|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
JamesCLK
Lone Star Exploration
Lone Star Partners
34
   |
Posted - 2012.02.09 13:48:00 -
[1] - Quote
This place is less ~chill~ since Imryn started badposting; please GTFO and give me back my icicles before they melt!  |
JamesCLK
Lone Star Exploration
Lone Star Partners
34
|
Posted - 2012.02.09 20:21:00 -
[2] - Quote
Cearain wrote:
:words::words::words::words::words::words: and more :words:
Mittens prefering to test 0.0 sov mechanics on FW, and Mittens (as the chairman) trying to push the CSM to advocate 0.0 sov mechanics to be tested on FW, are two entirely different arguments. His stance is from my understanding the former of the two.
Put the Drama Llama away?  |
JamesCLK
Lone Star Exploration
Lone Star Partners
34
|
Posted - 2012.02.10 11:56:00 -
[3] - Quote
Vordak Kallager wrote:
If you test 0.0 mechanics on FW and Lowsec, you are going to get very different results and feedback than if you test them on the player base they are designed for.
FW/Lowsec inhabitants and 0.0 inhabitants differ greatly in their expectations of the game and why they play the game. Something that might work in 0.0 might not work in FW and vice versa. Therefore, it is a waste of time to try to use one player base as a "test-bed" for the other.
To use an extremely straightforward analogy that you might be able to more clearly understand:
CCP gives their Dog a bath. The Dog loves it. Dogs and Cats are both animals. Therefore, CCP is going to give it's Cat that same bath. You can guess how that will turn out.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that using FW as a testbed is a good idea; there just seems to be a lot of rambling over validity of opinion around the subject; the CSM minutes are, for all intents and purposes, high level discussions*. Lots of things are brought to the table as suggestions and ideas - that doesn't make them good, but they certainly are cheap.
I know that faction warfare pilots fly for the blood and carnage of lowsec, not the hate and resentment of 0.0; all I was argueing is that Mittens has a valid opinion on the matter - and that he, as far as I know, hasn't pushed for it as a feature yet; only discussed it as a possibility.
It is understandable that many don't even want it to be a possibility though.
*High level discussions in design mean superficial discussions with a very broad scope and deal with things like playstyles, as opposed to low level discussions that deal with individual mechanics and tweaks; things like "what is wrong with lowsec?" are high level questions; things like "should we decrease the GCC timer to 5 minutes?" are low level questions. |
JamesCLK
Lone Star Exploration
Lone Star Partners
35
|
Posted - 2012.02.11 22:11:00 -
[4] - Quote
Ra Death wrote:
I don't think it's an unreasonable question to ask since he is pretty much guarenteed election. He only has to satisfy GoonSwarm to get re-elected again next year. It's a simple question.
Statistically speaking, more than 60% of votes cast for Mittens last election weren't from people within GoonSwarm.
Now, the votes back then were "officially" split between Mittens and Vile Rat, but apparently this season Mittens is the only one getting officially backed by GoonSwarm & co.
According to many, a lot of the votes were from people who expected shenanigans if Mittens got chair; they were prooved wrong, as Mittens has in all likelyhood been one of the -- if not the -- most effective CSM chair to date.
This season however, Mittens probably won't have the votes of these :lolCSM: people (there were many); and it would be wise to focus his entire alliance to back him.
If Mittens received 1700 votes last election, we can expect over 3000 this season; and a few wouldn't put it past him acheiving over 6000 votes total. Especially since a lot of goon votes last year were siphoned off by Goon candidates who weren't officially backed.
Source, in case you're interested:
http://tinyurl.com/75kkb9k |
|
|
| |
|