when they're probably no longer is in effect. We have only their word to trust. I'd prefer CCP tell us when certain NDAs have dropped, so if the CSM refuses to talk on a subject, we know why.
The NDA's that the CSM members sign are effective for five (5) years. CSM 7 Chairman My Blog - Where I say stuff Follow Seleene on Twitter! |
Poetic Stanziel
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
1442
|
Posted - 2012.11.12 20:18:00 -
[43] - Quote
Seleene wrote:Poetic Stanziel wrote:CCP should tell us when NDAs end, because I feel that the CSM uses it as an excuse to avoid criticism, even when they're probably no longer is in effect. We have only their word to trust. I'd prefer CCP tell us when certain NDAs have dropped, so if the CSM refuses to talk on a subject, we know why. The NDA's that the CSM members sign are effective for five (5) years. So, you're not allowed to talk about the new Bounty System for five years?
Amarr Militia |
Milton Middleson
Rifterlings Damu'Khonde
156
|
Posted - 2012.11.13 00:12:00 -
[44] - Quote
Poetic Stanziel wrote:Seleene wrote:Poetic Stanziel wrote:CCP should tell us when NDAs end, because I feel that the CSM uses it as an excuse to avoid criticism, even when they're probably no longer is in effect. We have only their word to trust. I'd prefer CCP tell us when certain NDAs have dropped, so if the CSM refuses to talk on a subject, we know why. The NDA's that the CSM members sign are effective for five (5) years. So, you're not allowed to talk about the new Bounty System for five years? No, it means the NDA is effective for five years. |
Poetic Stanziel
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
1442
|
Posted - 2012.11.13 00:39:00 -
[45] - Quote
Milton Middleson wrote:Poetic Stanziel wrote:Seleene wrote:Poetic Stanziel wrote:CCP should tell us when NDAs end, because I feel that the CSM uses it as an excuse to avoid criticism, even when they're probably no longer is in effect. We have only their word to trust. I'd prefer CCP tell us when certain NDAs have dropped, so if the CSM refuses to talk on a subject, we know why. The NDA's that the CSM members sign are effective for five (5) years. So, you're not allowed to talk about the new Bounty System for five years? No, it means the NDA is effective for five years. But they weren't allowed to talk about the bounty system while it was under development, because of the NDA.
I'm just saying, there comes a point where development comes out of the purview of the NDA, and the CSM can talk about it.
I'd like to see the CSM start talking about development that's been devblogged, because it seems at that point, they should be free to talk about it, give their honest opinions of it, etc. Amarr Militia |
Tech3ZH
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
46
|
Posted - 2012.11.13 01:24:00 -
[46] - Quote
Poetic, I'm going to vote for you when you run for CSM8 just to see if you will do all the things that you bust the chops of the CSM over.
I mean, c'mon m8, I admire your passion and obvious desire to be involved, but this isn't a RL parliament or something. This is an unpaid, volunteer group of our fellow players giving their time to the game we all like.
This is a fun game, but it is still just a game. |
Poetic Stanziel
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
1442
|
Posted - 2012.11.13 04:20:00 -
[47] - Quote
Tech3ZH wrote:This is an unpaid, volunteer group of our fellow players giving their time to the game we all like. Would it kill them to tell the people they voted for how they feel about the features CCP are rolling out?
Amarr Militia |
Abyssum Invocat
Justified Chaos
38
|
Posted - 2012.11.13 05:58:00 -
[48] - Quote
Poetic Stanziel wrote:Milton Middleson wrote:Poetic Stanziel wrote:Seleene wrote:Poetic Stanziel wrote:CCP should tell us when NDAs end, because I feel that the CSM uses it as an excuse to avoid criticism, even when they're probably no longer is in effect. We have only their word to trust. I'd prefer CCP tell us when certain NDAs have dropped, so if the CSM refuses to talk on a subject, we know why. The NDA's that the CSM members sign are effective for five (5) years. So, you're not allowed to talk about the new Bounty System for five years? No, it means the NDA is effective for five years. But they weren't allowed to talk about the bounty system while it was under development, because of the NDA. I'm just saying, there comes a point where development comes out of the purview of the NDA, and the CSM can talk about it. I'd like to see the CSM start talking about development that's been devblogged, because it seems at that point, they should be free to talk about it, give their honest opinions of it, etc. They can't talk about it while the NDA is active until they are told they can. Please go research NDAs before laying blame every which way. |
Snow Axe
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
516
|
Posted - 2012.11.13 07:58:00 -
[49] - Quote
Poetic, if you actually care about the specific limitations or scope of the NDA, you might as well just get in touch with CCP (a la Nicolo Di'Vicenza during the vote reform nonsense), since it's clear at this point the CSM isn't interested in addressing that point at all.
Of course, that's assuming you can find a way to work that into yet another pompous self-serving blog post that will no doubt end up crossposted here. |
Poetic Stanziel
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
1442
|
Posted - 2012.11.13 08:11:00 -
[50] - Quote
Snow Axe wrote:Of course, that's assuming you can find a way to work that into yet another pompous self-serving blog post that will no doubt end up crossposted here. It's good to be able to look forward to nice things.
Amarr Militia |
|
Asuri Kinnes
Adhocracy Incorporated Adhocracy
639
|
Posted - 2012.11.13 14:55:00 -
[51] - Quote
Poetic Stanziel wrote:Snow Axe wrote:Of course, that's assuming you can find a way to work that into yet another pompous self-serving blog post that will no doubt end up crossposted here. It's good to be able to look forward to nice things. Thanksgiving and Christmas?
