Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |

Takara Mora
University of Caille Gallente Federation
2
|
Posted - 2011.10.22 22:26:00 -
[1] - Quote
Eternum Praetorian --> love ur sig line:
"Reallocate funds for Icelandic air fare to developing an integrated player input function in the UI. Then talk directly to the customers with polls to collect demographics and game preferences"
Having a CSM is fine ... but real data should matter more ... |

Takara Mora
University of Caille Gallente Federation
3
|
Posted - 2011.10.23 15:13:00 -
[2] - Quote
How do we know the CSM had anything to do with any improvements? --> maybe it was CCP's balance sheet and shrinking subs instead? |

Takara Mora
University of Caille Gallente Federation
4
|
Posted - 2011.10.23 17:22:00 -
[3] - Quote
Tallian Saotome wrote:Confirming that I am satisfied with the CSM as it stands now. They represent the interests of those who care enough about the game to be bothered to spend 5 minutes voting(that was a long freaking list of candidates)
Why would CCP care about the opinions of those who don't care enough about the game to speak up?
Because those "uninterested people" are the bulk of the subs who keep EVE alive by paying for it ... .and subs have been decreasing ... so it would be in CCP's best interest to focus on them - and not let the CSM overly influence anything. |

Takara Mora
University of Caille Gallente Federation
7
|
Posted - 2011.11.01 02:21:00 -
[4] - Quote
Crowdsourcing - wow, who knew it really was a word after all?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crowdsourcing |

Takara Mora
University of Caille Gallente Federation
7
|
Posted - 2011.11.01 02:42:00 -
[5] - Quote
Oh quit pouting ... 2001 called ... it wants its outdated social commentary back ... |

Takara Mora
University of Caille Gallente Federation
10
|
Posted - 2011.11.05 20:41:00 -
[6] - Quote
Temba Ronin wrote:Everything i have read leads me to believe the current CSM is not working in my perceived best interests. I am not convinced that removing the concept of the CSM is the proper solution. I hope Hilmar is clever enough to realize that focusing the future of EVE and Dust on the rantings of the flavor of the month CSM chair is lunacy.
If this game builds it's future on catering to the bitter whiny afraid to undock alone vets of Null it's going to implode once the number of Null alts reach the diminishing number of new players that stick around longer then a few months.
While this self serving CSM tends to their own "sucking chest wounds" they scoff at every injury they inflict to player enjoyment and retention. I sincerely hope that CCP does not actually believe that players are quitting because they are upset that life is too easy for high sec players.
This game will hopefully always have a hardcore contingent of elite pvp zealots but that should not be at the cost of not improving the game and making it more enjoyable for all players.
Newer players and representation based on where most players play not on where CCP wishes they should play needs to be implemented. A reformed CSM could consist of a High sec rep, a low sec rep, a wh rep, a newbie rep, a null rep and an at large rep from each empire.
OK, totally with you on these points!
Temba Ronin wrote: This could be verified by CCP to make sure Phony Alts of high sec members could not succeed in pretending to be Null seccers and vice versa.
No player owned corp member could vote for the at large rep that would be restricted to players who have remained in their starter NPC a bunch of great people there who help new players get their space legs.
Love Null vote only in Null, Love WH vote only in WH and so on in most Democracies you don't get to vote everywhere you have an interest or a business just where you live. EVE's biggest sucking chest wound is the lack of balanced representation that understands ignoring player apathy towards voting might be a good strategy for winning an election with a large Alliance block of votes but it is a terrible business model for sustained and prolonged growth. Wake up Hilmar!
OK, on this one ... would it maybe sortta be like proposing ... "registered political parties in EVE"? ..... I'm not gonna touch the issues with trying to filter out alts and such ...
I don't mind the idea of political blocs/parties .... nor the CSM ... actually, the CSM is fine as long as CCP filters them properly (i.e.-teachers should be smart enough not to listen to schoolyard bullies if the shoe fits) .... seems to me though that CCP would want to exhaust ALL avenues of player input - so why not have periodic computerized surveys of ALL members for example ... add that input to the CSM's input and CCP's perspectives and wham-o, wouldn't that be a much better picture than the current limited perspective that the CSM can provide (even WITH crowdsourcing, etc.)? |

Takara Mora
University of Caille Gallente Federation
11
|
Posted - 2011.11.05 23:33:00 -
[7] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Gatecamps and station camps on all the major trading hubs? Funny, I keep flying in and out of them all the time, they never seem to bother me.
As to my null sec reps on the CSM claiming hisec guys are leaving because it is too easy ... what I've seen so far has been mittens saying L4 botting is a problem, incursions are good because it teaches PVP-ish behavior (even though I find the wow-speak in incursion channels absolutely ******* atrocious), and Vile Rat wanting more hisec careers to make hisec more interesting.
Honestly, if I were to assume people in hisec left for a reason, I would assume it would be because hisec can be too boring, especially if they haven't found a good corp. Too safe? I think it seems mostly balanced wrt safety as it is. vOv
Interesting thoughts Lord Zim ... that hisec can both dangerous (enough), but boring at the same time ... maybe "boring" can't be measured simply by the level of danger ... and maybe it's not just a HiSec problem.
|

