| Pages: 1 :: [one page] |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Anslo
The Scope
Gallente Federation
2728
   |
Posted - 2013.09.13 17:53:00 -
[1] - Quote
So I'm surprised this hasn't been brought up yet but hey, why not.
I saw that the CSM is looking into the recent debacle of ToS 'changes' and the every changing attitude and direction of Eve to a less risky and more 'safe' style of game. If possible, could the CSM give us updates in this or another thread as they come in? Specifically, I'd like (if possible) any updates regarding meetings/dialogue with CCP. Most importantly, I'd like to know if there is a LACK of dialogue or simply regurgitating legal language by CCP to CSM requests. I think that would be a rather telling sign of things to come.
Also, this isn't a complaint or demand about the CSM and saying they're not doing enough or something. Just an idea/post/thing because clearly this issue isn't going to be dropping anytime soon. So, why not have a place for it outside GD with more focused purpose outside of trolling GD style.
Good idea? Bad idea?...
|
IHaveCandyGetInTheVan69
Angry Mustellid
371
|
Posted - 2013.09.13 18:17:00 -
[2] - Quote
Anslo wrote:I saw that the CSM is looking into the recent debacle of ToS 'changes' and the every changing attitude and direction of Eve to a less risky and more 'safe' style of game..
This has been going on for several years of CSM, why would they start now? Clearly CSM have no power to turn Eve away from its direction of WoW in space, even when we managed to get mostly nullsec pilots elected who I'm sure oppose this direction.
Capital Shop temporarily closed. |
Anslo
The Scope
Gallente Federation
2734
|
Posted - 2013.09.13 18:18:00 -
[3] - Quote
I don't know. It just seemed to me like a bunch of crap happened one after the other so...I made this thread. Like I said, if this is just a phase that happens that 10-year vets have seen before, let me know. I've been here only since '07 so I might not be seeing the trends others are vOv.
|
Isis Dea
Combat Cruise Control
46
|
Posted - 2013.09.13 18:20:00 -
[4] - Quote
IHaveCandyGetInTheVan69 wrote:Anslo wrote:I saw that the CSM is looking into the recent debacle of ToS 'changes' and the every changing attitude and direction of Eve to a less risky and more 'safe' style of game.. This has been going on for several years of CSM, why would they start now? Clearly CSM have no power to turn Eve away from its direction of WoW in space, even when we managed to get mostly nullsec pilots elected who I'm sure oppose this direction.
People are beginning to really hear about it and see the effects of it.
Most of them aren't happy.
+1 for what was promised with transparency after Incarna.
I've never run for CSM, but if our current CSM can't push for the values of what EVE is within its strong mature (even cold) playerbase, I think it's worth a second look as to who is representing us.
Please push these issues.
Nine years of staying faithful (2004 player), please don't change the spirit of this game and your company now... |
Desivo Delta Visseroff
Cedar Knolls Research
STEEL BROTHERHOOD
12
|
Posted - 2013.09.13 18:22:00 -
[5] - Quote
I too Support a call for dialogue. I feel this TOS is first small stone, setting the groundwork toward a direction that could potentially and fundamentally change EVE for the worse. Further, I believe that the Dialogue on this matter should extend beyond forum posts and should include voice/video casts and that the player base must receive direct answers, not those clouded with ambiguity and legal jargon. |
Anslo
The Scope
Gallente Federation
2734
|
Posted - 2013.09.13 18:23:00 -
[6] - Quote
Also is the CSM allowed to update us on this kind of thing live? Just curious....hope not :S
Also also, IF enough people post in this thread voicing concerns like mine, can we get a CSM statement or plan to address this? A call for CCP to talk to them? Something??
EDIT: RE: Post Above Mine.
Same concern here. IF a video response series happened, would the dev's be able to actually speak their own mind and such, or would a team of lawyers, IA, and the EA dude be off camera forcing them to spit out canned responses?
|
Berendas
EVE Corporation 987654321-POP
The Marmite Collective
518
|
Posted - 2013.09.13 18:46:00 -
[7] - Quote
+1 from another upset player. The ToS changes don't in any way impact my own play style, but I am vehemently against anything that limits the sandbox.