Interdict Hi-Sec - it's the only way to be sure... |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
5107
|
Posted - 2012.11.13 15:10:00 -
[52] - Quote
Or even shutupmas MatrixSkye Mk2: "Remember: You consent to unconsensual PVP the moment you press the "Undock" button." |
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
732
|
Posted - 2012.11.13 16:32:00 -
[53] - Quote
Poetic Stanziel wrote:Tech3ZH wrote:This is an unpaid, volunteer group of our fellow players giving their time to the game we all like. Would it kill them to tell the people they voted for how they feel about the features CCP are rolling out? someone doesnt listen to the podcast ;p "Alekseyev Karrde: mercenary of my heart."-á -Arydanika, Voices from the Void
CSM7 rep, CSM 4 vet Noir./Noir. Academy Recruiting: www.noirmercs.com |
Poetic Stanziel
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
1442
|
Posted - 2012.11.13 20:25:00 -
[54] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:Poetic Stanziel wrote:Tech3ZH wrote:This is an unpaid, volunteer group of our fellow players giving their time to the game we all like. Would it kill them to tell the people they voted for how they feel about the features CCP are rolling out? someone doesnt listen to the podcast ;p I've listened to your podcast twice (once when you had Ripard and once when you had Pinky as guests), but your voice grates the hell on my nerves. It has a very whiny quality to it. Anytime you get excited about something, it's like nails on a chalkboard.
But you know what ... the forums are where you connect with the most number of players. I doubt even 10% of the players that you can reach on the forums even listen to your (or know you have a) podcast. Amarr Militia |
Abyssum Invocat
Justified Chaos
40
|
Posted - 2012.11.13 21:34:00 -
[55] - Quote
Poetic Stanziel wrote:Alekseyev Karrde wrote:Poetic Stanziel wrote:Tech3ZH wrote:This is an unpaid, volunteer group of our fellow players giving their time to the game we all like. Would it kill them to tell the people they voted for how they feel about the features CCP are rolling out? someone doesnt listen to the podcast ;p I've listened to your podcast twice (once when you had Ripard and once when you had Pinky as guests), but your voice grates the hell on my nerves. It has a very whiny quality to it. Anytime you get excited about something, it's like nails on a chalkboard. But you know what ... the forums are where you connect with the most number of players. I doubt even 10% of the players that you can reach on the forums even listen to your (or know you have a) podcast. Let's be clear here, you're launching some kind of a smear campaign over the fact that elected representatives aren't being transparent about things that would be illegal for them to be transparent about, and for being transparent about the things that they can in a media format that you don't like? I'm just trying to sum all this up. |
Issler Dainze
Tadakastu-Obata Corporation The Honda Accord
2189
|
Posted - 2012.11.13 22:26:00 -
[56] - Quote
So I'll make this offer. If you'd like to provide a list of what you want my (and I mean MY, not the CSMs) opinion about I'm happy to answer. Feel free to ask for as much or as little detail as you'd like. I'm currently likely one of the least interesting CSMs at the moment but I'm happy to share what I think about Eve now and in the future with anyone interested in reading it. And again, this are my opinions and also in no way reflect how the other CSM should choose to communicate.
By the way I started to try and blog and after virtually NO visits I decided not to continue. If someone wants me to try that again let me know.
So the floor is open for questions. :-)
Issler |
Snow Axe
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
518
|
Posted - 2012.11.13 22:45:00 -
[57] - Quote
Abyssum Invocat wrote:Let's be clear here, you're launching some kind of a smear campaign over the fact that elected representatives aren't being transparent about things that would be illegal for them to be transparent about, and for being transparent about the things that they can in a media format that you don't like? I'm just trying to sum all this up.
Not to defend him, but he'd probably settle for "actually sharing their opinion on upcoming announced game changes without having to be shamed into doing it". Even if he wants more, that'd probably be a good place to start.
Issler Dainze wrote:So I'll make this offer. If you'd like to provide a list of what you want my (and I mean MY, not the CSMs) opinion about I'm happy to answer.
I'll start!
"Retribution" |
Poetic Stanziel
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
1443
|
Posted - 2012.11.13 23:10:00 -
[58] - Quote
Snow Axe wrote:He'd probably settle for "actually sharing their opinion on upcoming announced game changes without having to be shamed into doing it". Even if he wants more, that'd probably be a good place to start. Exactly what I'm asking for.
I'm not asking for their opinion on POS revamp development, because that hasn't been released by CCP, thus still under heavy NDA.
Bounties, Crimewatch, new UI elements, faction warfare changes, etc. have all been talked about by CCP in devblogs, thus I can't see any problem with the CSM now discussing the content of those devblogs and weighing in with their actual opinions on the announced changes.
Amarr Militia |
Poetic Stanziel
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
1443
|
Posted - 2012.11.13 23:12:00 -
[59] - Quote
Issler Dainze wrote:So the floor is open for questions. :-) You opinions on:
Bounties Crimewatch Faction Warfare changes Ship Rebalancing The UI updates
Give specific examples where you're keen on the changes, and where you have reservations or are downright annoyed with the changes.
PS When are you joining faction warfare?
Amarr Militia |
Issler Dainze
Tadakastu-Obata Corporation The Honda Accord
2189
|
Posted - 2012.11.14 08:29:00 -
[60] - Quote
Poetic Stanziel wrote:Issler Dainze wrote:So the floor is open for questions. :-) You opinions on: Bounties Crimewatch Faction Warfare changes Ship Rebalancing The UI updates Give specific examples where you're keen on the changes, and where you have reservations or are downright annoyed with the changes. PS When are you joining faction warfare?