Takara Mora
University of Caille Gallente Federation
19
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 17:55:00 -
[8] - Quote
Dunbar Hulan wrote:Aye fair enough guys, I (like the rest of us down in null) would like to see some sort of structured reach out to these guys to get them to at least try null once or twice. I'm sure there probably some of them that have thought about it, but been talked out of it by a corp mate along the lines of : " No way, never go down there, you'll be podded, killed, laughed at, scammed", and all the other nonsense that someone will say. Does the CSM have the capabilities of sending subscribers emails like the EVE marketing dept does? Or sending updates and feedback via the EVE marketing dept? I'm sure a decent marketing campaign that reinforces the message of the CSM would be a big step to communication and feedback, which (in my humble opinion) is the #1 development point the CSM needs to work on.
I like Dunbar and Malcanis' lines of reasoning here .... though I would mention, isn't it just simply true that if the "average Joe" type DOES head out to Null, he really will experience exactly what his corp mates have told him .... (he'll quickly be podded, killed, laughed at, scammed, and scorned as "not a member of the NullSec Elite club)?
I like the idea of reaching out to such players --> but really, wouldn't we first need an entirely new type of NullSec experience to sell them on? Some way they could actually go out there and do something fun, without having to become meatshield #999, loyal subject of Militant Alliance #675, with only Blob warfare to look forward to everyday? I've had probably 5 corp members head out to null and they ended up coming back in 3 months for exactly these reasons (they did join up with larger Alliances which lowered the scorn factor, and helped them not get podded often).
I realize I'm exagerrating here ... but isn't this really what the problem boils down to? --> we need a new type of nullsec experience if we want to get "average joes" to WANT to play it? |

Takara Mora
University of Caille Gallente Federation
22
|
Posted - 2011.12.18 15:51:00 -
[9] - Quote
NO doubt CSM is an effective tool for CCP!
It shouldn't be the ONLY tool though .... we SHOULD care about what the Average Joe (non voting) player cares about, because we need them to remain loyal subscribers .... so why doesn't CCP avail itself of all the other types of additional tools that good marketing companies use? (maybe they do and we just don't see it? Maybe it's under NDA?)
The CSM basically amounts to nothing more than simply a "long term" "Focus Group". Focus Groups are notoriously horrible at detecting what will be successful or unsuccessful in the market ... very hit and miss, and should not be relied upon without other sources of input.
While I do like much of what the CSM has advocated, it's unclear to me whether CCP would not have already done these things even without the CSM .... especially if they availed themselves of much more disciplined and widespread user surveys and feedback tools.
So yes, IMO, we should keep the CSM! No, it's probably not possible to optimize representation for different blocks (Nullsec, Losec, Hisec, etc.) - just as in real life, there's no way to PROVE anyone cares about a certain set of issues, other than through their actions after the vote. Yes, CCP should listen to their CSM "focus group" closely ... But they should supplement CSM feedback with better tools (global feedback surveys for example), so that they, AND the CSM, have good data to work with for making design decisions.
|

Takara Mora
University of Caille Gallente Federation
22
|
Posted - 2011.12.18 19:12:00 -
[10] - Quote
Nullbeard Rager wrote:[
This is how CCP looks to a lot of the player base, past, current and future:
CCP: "Ooo let's make a game where people can scam,steal, be pirates and basically entertain themselves at others expense and let's focus on that player segment at the expense of the others!" Trolls: "YAY!!!"
CCP: "Damn, we need to get more players into our game. Any suggestions?" Trolls: *crickets*
There's no mystery here.
Wow, well put ....
On the plus side, their approach gets big headlines .... seems like all the headlines do though is pull in 3 week trial subs who abruptly leave .... |

Takara Mora
University of Caille Gallente Federation
22
|
Posted - 2011.12.18 22:12:00 -
[11] - Quote
Scatim Helicon wrote:Takara Mora wrote:seems like all the headlines do though is pull in 3 week trial subs who abruptly leave .... [citation needed]
Anecdotal experience based on ~15 new joiners personally witnessed, no citation forthcoming but maybe you can get CCP to share recent subscription trends? |

Takara Mora
University of Caille Gallente Federation
22
|
Posted - 2011.12.18 22:29:00 -
[12] - Quote
Do the headlines KEEP you around too though? |

Takara Mora
University of Caille Gallente Federation
22
|
Posted - 2011.12.19 23:46:00 -
[13] - Quote
Calling suicide ganking "deep" and "complex"? Hehehehe ....
Worthy behavior of a sov holding nullsec alliance? Nah, not really ....
But hey, the Goons are happy with the way they are ... they attract a certain demographic .... the "game breaking bad guys" of EVE .... they're not out to be honorable and so aren't liable to care what names they get called.
I wonder what overall net effect such behavior (and it's allowance by the rules & sandbox) might have on subscriber numbers though long term .... would be awesome to be able to answer such questions! Lots of plusses and minusses to consider. It IS cool to play in a universe that allows such freedom of behavior ... |

Takara Mora
University of Caille Gallente Federation
25
|
Posted - 2011.12.22 15:52:00 -
[14] - Quote
Nullbeard Rager wrote:Imigo Montoya wrote:
LOL.
All I did was state that Goons had a very successful newbee drive (around 600 accounts apparently) and you start spouting off about things that I have supposedly missed, but hadn't even hinted at in any way whatsoever.
Nice one.
Actually I was quite sure you knew about it but I did want see what "heaps" was. 600 is not too shabby. I hope they stay.
Imigo, 600 is almost statistically significant - not that we have a controlled study going on, but very interesting :) ....
Wonder, would it be possible to track how many stay and report back here in a month or two?
If Goonfleet can get good retention, I may have to eat crow, biomass all my characters, and "if you can't beat em, join em" somehow lol. |
|
|