Additionally, can the CSM let us, the very concerned players, know if there is anything more proactive we can do to voice our concern to CCP? Obviously the chorus of forum dissent has made them aware, but I'm hopeful that there's more we can do beyond posting in a largely ignored sticky thread. |
Isis Dea
Combat Cruise Control
48
|
Posted - 2013.09.13 18:49:00 -
[8] - Quote
Would love to have the number to Internal Affairs... |
Clavin
Coiled Spring Inc
6
|
Posted - 2013.09.13 19:00:00 -
[9] - Quote
I think at this point, even just having the CSM or CCP give us an update like "we will have an official response for you by X date" then at least we would know its actually being looked at seriously rather than a, if we don't look at it then it can't hurt us, type of mentality. |
IHaveCandyGetInTheVan69
Angry Mustellid
371
|
Posted - 2013.09.13 19:04:00 -
[10] - Quote
I would just like to clarify my post, I do hate the fact that this game is slowly being ruined by the need to cater to the casual crowd. Resent developments have been another big step in that direction for sure, however it is not a new phenomenon.
War dec nerfs (repeatedly)
Concord Buffs
Mining barge buffs
The safety weapons lock
Suicide insurance nerf
The list goes on with very little movement in the opposite direction. If the CSM had the power to stop any of those past changes I'm sure they would, which must lead us to the conclusion that they do not have the power.
Capital Shop temporarily closed. |
|
|
Grimpak
Duty.
The Cursed Few
1097
|
Posted - 2013.09.13 19:04:00 -
[11] - Quote
I support a call for clarity.
I support a call for transparency.
I'll go even farther, supporting a call to make the ToS as clear as water.
I can understand some rules having a level of openness, but this must be more the exception than the rule.
[img]http://eve-files.com/sig/grimpak[/img]
[quote]The more I know about humans, the more I love animals.[/quote]
ain't that right |
bp920091
The Nyan Cat Pirates
Disband.
16
|
Posted - 2013.09.13 19:23:00 -
[12] - Quote
Simply put, stonewalling is damaging to the community.
A clarification about the reasons why said changes needs to be made. Even if the eve community does not agree with them, there is so much ambiguity in said terms that they could apply to virtually any group.
Nobody, well, at least not many people, are suggesting that impersonating a CCP employee, GM, or ISD should be allowed. It has always been that way.
Keeping quiet doesnt fix the problem, it never has in EVE.
Perhaps it does in other MMOs, where the playerbase is not as vocal, and communication comes down as an absolute law, but given the sheer amount of publicity that CCP has gained from certain scams, which would now be bannable, an explanation, if not a complete rewording is needed.
Your move CCP, and keep in mind that no response would most likely mean a LOT of alt accounts being unsubbed... |
Berendas
EVE Corporation 987654321-POP
The Marmite Collective
519
|
Posted - 2013.09.13 19:37:00 -
[13] - Quote
bp920091 wrote:Your move CCP, and keep in mind that no response would most likely mean a LOT of alt accounts being unsubbed...
My accounts are on a 3-month subscription cycle, and their renewal is pretty well in doubt at this point. |
Isis Dea
Combat Cruise Control
51
|
Posted - 2013.09.13 19:57:00 -
[14] - Quote
Berendas wrote:bp920091 wrote:Your move CCP, and keep in mind that no response would most likely mean a LOT of alt accounts being unsubbed... My accounts are on a 3-month subscription cycle, and their renewal is pretty well in doubt at this point.
+1
In the same boat. |
captain foivos
State War Academy
Caldari State
156
|
Posted - 2013.09.13 20:34:00 -
[15] - Quote
Berendas wrote:My accounts are on a 3-month subscription cycle, and their renewal is pretty well in doubt at this point.
My alt runs out in six days unless I PLEX it. Why should I if I can get banned for saying I'm me but on that alt? |
Mallak Azaria
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
3786
|
Posted - 2013.09.13 20:39:00 -
[16] - Quote
Berendas wrote:bp920091 wrote:Your move CCP, and keep in mind that no response would most likely mean a LOT of alt accounts being unsubbed... My accounts are on a 3-month subscription cycle, and their renewal is pretty well in doubt at this point.
I was going to make 20 new suicide ganking accounts when my new PC is put together, but I probably won't do that now.