Quick answer of the last question (I want to spend a little more time on the rest).
My alt corp and alt combat characters are in FW now. Look for Denze Ezzle and the Freespacer Confederation to be in the Mim side. Also putting another alt in the fray as part the Ammar to try and understand how the experiences differ.
I'll have answers for the rest tomorrow (heading to bed as my new job has early morning hours).
Issler |
|
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
737
|
Posted - 2012.11.14 15:58:00 -
[61] - Quote
Poetic Stanziel wrote:Issler Dainze wrote:So the floor is open for questions. :-) You opinions on: Bounties Crimewatch Faction Warfare changes Ship Rebalancing The UI updates Give specific examples where you're keen on the changes, and where you have reservations or are downright annoyed with the changes. This is how you do it Poetic. If you want to know the CSM's position on something and cant find it somewhere, you just ask. You dont start threads soap-boxing about how nothing is being talked about and we're hiding behind NDA and the fake moon landing was done by Goonswarm etc etc etc. *Especially* when these things HAVE been discussed and you either didn't like the format or cant be bothered to go look. Transparency does not mean "anticipate and cater to Poetic Stanziel's personal whims before he knows he has them."
I'm glad Issler Dainze was able to help you better interact with other people. Just as I stick your nose in it when you do bad things, I'll reward your good behaviour (much like a puppy, or other small dog). Next time you want to know something, just ask nicely (you can even EVE Mail me, i will let you ;p ).
Bounties: This feature's come a long way since it was first shown to us. I was honestly leery about them making it such a high priority but I actually think it's turned out rather nice and most players that talk about it seem excited for it. I'm mostly engaged now making sure post-Crimewatch killrights properly support the bounty hunting profession since I think most players will interact with Bounty Hunting in empire and low sec. We've been having meetings with Team Super Friends on it, so they definitely know my/our concerns (whether they do something about it is always the challenge)
Crimewatch: Love it. The new lowsec aggression/engagement rules will no doubt be something to keep track of to see if any unintended consequences are happening (players break things) but I like the direction.
FW Changes: Not really my area of expertise but I have a positive feeling about the changes. Fixing the LP faucet was key, the changes to system upgrades look cool, and changes to complex/capture mechanics seem sensible.Hans has been working very closely with the FW team on this. Only thing I think is missing is some path for losing factions to get themselves out of a rut but it's not an easy problem to solve.
Ship Rebalancing: Absolutely amazing, can't wait for more. I'm reserving judgement on the T3/Command Ship changes till I see what Fozzie lays out as far as their on-field combat capability. I love that they will be valuable on field fighters but the changes to link numbers are a big shift to the gang-link meta which a lot of small gang warfare groups are very reliant on for the tanking ability to fight larger groups of players and must be done carefully.
UI Updates: I didn't like the initial circular targeting UI; like many I found it extremely confusing. However the new circular targeting bracket looks sleek and I consider it an improvement over our current UI which will be very new-player friendly. "Alekseyev Karrde: mercenary of my heart."-á -Arydanika, Voices from the Void
CSM7 rep, CSM 4 vet Noir./Noir. Academy Recruiting: www.noirmercs.com |
Snow Axe
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
518
|
Posted - 2012.11.14 17:55:00 -
[62] - Quote
Congratulations Alekseyev, you've somehow managed to be the most insufferable poster in a thread started by Poetic Stanziel! |
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
737
|
Posted - 2012.11.14 19:26:00 -
[63] - Quote
Snow Axe wrote:Congratulations Alekseyev, you've somehow managed to be the most insufferable poster in a thread started by Poetic Stanziel! I approach every day like it's a challenge. "Alekseyev Karrde: mercenary of my heart."-á -Arydanika, Voices from the Void
CSM7 rep, CSM 4 vet Noir./Noir. Academy Recruiting: www.noirmercs.com |
Issler Dainze
Tadakastu-Obata Corporation The Honda Accord
2189
|
Posted - 2012.11.14 19:58:00 -
[64] - Quote
You opinions on:
Bounties
So this is complicated enough that I have to wait and see how it gets used. The idea makes a lot of sense so I'm excited to see it in game and watch how the players use it. I always thought the existing bounty system was useless so trying to make bounties have some real purpose is something I'm excited to see. I'd be more committed to two thumbs up if it weren't for a history of things in Eve looking good right up till they get close to in game and they go in with some fatal flaw. The new wardec mechanism is a perfect example of something that could have really fixed something but went in broke and remains broken, only now "different" broken than the first "broken" (unlimited free allies was an example of the initial problem and now I'd say nerfing mutual to the point it is meaningless)
Crimewatch
Can't wait!! Some folks say it is just another way to nerf PvP in highsec. I disagree, I think it is another step to making risk/reward more correctly balanced in high sec. i came out and said I couldn't wait for crimewatch after the presentations at fanfest and remain excited to see it in game.
Faction Warfare changes
Optimistic and have refocused my attentions to FW to experience them first hand.
Ship Re-balancing
So far the balancing changes seem on track. i think the clarification of the intended role of a ship is a great change.
Frigates - Since I am a huge kestrel fan i was happy to see the changes there. Also like what they did with the Breacher. Makes sense in the context of the other Mim ships. I'm curious to see what happens with support frigates, if they get used much. Exploration frigates would be awesome if there was more stuff to explore!!
Destroyers - All good, thought the description as ships for killing frigates was funny, aren't they in the game to gank mining barges! :-) The first ship I fell in love with was the Cormorant and the slot change is very welcome! And new destroyers a veyr cool!
Cruisers - All the changes look good to me.
As for other balancing changes I'll have to wait in see overall about the missile changes.
The UI updates
I need to play with the new UI to say for sure. I'll let you know once I'd fiddle with them first hand.
One final note: I can't say this is the most exciting expansion I've seen as to me it feels "feature light".
Still, new is always good!
Issler |
Asuri Kinnes
Adhocracy Incorporated Adhocracy
641
|
Posted - 2012.11.15 14:40:00 -
[65] - Quote
Snow Axe wrote:Congratulations Alekseyev, you've somehow managed to be the most insufferable poster in a thread started by Poetic Stanziel! Poetic has that affect on people.
*You* may not have noticed...
Interdict Hi-Sec - it's the only way to be sure... |
Poetic Stanziel
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
1444
|
Posted - 2012.11.15 18:28:00 -
[66] - Quote
Issler Dainze wrote:Opinions Thanks, Issler. It's nice to see one CSM member willing to express opinions on CCP development.
Amarr Militia |
None ofthe Above
358
|
Posted - 2012.11.15 19:44:00 -
[67] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:Poetic Stanziel wrote:Issler Dainze wrote:So the floor is open for questions. :-) You opinions on: Bounties Crimewatch Faction Warfare changes Ship Rebalancing The UI updates Give specific examples where you're keen on the changes, and where you have reservations or are downright annoyed with the changes. This is how you do it Poetic. If you want to know the CSM's position on something and cant find it somewhere, you just ask. You dont start threads soap-boxing about how nothing is being talked about and we're hiding behind NDA and the fake moon landing was done by Goonswarm etc etc etc. *Especially* when these things HAVE been discussed and you either didn't like the format or cant be bothered to go look. Transparency does not mean "anticipate and cater to Poetic Stanziel's personal whims before he knows he has them."
Yes, that's worked so well for me:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2069634#post2069634
Apparently I was too polite and insufficiently histrionic. EVE is a sandbox; The only "end-game" content in EVE is the crap that makes you rage-quit.
|
Issler Dainze
Tadakastu-Obata Corporation The Honda Accord
2191
|
Posted - 2012.11.15 23:50:00 -
[68] - Quote
Snow Axe wrote:Abyssum Invocat wrote:Let's be clear here, you're launching some kind of a smear campaign over the fact that elected representatives aren't being transparent about things that would be illegal for them to be transparent about, and for being transparent about the things that they can in a media format that you don't like? I'm just trying to sum all this up. Not to defend him, but he'd probably settle for "actually sharing their opinion on upcoming announced game changes without having to be shamed into doing it". Even if he wants more, that'd probably be a good place to start. Issler Dainze wrote:So I'll make this offer. If you'd like to provide a list of what you want my (and I mean MY, not the CSMs) opinion about I'm happy to answer. I'll start! "Retribution"
Seems like a nice patch, mini-expansion. A small plate offering that is going to make my feel hungry an hour from now.
Issler |
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
740
|
Posted - 2012.11.16 03:55:00 -
[69] - Quote
None ofthe Above wrote:you wagging your finger at other people about polite respectful and/or effective communication comes off as pretty funny. It's supposed to ;)
As to the post you linked, just didnt see it. Part of the reason it seems I do nothing but troll is because Im not really into reading the EVE forums heavily, and usually the things people link me as highlights are ridiculous.
Your questions were good though, and I'm happy to answer them if you dont mind the delay!
Missile Rebalance: Yeah the HML one was harsh but I've seen the numbers and it's medicine we have to swallow. HML were out of line with every other long range weapon system. Now they should still be competitive (esp with the damage nerf being scaled back slightly) but not blowing everything else out of the water. The rest of the missile changes are fantastic, removing the penalties from T2 ammo and making HAM+Light Missiles more competitive. Some ships are in the lurch (the Nighthawk in partic) but their turn at the balance process is coming soon so they wont stay in the cold for long.
War Decs: Are terrible right now but I've been working pretty extensively with Team Super Friends this past month-month + 1/2 to try to make sure as many positive changes make it is as can be. The system still wont be perfect even after everything that will be patched. But it will be improved enough to be usable. Exciting and consequential? Probably not hitting that mark at this stage but at least Wars will "work." Not 100% happy with the nerf to mutual wars but it's the exploit fix they're going with for now. I also think CCP is not being strong enough on dec dodging with this round of iterations.
Kill Rights Giving Suspect Flags: I am a huge opponent of this and I think it's bad all around. Since there's no downside to activating the killright and it can be free+public, essentially someone with a killright would have a permanent suspect flag as everyone activates it for the hell of it. It creates a situation where you force someone to go out side the system and claim the killright with an alt (major reason the current bounty system isnt credible) or simply not play for a month Additionally, opening up everyone to kill. If the killright costs money and is being cashed in so you can try to claim a bounty on that player, the bounty hunter is out of luck because he or she will have to split the money with all the randoms that also take pot shots at the guy. Undercutting their profit is not the way to support the bounty hunting profession, which is a main feature of Retribution and will almost certainly start up in empire/shallow lowsec initially. I'm continuing to emphasize this to the Bounty/Crimewatch teams in hopes they take a more constructive approach to transferable killrights.
Bounty Restrictions/Expiration: Bounties wont just be public. And as far as getting the bounty back on disbanded corps + quitting players, i think that's both necessary for player confidence in the feature and a sensible mechanic. Having the leader of the bounty board not even playing the game anymore (thus both unclaimable and irrelevant) is how the current system works and no one's excited by that. "Alekseyev Karrde: mercenary of my heart."-á -Arydanika, Voices from the Void
CSM7 rep, CSM 4 vet Noir./Noir. Academy Recruiting: www.noirmercs.com |
Cearain
Imperial Outlaws
646
|
Posted - 2012.11.16 18:41:00 -
[70] - Quote
The NDA has made the csm into a complete joke. We get minutes that are combed over by ccp and csm for months. CCP of course publicly compliments the csm (after all that shows they are listening to the players right?) and csm does the same.