The guy who was sitting next to me in the first nullsec round table who had obviously not had a shower since before boarding his flight to Iceland, you really stank. You know who you are. |
Mike Azariah
DemSal Corporation
DemSal Unlimited
626
|
Posted - 2013.09.14 00:09:00 -
[17] - Quote
Are we talking to CCP about the TOS?
of course we are.
Can I tell you what we are saying and what is being said back to us?
Of course NOT. any discussions in our backroom channels are nda'd to death but if you look to the active threads you will see that people like Mynnna and Ali are strongly involved in the discussion trying to find a common ground, talking and listening to you. Do you think that is only on the public side?
Give us time, between the time differential and the fact that we are going into a weekend, give US TIME. I am not saying drop the subject, if it is something you feel passionate about let us know what you think. Just don't expect instantaneous response time.
m
Mike Azariah-á CSM8 |
Scooter McCabe
SUNDERING
Goonswarm Federation
282
|
Posted - 2013.09.15 23:14:00 -
[18] - Quote
All that happened with this scam is a guy did his homework and made everyone look like an idiot in the process. With precision and guile he undermined CCP's dependence on Chribba, Darkness, Grendel and Rene De'Labou to preform a function they were just to lazy to code into the game. Can't say I'm all to impressed with ISD's performace of managing Evelopdia either. Its analogous to the fat lazy TSA security agent, asleep on the job, and lets a gun or drugs get onto a plane. So yes if you literally can't log onto a Wiki and check the edit history and have enough common sense to know something isn't right then no one should trust you. It's not like Evelopedia is kept up to date or accurate to begin with as evidenced by the fact many player organizations keep their own Wiki's as a source of real knowledge on the game.
I can understand feeling duped or even embarrassed at having one guy work over an entire paid company and its volunteers to run riot in a environment of increasing complacency and incompetence. What I refuse to understand, because it requires accepting a few fallacies, is retro actively punishing someone to cover up said complacency and incompetence. The person stupid enough to fall for a glorified shell game shouldn't be rewarded with GM intervention. Let the fool pay for his foolishness, let the clever man profit. |
Darek Castigatus
Immortalis Inc.
Shadow Cartel
412
|
Posted - 2013.09.16 11:19:00 -
[19] - Quote
Scooter McCabe wrote:All that happened with this scam is a guy did his homework and made everyone look like an idiot in the process. With precision and guile he undermined CCP's dependence on Chribba, Darkness, Grendel and Rene De'Labou to preform a function they were just to lazy to code into the game. Can't say I'm all to impressed with ISD's performace of managing Evelopdia either. Its analogous to the fat lazy TSA security agent, asleep on the job, and lets a gun or drugs get onto a plane. So yes if you literally can't log onto a Wiki and check the edit history and have enough common sense to know something isn't right then no one should trust you. It's not like Evelopedia is kept up to date or accurate to begin with as evidenced by the fact many player organizations keep their own Wiki's as a source of real knowledge on the game.
I can understand feeling duped or even embarrassed at having one guy work over an entire paid company and its volunteers to run riot in a environment of increasing complacency and incompetence. What I refuse to understand, because it requires accepting a few fallacies, is retro actively punishing someone to cover up said complacency and incompetence. The person stupid enough to fall for a glorified shell game shouldn't be rewarded with GM intervention. Let the fool pay for his foolishness, let the clever man profit.
So would you have been fine with it if CCP had simply said 'bravo you got us that time, congratulations to you, but anyone who does this in the future will cop a ban' and had worded the ToS change accordingly?
My personal opinion is that because it involved evelopedia, which after all is a CCP administered site through the ISD, they want to make it crystal clear that mucking about with CCP stuff in the cause of scamming is definetely out of order. Doesnt change the fact the communication has been pretty crappy but im willing to let the CSM work that out because thats one of the things we elected them to do.
Pirates - The Invisible Fist of Darwin
you're welcome |
Scooter McCabe
SUNDERING
Goonswarm Federation
282
|
Posted - 2013.09.16 19:23:00 -
[20] - Quote
Darek Castigatus wrote:
So would you have been fine with it if CCP had simply said 'bravo you got us that time, congratulations to you, but anyone who does this in the future will cop a ban' and had worded the ToS change accordingly?
The correct and mature response would have been for CCP to allow the scam to stand, announce that the ToS needed to be reworked if this is really that big a deal, and carried on. The new wording of the ToS leaves something to be desired, and I am sure the CSM and CCP are working on that in joint effort to reach a satisfactory conclusion.
One of the things this highlights and I think is important is the implicit endorsement of certain players who engage in facilitating 3rd party transactions. In CCP's own reasoning the Wiki and the articles therein give the appearance of an endorsement by CCP. So having pages for players like Chribba is a de facto endorsement by CCP of one player over others who might be involved n 3rd party transactions. Let's say someone wants to "be the next Chribba," how much harder will it be for them to break into the 3rd party market? Some player will say:
I wonder who I should use for a 3rd party, oh look, Evelopedia says I should use Chribba since it lists him as a trusted third party.
If I am wrong why is it the only people that get requested to do third party transactions are the ones that just happened to be listed in Evelopedia? I'm no industrialist by any means but I think its crap that a monopoly is held by certain people over certain transactions in the game.
|
|
|
Hesod Adee
Turalyon Plus
Turalyon Alliance
75
|
Posted - 2013.09.17 05:25:00 -
[21] - Quote
It sounds like the action CCP should have taken would have been to delete the Evelopedia. It would elimanate any appearance of CCP endorsing players, plus it would have the side benefit of getting players to find better sources of information than something pretending to be a wiki.
To see what I mean by it only pretending to be a wiki, go to any ship page. Click edit. Note that the stat block for the ship is not editable. If Evelopedia was truly a wiki, then everything would be editable. But since it's not, it can't be a wiki. |
Tara Read
The Generic Pirate Corporation
Shadow Cartel
614
|
Posted - 2013.09.18 07:39:00 -
[22] - Quote
Scooter McCabe wrote:Darek Castigatus wrote:
So would you have been fine with it if CCP had simply said 'bravo you got us that time, congratulations to you, but anyone who does this in the future will cop a ban' and had worded the ToS change accordingly?
The correct and mature response would have been for CCP to allow the scam to stand, announce that the ToS needed to be reworked if this is really that big a deal, and carried on. The new wording of the ToS leaves something to be desired, and I am sure the CSM and CCP are working on that in joint effort to reach a satisfactory conclusion. One of the things this highlights and I think is important is the implicit endorsement of certain players who engage in facilitating 3rd party transactions. In CCP's own reasoning the Wiki and the articles therein give the appearance of an endorsement by CCP. So having pages for players like Chribba is a de facto endorsement by CCP of one player over others who might be involved n 3rd party transactions. Let's say someone wants to "be the next Chribba," how much harder will it be for them to break into the 3rd party market? Some player will say: I wonder who I should use for a 3rd party, oh look, Evelopedia says I should use Chribba since it lists him as a trusted third party. If I am wrong why is it the only people that get requested to do third party transactions are the ones that just happened to be listed in Evelopedia? I'm no industrialist by any means but I think its crap that a monopoly is held by certain people over certain transactions in the game.
I couldn't agree more. However with the reaction from CCP being one of sheer knee jerk it almost in some elements breaks the very sandbox they claim to promote. Scamming has always been a grey area merely because it's a core element of the "risk" New Eden gives players.
That risk and subsequent consequence is indeed the one quality that puts Eve a cut above other MMO's and I'd implore CCP to remember this. Risk vs Reward. Does my fleet engage the other? Do I take that chance jumping into Low Sec? Do I really risk my hard earned isk for a Super simply because someones name is "reputable?"
It all comes down to greed in the case of the scam. Here: http://themittani.com/features/scam-changed-tos it is clearly explained the impatience and eagerness of the victims to pounce on a good deal without doing their homework. They instead forsook any caution and pounced only to be on the ass end of a gank worth billions.
Is that my fault? Yours? Scooter's? No! Why should we be punished and the TOS wrecked and confused in such a calamitous way anyone is at risk for being banned? Think I'm kidding? James315 makes it crystal clear: http://themittani.com/features/james-315-responds-new-anti-scamming-rules
This isn't just about scamming. This is about seriously restricting the risk vs reward and consequences players WILL NOT now face for their actions. It provides protection and makes scamming harder thus limiting bit by bit the true sandbox CCP touts as being "free."
This is just a slippery slope and already the effects can be felt. Once you diminish the quality of the sandbox you diminish Eve as a whole. And that is enough to make people unsub in droves.
Visit my blog for all the latest in jeers and tears as well as news at http://hoistthecolors.org |
James Razor
RazorCorporation
Crystal Lights
42
|
Posted - 2013.09.18 23:37:00 -
[23] - Quote
While i personaly have my problems with Eve's Culture of Scamming, in this case i have to say that CCP is reacting very badly and inmature.
The guy who caused the ToS Change should get a Medal, if not a Monument in every Rookie System for beating the system.
For me CCPs reaction does let them look like they are simply butthurt, because someone showed the flaws of their system. Also, i lost any trust into CCPs ability to have a neutral point of view on any ingame activity. Because anything i do now might not find CCPs aproval and than i end up on the receving end. Which basicly is what happened to this guy.
The new ToS and the explanation provided especially by GM Karidor are no small change or clarification. They turn the world of New Eden upside down.
While i do not like all of Eves curent mechanics ( i think the punishment for suicide ganks should be more severe for example), i do not wish Eve turned into a Hello Kitty Online theme park.
If someone upsets me, i want to be able to kick him where it hurts. Even if it costs me. And if someone is stupid, why should i not profit from it?
What i would have liked to see coming out of this, is simply more ways to do honest buisness (i.e. a system where 3rd parties are no longer needed) and a evolution on certain flawed game mechanics.
But as always when things should be carefully considered, CCP just nukes everything from orbit and calls the problem solved, while failing to realize why and how things went wrong.
Old Bitter Veteran, EX-GBC / EX-IT Member. |
Desivo Delta Visseroff
Cedar Knolls Research
STEEL BROTHERHOOD
28
|
Posted - 2013.09.24 17:39:00 -
[24] - Quote
Continuing the call for dialogue. When will there be a response? |
Kasenumi Aakiwa
Aakiwa Trading Assembly
4
|
Posted - 2013.09.26 10:45:00 -
[25] - Quote
Some points I always see people complaining about are "sumus supra" around here.
You have to keep in mind that it is not only the sub money that drives the financial force in EVE, and you are wrong to think that because you have a couple alts you are a mega funding source for CCP. If CCP does its job, they know that every human player is important not only in the function of how many alts paid, but also how many plex bought and how many other people play because they play. From the corporative point of view it is better to have at one moment 100 one account players than 20 5 account players, reason being that the future player base expansion is a function of how many people are playing, not how many accounts are being paid. That invalidates the idea that the game have to in any way benefit people in the function of having alts they will "terminate". Attracting a new crowd to the game intersted in other things is better than keeping people bearing multiple accounts just to mine afk or one man ganking army.
Then you have to think in the sense of engineering. It is way better to the financial status, to the game, and to the general use and support that most of the players be casual players. A player pays the same, and not as much money as hours playing, so it is financially more taxing to the system the player that pays X and play 10 hours a day than the player that pays the same X and play just 2 hours a day. In some sense, deppending on the player base, it would be impossible to have ALL sub players playing at the same time. There is no reason to assume that it is better for the game, for CCP or for anything to priviledge players that keep logged all day in detriment to the players that log, do some 2 hours of pew pew and log off.
Added to that is the infinite number of people that would love to play eve just as a sci fi second life. You cannot say that it would be detrimental to the game, because franky, the dress up folks would pay for a better game for everyone and not interfere with the warfare and industry while spending hours molding and making up their chars in the creator that actually doesnt load the network as much. Even if there were station social interaction, this could be done in an entirely different network that would not interfere with the so called "serious player".
But despite all that, people insist in think that because they are playing a long time, have a lot of alts and spend half the day logged in EVE, the game must represent their interests.
ALL the things mentioned as turn offs by people in the posts are either options people can avoid if they want, or no interference with their desired gameplay, or nothing but cosmetic changes. But still, people rise the straw man of the "Wowization of EVE" as if it were knocking our doors already.
WoW itself could still be the epic game it were before all the panda and celestial **** horse steed things, the change that made it crap wasnt the things you could buy or the things you could do, but the actual NO CHANGE from what it was as far as gameplay goes to what it is now.
GW2 is not becoming gring wars 2 because of gem store, cosmetic itens or floral interface, it is becoming grind wars because people want to be reconized by what they did more than what they do.
EVE is becoming a boring game not because it is going towards the casual players, it is becoming boring because players dont know what else to do with the freedom they are being given. |
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 :: [one page] |