Luckilly CCP is posting on the forums more often and so we can bypass the csm.
You are not to the first to recognize that the csm is more of barrier that needs to be bypassed than it is any sort of advocacy group for players.
FW is a case in point. Look back at the pre-inferno threads. It was the rare oddball who was requesting null sec style station lockouts. Where is the thread asking that cashouts in fw be ended and we instead have a forever grind? Where is the popular thread that asked for lp for defensive plexing? There were threads but they received very little support from the players. Yet these are the things that were pushed through. Meanwhile fw occupancy is still a side job for making money instead of the focus of most pvp. That is fw is still broken.
What is being said to ccp from the csm? Of course, we have not the foggiest idea, due to the nda and csm members who know that they are politically better off not answering specific questions about what they propose publicly. They are better off just making soundbites on podcasts or in their blogs. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
|
None ofthe Above
359
|
Posted - 2012.11.17 16:30:00 -
[71] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:None ofthe Above wrote:you wagging your finger at other people about polite respectful and/or effective communication comes off as pretty funny. It's supposed to ;)
You consider yourself a comedian? I'll have to remember that when ready your posts, may help me understand your viewpoint better.
Alekseyev Karrde wrote: As to the post you linked, just didnt see it. Part of the reason it seems I do nothing but troll is because Im not really into reading the EVE forums heavily, and usually the things people link me as highlights are ridiculous.
Your questions were good though, and I'm happy to answer them if you dont mind the delay!
Yes, why would we expect a CSM to at least read the CSM forums, how unreasonable of us. Assembly Hall has been disavowed, I understand that. But it would be great if you guys didn't disown Jita Park as well. Better late than never though.
Alekseyev Karrde wrote: Missile Rebalance: Yeah the HML one was harsh but I've seen the numbers and it's medicine we have to swallow. HML were out of line with every other long range weapon system. Now they should still be competitive (esp with the damage nerf being scaled back slightly) but not blowing everything else out of the water. The rest of the missile changes are fantastic, removing the penalties from T2 ammo and making HAM+Light Missiles more competitive. Some ships are in the lurch (the Nighthawk in partic) but their turn at the balance process is coming soon so they wont stay in the cold for long.
Still don't get why the Missiles where considered so out of line. Never considered them so. I hope you are right that they will stay competitive. Do like the balance otherwise. Still think torpedoes could use more range. Have to admit I've lost track where this is after all the iterations and changing so many different variables.
Alekseyev Karrde wrote: War Decs: Are terrible right now but I've been working pretty extensively with Team Super Friends this past month-month + 1/2 to try to make sure as many positive changes make it is as can be. The system still wont be perfect even after everything that will be patched. But it will be improved enough to be usable. Exciting and consequential? Probably not hitting that mark at this stage but at least Wars will "work." Not 100% happy with the nerf to mutual wars but it's the exploit fix they're going with for now. I also think CCP is not being strong enough on dec dodging with this round of iterations.
I think nearly everyone agreed from about day one that mutual permawars where not going to work long term. Still not clear on the mechanics that got into the quick fix. (Instadrop? Cooling off period?)
Still prefer the idea of considering the checking of the mutual to be a counter wardec. If the original aggressor withdraws it makes sense to consider the original defender still at war, but now need to pay fees to maintain since it is no longer mutual. May be too complex to get into next release, even though it has the advantage of using largely existing mechanisms.
Are you happy with the ally scaling costs? I still don't like it. I'd prefer the ally pay based on how many wars he's allied in.
I worry about anti dec dodging measures btw. I think a player should be able to dodge the dec by dropping corp (although probably not in space), they should not be able to just rejoin however. That was a good mechanic to introduce. Players dropping corp means the corp is weaker and war is closer to won by the attacker. Trapping people in corp will lead to people not logging in, if they really don't want to play that.
Continued (because I've reached max number of quotes)... EVE is a sandbox; The only "end-game" content in EVE is the crap that makes you rage-quit.
|
None ofthe Above
359
|
Posted - 2012.11.17 16:31:00 -
[72] - Quote
Continued from above.
Alekseyev Karrde wrote: Kill Rights Giving Suspect Flags: I am a huge opponent of this and I think it's bad all around. Since there's no downside to activating the killright and it can be free+public, essentially someone with a killright would have a permanent suspect flag as everyone activates it for the hell of it. It creates a situation where you force someone to go out side the system and claim the killright with an alt (major reason the current bounty system isnt credible) or simply not play for a month Additionally, opening up everyone to kill. If the killright costs money and is being cashed in so you can try to claim a bounty on that player, the bounty hunter is out of luck because he or she will have to split the money with all the randoms that also take pot shots at the guy. Undercutting their profit is not the way to support the bounty hunting profession, which is a main feature of Retribution and will almost certainly start up in empire/shallow lowsec initially. I'm continuing to emphasize this to the Bounty/Crimewatch teams in hopes they take a more constructive approach to transferable killrights.
Thank you. +1 from me.
Alekseyev Karrde wrote: Bounty Restrictions/Expiration: Bounties wont just be public. And as far as getting the bounty back on disbanded corps + quitting players, i think that's both necessary for player confidence in the feature and a sensible mechanic. Having the leader of the bounty board not even playing the game anymore (thus both unclaimable and irrelevant) is how the current system works and no one's excited by that.
I and a few others proposed that ALL bounties expire. Say after 30 days. At that point you get whatever unused bounty back (less maybe some isk-sink of an administrative fee, like 10%).
Solves this problem, and a few others as well. I really don't like the idea that there is a mechanic that encourages (by offering money back) hounding someone out of the game.
Anyway, thank you. These are the kinds of discussions I'd like to see more often these forums. It both helps us give input into what the CSM is thinking about and saying, and helps us support you to CCP, when you can point to the discussions and show how people are passionate about these issues. EVE is a sandbox; The only "end-game" content in EVE is the crap that makes you rage-quit.
|
None ofthe Above
359
|
Posted - 2012.11.17 16:49:00 -
[73] - Quote
Cearain wrote:The NDA has made the csm into a complete joke. We get minutes that are combed over by ccp and csm for months. CCP of course publicly compliments the csm (after all that shows they are listening to the players right?) and csm does the same.
Luckilly CCP is posting on the forums more often and so we can bypass the csm.
You are not to the first to recognize that the csm is more of barrier that needs to be bypassed than it is any sort of advocacy group for players.
FW is a case in point. Look back at the pre-inferno threads. It was the rare oddball who was requesting null sec style station lockouts. Where is the thread asking that cashouts in fw be ended and we instead have a forever grind? Where is the popular thread that asked for lp for defensive plexing? There were threads but they received very little support from the players. Yet these are the things that were pushed through. Meanwhile fw occupancy is still a side job for making money instead of the focus of most pvp. That is fw is still broken.
What is being said to ccp from the csm? Of course, we have not the foggiest idea, due to the nda and csm members who know that they are politically better off not answering specific questions about what they propose publicly. They are better off just making soundbites on podcasts or in their blogs.
It is a tricky balance.
NDA is crucial to getting the CSM access to designs and plans earlier in the process. I don't think it was intended to gag them later on (at least I hope not).
I do think that the CSM should be more proactive about commenting on and discussing things as they become public. Not sure if CCP needs to work harder at clearing them to do so or not.
You are right that we'd be screwed if it wasn't for CCP Devs being more accessible and interacting with the community. I think the CSM agrees as well. I don't see that as a failing of the CSM though. It would be unrealistic to channel all feedback through this small group. CSM knows it and has been encouraging direct communication. That's been a great thing for EVE.
CSM is more of a focused consulting group, and in that sense I think a functional one, mostly. Plenty of room for improvement, but still glad its there.
Can agree with your frustrations with faction warfare. I've been watching that pretty closely. I don't agree that all those issues can be blamed on the CSM. In fact I seem to recall CSM objecting to quite a bit of the FW designs and being overruled, and we actually do know at least some of what was communicated to CCP on these issues because it was heavily discussed.
Anyway, its an imperfect world, room for improvement. I think you are taking a bit of cynical view on it, but can certainly understand why.
EVE is a sandbox; The only "end-game" content in EVE is the crap that makes you rage-quit.
|
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
741
|
Posted - 2012.11.18 02:17:00 -
[74] - Quote
I'm not dissing Jita Park, just saying that i dont check it frequently. Let's be honest, there's not read-worthy stuff here every day.
Heavy Missiles: Their base DPS (without ships bonuses or anything) reached farther and hit much harder than any of the long range turret weapons. Post-nerf they're still very good but not SO dominant. There were graphs. CCP Fozzie can now balance the ships on their own merits without treating anything heavy missile capable as a special case.
Mutual War Fix: They're going to bring back attackers retracting for mutual wars. This essentially means the only purpose of a mutual war is to remove the weekly cost for two groups to be at war. This removes a lot of consequences which I'm not happy about but this was the fix CCP was willing to put in and it'll be better than it is now.
Scaling Costs: Currently no, after Retri yes.
Dec Dodging: No, people certainly shouldnt be trapped in corps. I'd like to see that if someone leaves a corp at war, they can't join or create ANY player corp for up to 7 days. The current one of just not being able to rejoin the same corp barely addressed any issues here. The mechanics and UI of wars on corps leaving alliances needs work as well.
Kill rights: high five
Bounties: If bounties continually expire and get refunded it removes the possibiliy of truely notorious pirates with massive bounties that motivate people to hunt them, and people will generally lose faith in the mechanic because it placing a bounty, having a bounty, and expecting your bounty to get something done that wouldnt otherwise wont be taken seriously. "Alekseyev Karrde: mercenary of my heart."-á -Arydanika, Voices from the Void
CSM7 rep, CSM 4 vet Noir./Noir. Academy Recruiting: www.noirmercs.com |
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
741
|
Posted - 2012.11.18 04:04:00 -
[75] - Quote
Cearain wrote:The NDA has made the csm into a complete joke. We get minutes that are combed over by ccp and csm for months. CCP of course publicly compliments the csm (after all that shows they are listening to the players right?) and csm does the same.
Luckilly CCP is posting on the forums more often and so we can bypass the csm.
You are not to the first to recognize that the csm is more of barrier that needs to be bypassed than it is any sort of advocacy group for players.
FW is a case in point. Look back at the pre-inferno threads. It was the rare oddball who was requesting null sec style station lockouts. Where is the thread asking that cashouts in fw be ended and we instead have a forever grind? Where is the popular thread that asked for lp for defensive plexing? There were threads but they received very little support from the players. Yet these are the things that were pushed through. Meanwhile fw occupancy is still a side job for making money instead of the focus of most pvp. That is fw is still broken.
What is being said to ccp from the csm? Of course, we have not the foggiest idea, due to the nda and csm members who know that they are politically better off not answering specific questions about what they propose publicly. They are better off just making soundbites on podcasts or in their blogs.
The CSM is not, has never been, will never be, and was never intended to be a replacement for CCP communication and interaction with the players. The CSM also is not, has never been, will never be, and was never intended to be able to "veto" or order CCP around on anything, game development or otherwise. If anyone was or is under either of those impressions, I'm sorry but you need to pop that bubble and take a look at what the CSM actually is.
"The NDA has made the csm into a complete joke. "
I hear this one a lot, and it's frankly lol-worthy.
CCP is a company, with proprietary information namely being what they're currently developing. Without the NDA, the CSM would not be able to do much of anything. Having us sign the NDA gives CCP a measure of confidence that they can be honest with us, which is important for the CSM to be able to engage with them in a meaningful way. I get that many players do not come from a professional or legal background where NDAs are needed, but they are a fairly common place legal agreement in software development and many other areas. It's not there for political cover for the CSM, cause really why would CCP care. Without it, CSM would not be possible.
"We get minutes that are combed over by ccp and csm for months."
And they are rarely NDA altered in a significant way, and when they are (ie DUST stuff in the last one) it is clearly indicated (in that case with a big bold red disclaimer at the top). If you want a check on that compare the minutes from the last summit with the short version minutes CSM7 Chairman Seleene was putting on his blog just days after.
Not directly addressing that FW stuff, other than most of the CSM-endorsed changes (as opposed to the ones we were skeptical about) were pretty well received, as will the iterations for Retribution i expect. It's really Hans community/area of expertise though. Considering Hans busts his ass to do personal contact with the FW community and they largely support him and his efforts on their behalf I think you're off the mark.
What is being said to ccp from the csm? Of course, we have not the foggiest idea, due to the nda and csm members who know that they are politically better off not answering specific questions about what they propose publicly. They are better off just making soundbites on podcasts or in their blogs.
Well if you don't trust what we say the minutes (which are the most detailed and transparent in CSM history) and you don't trust the blogs (which includes Hans painstakingly curated list of CSM activities on public/private forums, blogs, podcasts etc. which was a player requested thing in the first place) and you don't trust the podcasts (of which mine is faithfully recorded and released every 2 weeks, in addition to multiple appearances by several CSMs on pretty much every active podcast; Are the podcast hosts now part of the conspiracy?) and you can't be bothered to just ask us like Poetic and None ofthe Above, yeah I guess it would be hard to know.
And as for not answering questions on what our opinions are that we give to CCP because of the NDA? I'd say given the above the burden is on you to name a time that's happened. #IDoubtIt
See None, he's the guy I troll. The above is why I troll him/them; they are non-serious and making them mad is way too much fun to pass up. If players do what you've been doing the last couple posts and you'll find the CSM (certainly me) hard to shut up and quite approachable.
PS: I'm glad you've noticed us pushing for CCP to keep up the direct communication. CSM isn't just around to tell CCP when they're doing something wrong. It's also there to let them know they're doing something right and to keep doing it more. "Alekseyev Karrde: mercenary of my heart."-á -Arydanika, Voices from the Void
CSM7 rep, CSM 4 vet Noir./Noir. Academy Recruiting: www.noirmercs.com |
None ofthe Above
359
|
Posted - 2012.11.18 04:32:00 -
[76] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:I'm not dissing Jita Park, just saying that i dont check it frequently. Let's be honest, there's not read-worthy stuff here every day.
I would love to see you guys talk more and get into actual conversations. That would be a good read. Like now for example.
Alekseyev Karrde wrote: Heavy Missiles: Their base DPS (without ships bonuses or anything) reached farther and hit much harder than any of the long range turret weapons. Post-nerf they're still very good but not SO dominant. There were graphs. CCP Fozzie can now balance the ships on their own merits without treating anything heavy missile capable as a special case.
If you say so, we'll see what happens.
Alekseyev Karrde wrote: Mutual War Fix: They're going to bring back attackers retracting for mutual wars. This essentially means the only purpose of a mutual war is to remove the weekly cost for two groups to be at war. This removes a lot of consequences which I'm not happy about but this was the fix CCP was willing to put in and it'll be better than it is now.
Scaling Costs: Currently no, after Retri yes.
Mutual wars, yes thats why I was asking about instant retractions vs cool down times. Anyway I agree that its sad to see those consequences go away, but the forever war was not working.
Not sure what to make of the "after Retri", perhaps there is more planned for WarDecs than I know about? I either missed something or you are hinting.
Alekseyev Karrde wrote: Dec Dodging: No, people certainly shouldnt be trapped in corps. I'd like to see that if someone leaves a corp at war, they can't join or create ANY player corp for up to 7 days. The current one of just not being able to rejoin the same corp barely addressed any issues here. The mechanics and UI of wars on corps leaving alliances needs work as well.
I could get behind the no corp interaction for a week. I like that actually. Solves the drop corp and immediately create a new one with the same people issue.
Alekseyev Karrde wrote: Kill rights: high five
Bounties: If bounties continually expire and get refunded it removes the possibiliy of truely notorious pirates with massive bounties that motivate people to hunt them, and people will generally lose faith in the mechanic because it placing a bounty, having a bounty, and expecting your bounty to get something done that wouldnt otherwise wont be taken seriously.
While it is a valid concern, high bounties can still happen although perhaps a little less frequently. Perhaps a renewal option would help.
I don't know that it would contribute to losing faith anymore than the bounties hanging out there forever.
People might actually be more likely to throw bounties out there if they know it will come back if no or few kills are made. It could actually significantly increase the use of the system.
EVE is a sandbox; The only "end-game" content in EVE is the crap that makes you rage-quit.
|
None ofthe Above
359
|
Posted - 2012.11.18 05:09:00 -
[77] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote: See None, he's the guy I troll. The above is why I troll him/them; they are non-serious and making them mad is way too much fun to pass up. If players do what you've been doing the last couple posts and you'll find the CSM (certainly me) hard to shut up and quite approachable.
PS: I'm glad you've noticed us pushing for CCP to keep up the direct communication. CSM isn't just around to tell CCP when they're doing something wrong. It's also there to let them know they're doing something right and to keep doing it more.
Yes well, Caerain is wound a little tight isn't he? He's got some valid points though.
I think you'll find there are actually quite a few people that don't like Hans' direction for FW, but that's probably like WarDecs there probably isn't a way to make everyone happy. His detractors do have some pretty valid points, but I don't overly blame Hans for the problems in FW, most of that has been CCP's making. Things like LP for defensive plexing have pros and cons. Still not sure how that is all going to play out.
Anyway, yes. Its good to have you respond here. Would be happy to see more communication initiated from the CSM here as well.
And by the way, what happened to those other guys?
Recently the CSM seems to be the Hans and Aleks show. With a surprising guest appearance from Issler. Two-Step I have seen in a few discussions. I seem to recall someone named Seleene around not too far back. Trebor seems to have sealed himself into a bunker after his ill-fated and flawed voting proposal. Elise I presume is busy as always playing and making things explode, hopefully providing feedback to CCP on rebalancing and such. And weren't there a few more of you?
EVE is a sandbox; The only "end-game" content in EVE is the crap that makes you rage-quit.
|
Snow Axe
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
543
|
Posted - 2012.11.18 05:12:00 -
[78] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:I'm not dissing Jita Park, just saying that i dont check it frequently. Let's be honest, there's not read-worthy stuff here every day
Maybe people would post read-worthy stuff more often if they actually felt like anyone in the CSM read the forum with any regularity. Even Seleene's purpose-built "Ask me any question" thread went almost 2 MONTHS without a response from him. That's pathetic by any standard (I understand that he was unavailable due to RL issues, but that he didn't even think to post a "hey, won't be around for a while, sorry" message shows how much of an afterthought the forums are).
|
Cearain
Imperial Outlaws
653
|
Posted - 2012.11.20 23:20:00 -
[79] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:[quote=Cearain] "The NDA has made the csm into a complete joke. "
I hear this one a lot, and it's frankly lol-worthy.
CCP is a company, with proprietary information namely being what they're currently developing. Without the NDA, the CSM would not be able to do much of anything. Having us sign the NDA gives CCP a measure of confidence that they can be honest with us, which is important for the CSM to be able to engage with them in a meaningful way. I get that many players do not come from a professional or legal background where NDAs are needed, but they are a fairly common place legal agreement in software development and many other areas. It's not there for political cover for the CSM, cause really why would CCP care. Without it, CSM would not be possible. .
There is no reason the devs can't speak with csm about upcoming changes on the same level they do with the players. Its not asking people what they think about dockblocking in faction war, or reducing the range of heavy missiles is some big proprietary secret. This is the stuff they should be checking with you on and the fact that you think this needs to be top secret is lol-worthy.
Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Cearain
Imperial Outlaws
653
|
Posted - 2012.11.20 23:34:00 -
[80] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:"We get minutes that are combed over by ccp and csm for months." And they are rarely NDA altered in a significant way, and when they are (ie DUST stuff in the last one) it is clearly indicated (in that case with a big bold red disclaimer at the top). If you want a check on that compare the minutes from the last summit with the short version minutes CSM7 Chairman Seleene was putting on his blog just days after. Not directly addressing that FW stuff, other than most of the CSM-endorsed changes (as opposed to the ones we were skeptical about) were pretty well received, as will the iterations for Retribution i expect. It's really Hans community/area of expertise though. Considering Hans busts his ass to do personal contact with the FW community and they largely support him and his efforts on their behalf I think you're off the mark. What is being said to ccp from the csm? Of course, we have not the foggiest idea, due to the nda and csm members who know that they are politically better off not answering specific questions about what they propose publicly. They are better off just making soundbites on podcasts or in their blogs.Well if you don't trust what we say the minutes (which are the most detailed and transparent in CSM history) and you don't trust the blogs (which includes Hans painstakingly curated list of CSM activities on public/private forums, blogs, podcasts etc. which was a player requested thing in the first place) and you don't trust the podcasts (of which mine is faithfully recorded and released every 2 weeks, in addition to multiple appearances by several CSMs on pretty much every active podcast; Are the podcast hosts now part of the conspiracy?) and you can't be bothered to just ask us like Poetic and None ofthe Above, yeah I guess it would be hard to know.
So the minutes were groomed for months even though this was not due to the nda. Nice.
Few people care enough to go searching the web or podcasts to try to get a glimmer of your views. But it would be nice if players had some sort of access to your views in the forums set up by ccp for this purpose. Instead you guys tell players to listent ot some hour long pod cast only to hear some sound bites that you all want to present on podcasts or in your blogs.
You guys refuse to answer questions on these forums because these forums allow follow up. That is the bottom line on this.
What is with all the conspiracy talk? No is saying there is some conspiracy. I am just pointing out that politically it is stupid for you guys to give your views about the game on the forums. And sure enough you don't do it. Instead you give us soundbites on dispersed throughout the world wide web. Few care.
Jita park and assembly hall are empty forums because the csm stopped what little community participation they used to engage in. Now its just their own private blogs and podcasts.
Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |