EVE Search - Announcement:CSMX

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Assembly Hall

Announcement:CSMX - SUMMIT I

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 6 post(s)
Black Pedro Yammerschooner 1635	Posted - 2015.09.24 09:22:43 - [91] - Quote Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote: EVE Online experience: waiting for something you're almost certain it will not be worth the wait, and yet you just keep checking for news every day out of a tiny hope of being wrong. I am not bittervet, I am experienced. That's your Eve Online experience. Most of us log in and have fun building stuff and blowing stuff up just playing the game as it currently is, and how was designed. We do not sigh with despair every time we log into the game wishing it was something else other than the space PvP sandbox game that it is has been for over a decade, or come and spread that despair all over the forums. The minutes will be ready when they are ready. But regardless, they are not going to contain some unreported nugget like CCP is turning Eve Online into Wow in space like you are hoping for.
sero Hita Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 10	Posted - 2015.09.24 22:02:47 - [92] - Quote Black Pedro wrote: That's your Eve Online experience. Most of us log in and have fun building stuff and blowing stuff up just playing the game as it currently is, and how was designed. We do not sigh with despair every time we log into the game wishing it was something else other than the space PvP sandbox game that it is has been for over a decade, or come and spread that despair all over the forums. The minutes will be ready when they are ready. But regardless, they are not going to contain some unreported nugget like CCP is turning Eve Online into Wow in space like you are hoping for. If just they contain some nice news about fw (hopefully the removal of the fw plague missions , or at least make lvl 4 not doable in covops frigates), It will suffice. btw. will reply on the other topic we are discussing, when I have more time available to come up with a proper detailed answer on changes that could benefit.
Cearain Goose Swarm Coalition 1373	Posted - 2015.09.25 16:34:26 - [93] - Quote Can we confirm that a ccp dev in fact attended the faction war session? Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
Steve Ronuken Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM 5565	Posted - 2015.09.25 16:52:17 - [94] - Quote Cearain wrote: I think Sion made allot of valid points about CSM. But I would suggest making it open to everyone and just weeding out people who can't follow simple yet strict rules. CCP could just make a CSM forum that is carefully moderated by the csm. If people can't be constructive in it then they will have their posts deleted. This would allow transparency and also allow quality discussions about complex topics that CSM may not have a full grasp of. Perhaps one forum rule could be that players can only choose one or two of the topics to post in. That way players will only post in topics that they really do know and care about. Sometimes smaller more focused groups are useful. Lots of people saying the same thing leads to that thing being noise, which drowns out signal (because you have to wade through it, even if it's correct, to find other things) Importantly, this isn't a replacement for CCP posting things for everyone to see. Just an intermediate step, to knock off a few more corners. Woo! CSM X! Fuzzwork Enterprises Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
Steve Ronuken Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM 5565	Posted - 2015.09.25 16:55:32 - [95] - Quote Cearain wrote: Can we confirm that a ccp dev in fact attended the faction war session? Yes There were a number there. Woo! CSM X! Fuzzwork Enterprises Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
Cearain Goose Swarm Coalition 1373	Posted - 2015.09.25 19:39:45 - [96] - Quote Steve Ronuken wrote: Cearain wrote: I think Sion made allot of valid points about CSM. But I would suggest making it open to everyone and just weeding out people who can't follow simple yet strict rules. CCP could just make a CSM forum that is carefully moderated by the csm. If people can't be constructive in it then they will have their posts deleted. This would allow transparency and also allow quality discussions about complex topics that CSM may not have a full grasp of. Perhaps one forum rule could be that players can only choose one or two of the topics to post in. That way players will only post in topics that they really do know and care about. Sometimes smaller more focused groups are useful. Lots of people saying the same thing leads to that thing being noise, which drowns out signal (because you have to wade through it, even if it's correct, to find other things) Importantly, this isn't a replacement for CCP posting things for everyone to see. Just an intermediate step, to knock off a few more corners. Fair points. I think there are allot of pros and cons for the different formats. But I think the most important thing is that the format thoroughly lays out the potential pros and cons of each idea in light of the intended goal for the mechanic. I would really enjoy participating in any group dealing with faction war sov mechanics. I have offered some ideas that I think such a group should at least consider here: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=443997&find=unread Although they are just tweaks to the current system they deserve quite a bit more discussion. I am fairly convinced that a few of them could really revolutionize faction war and make fighting for fw sov allot more exciting. Not only would this attract and keep new players but it would bring older retired players back to the game. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
Harry Saq Blueprint Haus Blades of Grass 123	Posted - 2015.09.25 21:21:29 - [97] - Quote Wow, I have been RL busy and hadn't been able to read the day 2 notes until today. Sion's ideas are ludicrous and there is no better way to screw up the CSM, and for that matter CCPs ability to actually understand their playerbase, than to create Cliques Online as an "outsourced" layer of management for focus grouping. I wrote the following after reading Day 1, I hadn't given the collusion block enough credit: Harry Saq wrote: I just hope CCP is discerning with the info they give the CSM that is under NDA. Half of the members on the CSM are there because of arrogant and very visible collusion among the power blocs, they play the game in the exact same fashion. They are the exact type of people that take advantage of the info in the NDA on the macro level, in fact I am certain that is half the reason they are there. I am sure they also give a crap about meaningful change on some level, but CCP should not forget the type of people they are dealing with, and that type of person does what they do. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6042668#post6042668 Not only did Sion miss the point of the problem with the NDA, his "solution" actually amplifies the problematic nature of working with paying subscribers (competing with other paying subscribers per the very point and function of a GAME) in a single shard MMO where the focus and key to the future is emergent player driven content. His suggestion needs to be disregarded out of hand. CCP desire to be open minded is commendable but they need to listen to their own reservations on this one: ______________________ Leeloo - I'll start by saying that there are communication issues, however I don't want to take a crack in the wall and add another layer by putting wallpaper over it. In the long term this will be bad, and we need to find a solution to the communication issues. Leeloo - I'm very against adding an additional layer of people that will complicate things even further... Leeloo - ...I love having the experts, but I don't want to lock things into one forum, or one medium for discussion. I don't want to add another layer of NDA to all this and complicate things further and I don't want to create some elite group, we've already done that by having the CSM elected, we don't need a larger, wider council. Thoric - I think what is being said is that there are topics that don't need to be under NDA... Seagull - ...I don't want elite cliques and groups forming... ______________________ Seriously, don't get caught up in the good intentions and utterly miss why this idea is horrible. Thoric stated the real problem, which has a real easy answer, yes we will loosen the NDA and broaden the conversation, or no, it is what it is, do your own homework. To put this in terms of an analogy from the very game we play, A new recruit(s) (Sion and whoever else agrees with this) is asking the CEO (CCP) for Director status so they can better "help" the corp with its broader goals in order to better contribute on the corp level. Do not fall for it CCP, this is a Pandora's box of stupidity and unintended consequences (being extremely generous with the intentions of the proposers). This is a sandbox, and half the people you are talking to are metagamers that don't even log in or play the actual in game game, as Sion has even admitted to in his own fanfest diplomacy presentation. Nothing but bad will come of this, regardless of intentions (good or bad). Talk about more stuff, talk a bout less stuff, but absolutely do not restrict the conversation to chosen "experts" picked by those elected in a single shard universe where half of the CSM was elected through collusion.
Cearain Goose Swarm Coalition 1373	Posted - 2015.09.25 23:39:56 - [98] - Quote Mr. Harry Saq I think the cat is already out of the bag on this. We already have an elite clique advising ccp behind closed doors with very little interaction between the general playerbase. ItGÇÖs called the csm. Since they do not know everything about the game they just might hand pick some people to help them with different aspects of the game. Right now we don't know who it is they discuss matters with, and why. ItGÇÖs all very convoluted. For example as I sit here now I have no idea what most of the members proposed to csm about faction war sov. Sugar Kyle wrote some ideas on her blog but they were fairly minor points. What if the conversation went beyond those minor points? Who knows what she said? And she is the only one who even voiced any sort of opinion on that topic. As for the rest I really have no clue what they are telling ccp. I think many on the csm would admit they really donGÇÖGÇÖt have much interest in fw sov mechanics and really donGÇÖt know much about them. So maybe some of them talked to someone they know in fw and tried to get up to speed a bit. Who did they talk to? What did they say? No one will ever know. Now I agree the focus groups should not be closed to the players. But there should be some limits on who can post because so many threads in the regular eve o forums and reddit turn to garbage. That is why I suggested players could only pick one or 2 of these specialized topics to post in. The same trolls canGÇÖt post in every topic. If you really like an aspect of eve and really thought through that aspect then you would post in that topic. But if you think you know everything about everything then you will have a hard choice to make. There is a problem with how csm works right now. The other thing this would address is this would allow other players to see what is being said. Even if they canGÇÖt post in more than one or 2 topics they should be able to see in the forums. Everything would be much more transparent. Right now I donGÇÖt know if I need to check every individual csms blog, plus reddit, plus eve forums, plus townhall plus who knows what to find out about parts of the game that interest me. I am sorry but that is unrealistic to ask players. CCP should have a place where players can go to to see what they are asking for feedback on and read what the feedback is. I have no time to sit through csm members give their political soundbites during a town hall on topics that usually are of limited interest in this huge game. I would however read with interest the topics that effect the way I play the game. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
Nofearion sleep Deprivation INC. LLC Phoenix Company Alliance 113	Posted - 2015.09.26 12:17:44 - [99] - Quote Interesting Reading of late. it would seem some have lost faith while others are still wearing their tinfoil hats. Like them or hate them, a majority of the CSM are there to help improve the game. The members of past CSM who have thought it would influence their fame or game often weed themselves out as non productive. Regardless of popular belief I am sure CCP is not out to screw over anyone, Most CCP current employees have had or still do play they game we all love. Some things we should admit 1. You can't make everyone happy. 2. Change is hard to accept, good or bad. 3. CCP is going to attempt to do what is best for EVE. They have proven this time and again. 4. I will not rule out metagame, however CSM members however elected have a good deal of hard work, long hours and an unbelievable amount of information to process. I believe they do this for the benefit of the Game not to benefit their meta game. 5. In RL most people are not who they are in game. If they are they would be in a. Prison b. Psychiatric care c. Both! We already have an area on the forums where dedicated players can voice concerns and propose new ideas. or sometimes old ideas in a new way. CCP and the CSM do watch these threads and look for trends. I support the current system. changes are slow no matter what you do. Look at the big picture not just your little corner.
Cearain Goose Swarm Coalition 1374	Posted - 2015.09.28 14:05:05 - [100] - Quote Nofearion wrote: We already have an area on the forums where dedicated players can voice concerns and propose new ideas. or sometimes old ideas in a new way. CCP and the CSM do watch these threads and look for trends. I think there is very little evidence of this. They might be looking at trends and not posting, who knows? But looking at trends is very different from engaging and asking questions about ideas. I am not really sure what valuable information you could get from looking at trends on these forums anyway. The up vote system is pretty broken and half of the posts are personal digs at people instead of addressing actual ideas for the game. There is very little engagement from the csm or ccp in the features and ideas, or assembly hall - or really any of the eve online forums. The exception is ccp will talk about what changes they already decided to make in features and ideas or dev blog and then ask for some tweaks from the players. It seems csm and ccp post more constructive posts outside of the eve-o forums on various blogs and other forums which means players need to go on a scavenger hunt to find out what they are thinking about their area of the game. Actually CCP Leeloo seems to have recognized this and tried to give us a resource to help search the world wide web and see what it is our csm actually think. I don't claim to know the intentions of csm members, I am sure they are varied. But yes I presume they hope to help eve. But that doesn't mean they have really thought things through. And if they haven't then their effect will just randomize the game. Who do they think things through with? Just random players, and we really donGÇÖt know what they are saying. Moreover due to nda and everyone dancing around minutes it might be months before we even know what they told ccp. As a player the disconnect could not be broader. This isnGÇÖt tinfoil itGÇÖs a fact. If you disagree, then prove it. Tell me what any csm member other than sugar kyle proposed about faction war. Go ahead search the web and try to see what they think about it. Let me know. The fact is there is no transparency until after the meeting. We have no clue what they are going to push going into the meeting. Even sugar kyle just mentioned some tweaks to faction war that ccp was considering. She was supposed to actually present something but I donGÇÖt think eve players had access to what it was, so they could discuss it before it was presented. This is not to indict of Sugar Kyle or anyone on csm. But it is an indictment of the general way that csm works. And it is why Sion is right. Some things need to change. There has to be more transparency and use of the players' knowledge. As for ccp I do think they hope to help eve. But as a business owners they face dilemmas of long term or short term benefit. This is exemplified in the fact that players can pay for an extra account and use that alt which is not even in the fight as an off-grid boost, to give their main god mode. Anyone thinking of long term for eve would instantly recognize this is a cancer for the game and have it removed asap. But if you are thinking of short term finances it may be helpful to keep these in. Like many cancers when you allow it stay it will, sooner or later, lead to a rapid decline in health. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815

Jeremiah Saken The Fall of Leviathan 368	Posted - 2015.09.29 06:49:44 - [101] - Quote Cearain wrote: It seems csm and ccp post more constructive posts outside of the eve-o forums on various blogs and other forums which means players need to go on a scavenger hunt to find out what they are thinking about their area of the game. Actually CCP Leeloo seems to have recognized this and tried to give us a resource to help search the world wide web and see what it is our csm actually think. This is something I don't like. There was a topic about missiles rebalance/mods on official forums and I've heard there was a disscussion on reddit about it with devs involved. Madness. Cearain wrote: Tell me what any csm member other than sugar kyle proposed about faction war. Go ahead search the web and try to see what they think about it. Let me know. EvE has broad spectrum of activities, we can't assume CSM members done all of them. I'm playing for 2,5 year and don't even touch FW because of standing loss. Maybe it's time to vote for some kind of ppl good at one aspect of the game like low-sec, WHs, Industry etc. instead random dozen with 1/3 of them comes from goons just beacuse they have crushing voting supremacy comes from alliance numbers. Cearain wrote: The fact is there is no transparency until after the meeting. We have no clue what they are going to push going into the meeting. Even sugar kyle just mentioned some tweaks to faction war that ccp was considering. She was supposed to actually present something but I donGÇÖt think eve players had access to what it was, so they could discuss it before it was presented. This is not to indict of Sugar Kyle or anyone on csm. But it is an indictment of the general way that csm works. And it is why Sion is right. Some things need to change. There has to be more transparency and use of the players' knowledge. Most of it is NDA, but last time Fozzieman spoke too much on o7 show about minerals change and there was speculation on market. "(...) I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas (...)"

CCP FoxFour C C P C C P Alliance 4114	Posted - 2015.09.29 09:07:45 - [102] - Quote Vilar Diin wrote: CCP Foxfour, I saw that you are considering charging for different cloak colors and it made think of the old cloaking sound as well as the old strip miner sound. Is there a way to make different sounds available for items and then charge for them or is that not possible (non-coder here )? It could be done I suppose. I cannot think of any technical issues that would stand in the way. @CCP_FoxFour // Technical Designer // Team Size Matters Third-party developer? Check out the official developers site for dev blogs, resources, and more.

Master Sergeant MacRobert Pyre Falcon Defence and Security Multicultural F1 Brigade 228	Posted - 2015.09.29 12:21:07 - [103] - Quote I just like to say..... "Never gonna give you up, never gonna let you down". Perhaps there was such a large amount of content with the PvE (yeah, actually I mean FW) discussion that the minutes are pages and pages long? "Remedy this situation or you shall live out the rest of your life in a pain amplifier"
Cearain Goose Swarm Coalition 1375	Posted - 2015.09.29 15:22:35 - [104] - Quote Master Sergeant MacRobert wrote: I just like to say..... "Never gonna give you up, never gonna let you down". Perhaps there was such a large amount of content with the PvE (yeah, actually I mean FW) discussion that the minutes are pages and pages long? According to Sugar Kyle's blog there was some corruption of files. But she is putting it together. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
Indahmawar Fazmarai 3989	Posted - 2015.09.29 20:39:58 - [105] - Quote Master Sergeant MacRobert wrote: I just like to say..... "Never gonna give you up, never gonna let you down". Perhaps there was such a large amount of content with the PvE (yeah, actually I mean FW) discussion that the minutes are pages and pages long? More likely they're trying to figure a way so 3 minutes of casual talking while half the CSM was taking a pee looks as if CCP cares for PvE players... CCP Seagull: "EVE should be a universe where the infrastructure you build and fight over is as player driven and dynamic as the EVE market is now". 62% of players: "We're not interested. May we have Plan B, please?" CCP Seagull: "What Plan B?"
Nofearion sleep Deprivation INC. LLC Phoenix Company Alliance 114	Posted - 2015.09.30 10:02:27 - [106] - Quote Cearain wrote: Nofearion wrote: We already have an area on the forums where dedicated players can voice concerns and propose new ideas. or sometimes old ideas in a new way. CCP and the CSM do watch these threads and look for trends. I think there is very little evidence of this. They might be looking at trends and not posting, who knows? But looking at trends is very different from engaging and asking questions about ideas. I am not really sure what valuable information you could get from looking at trends on these forums anyway. The up vote system is pretty broken and half of the posts are personal digs at people instead of addressing actual ideas for the game. I used to think as you do. I actually took the time to look, and then write a letter so several Devs directly along with my favorite CSM candidates. I received replies from 1 dev on behalf of the rest and from two CSM members. My concerns were noted, evidence of my past posting was used. The simple explanation is that we are many, devs are few, they cannot possible answer and discuss every item on every thread. They do look at trends, and give weight to popular ideas. EVE is a vast game, even at their largest CCP does not have the manpower to address every aspect of EVE in one go. I for one want our Devs and CSM working not reading and replying to every sub topic. Sometimes it is better to look at the forest and not worry about a few bad trees until they become a fire hazard.
Cearain Goose Swarm Coalition 1376	Posted - 2015.09.30 13:42:56 - [107] - Quote Nofearion wrote: Cearain wrote: Nofearion wrote: We already have an area on the forums where dedicated players can voice concerns and propose new ideas. or sometimes old ideas in a new way. CCP and the CSM do watch these threads and look for trends. I think there is very little evidence of this. They might be looking at trends and not posting, who knows? But looking at trends is very different from engaging and asking questions about ideas. I am not really sure what valuable information you could get from looking at trends on these forums anyway. The up vote system is pretty broken and half of the posts are personal digs at people instead of addressing actual ideas for the game. I used to think as you do. I actually took the time to look, and then write a letter to several Devs directly including some of my favorite CSM candidates. I received replies from 1 dev on behalf of the rest and from two CSM members. My concerns were noted, evidence of my past posting was used. The simple explanation is that we are many, devs are few, they cannot possible answer and discuss every item on every thread. They do look at trends, and give weight to popular ideas. EVE is a vast game, even at their largest CCP does not have the manpower to address every aspect of EVE in one go. I for one want our Devs and CSM working not reading and replying to every sub topic. Sometimes it is better to look at the forest and not worry about a few bad trees until they become a fire hazard. I have to say that asking all the thousands of players to try to take up a private coorespondance with each csm member is about the worst idea out there. There is no transparancy for one. Are the csm going to privately tell every person "yes I agree" even when they recieve contradictory advise? Who knows? Second it is an incredibly ineffecient way to communicate with thousands of players to ask them each to individually write you and then you can individually respond. And what sort of in depth discussion could writing a letter have? I don't expect csm to answer every thread on every type of forum. That is the point. There should be one thread for each topic they intend to address and the csm who is addressing that topic only need to check one place. The ideas are out in the open (not just through private letters) and the community can actually take part in the process. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
Mike Azariah The Scope Gallente Federation 3035	Posted - 2015.09.30 15:11:31 - [108] - Quote Cearain wrote: I don't expect csm to answer every thread on every type of forum. That is the point. There should be one thread for each topic they intend to address and the csm who is addressing that topic only need to check one place. The ideas are out in the open (not just through private letters) and the community can actually take part in the process. A few issues. 1) Not all csm read the forums, nor do they want to. Have you seen the volume of material produced here each day? 2) We have threads started by players about various topics, often overlapping or resurrected from the dead pile. One thread per topic is a nice idea but topics wander. Hell this one is about a summit that has ended and yet here we are talking about how representation needs to be done. 3) People already listen to others whom they trust. How do you see the forums different from listening in private. I know that I am odd in that I do not often look at who said what until after I have read the text. (Teacher training, helps keep bias out of the response) 4) Ideas in the open? I agree. Always have. (with the exception of NDA material) Hammering out details or fine tuning sometimes needs a more focused subgroup as the signal to noise ratio in a large group is low. Now if you want to take issue with who or how said subgroup is chosen, I will be right there with you. 5) Oh, and thousands do not write us. Most play the game happily ignorant of the CSM's existence. Others are sure we are naught but a publicity campaign or a deflection shield for player criticism. Hell I would welcome more mail from players. Me? I am hoping that the day 4 minutes come out soon. That being the main reason I still haunt this thread. m Mike Azariah Gö¼GöÇGöÇGö¼n++ ¯\|(pâä)/¯
Cearain Goose Swarm Coalition 1377	Posted - 2015.09.30 16:04:34 - [109] - Quote Mike Azariah wrote: Cearain wrote: I don't expect csm to answer every thread on every type of forum. That is the point. There should be one thread for each topic they intend to address and the csm who is addressing that topic only need to check one place. The ideas are out in the open (not just through private letters) and the community can actually take part in the process. A few issues. 1) Not all csm read the forums, nor do they want to. Have you seen the volume of material produced here each day? 2) We have threads started by players about various topics, often overlapping or resurrected from the dead pile. One thread per topic is a nice idea but topics wander. Hell this one is about a summit that has ended and yet here we are talking about how representation needs to be done. 3) People already listen to others whom they trust. How do you see the forums different from listening in private. I know that I am odd in that I do not often look at who said what until after I have read the text. (Teacher training, helps keep bias out of the response) 4) Ideas in the open? I agree. Always have. (with the exception of NDA material) Hammering out details or fine tuning sometimes needs a more focused subgroup as the signal to noise ratio in a large group is low. Now if you want to take issue with who or how said subgroup is chosen, I will be right there with you. 5) Oh, and thousands do not write us. Most play the game happily ignorant of the CSM's existence. Others are sure we are naught but a publicity campaign or a deflection shield for player criticism. Hell I would welcome more mail from players. Me? I am hoping that the day 4 minutes come out soon. That being the main reason I still haunt this thread. m Mike thanks for the concerns. Ill just address each numbered point: 1)Again what you say is the point that needs to be addressed. The idea is not that the csm should read all the forums. Rather I say if a csm member is going to present something to ccp then that csm member could post some of their ideas in a single thread. Players could pitch in their ideas. (again if you want to reduce the amount of noise ask that players only post in one or 2 such csm topics) The current situation effectively means no one has any clue what the csm are doing with ccp. Like I said, csm had a session with ccp about faction war. Did anyone know what the csm was going to tell ccp before other than the csm members themselves and perhaps thier relatively small cliques of friends? No because there is no format where players can easily learn what csm are thinking on the topics they are interested in. Look on reddit look at blogs listen to podcasts and hope some of these mention something your interested in. The thing is EVE is so big that most likely most of what is posted/said there will not be of interest to most players. By having a seperate thread for a topic players can learn what the csm thinks about the topics that are important to them. Why should I have to register for reddit and a thousand different blogs in order to talk about ccp's csm? 2) Topics can wander no doubt sometimes it is because the effects of what is talked about go beyond what people think. Other times its because people are off topic. We are talking about how representation needs to be done in this thread because it seems it was a topic of the summit. But yes this thread would be overbroad. The thread topics should be of more limited scope but some leeway should be offered. There is no magic formula but its also not an impossible task. Honestly, unless csm can actually get player input csm is at best a waste and at worst misleading ccp about what players want. 3) Transparency transparency transparency. Now CSM are seen as just a bunch of special interests that do not even allow players to know what they are advocating until it is done. And until ccp opens up beyond private emails with thier friends this view will be justified. I have no idea who you speak to nor do I care. I am however interested in the ideas you want to present to ccp. Why wouldn't you (or other csm) want players to know what ideas you intend to propose, so they can give input? Right now the messages and formats are so diverse across the internet they are effectively hidden. 4) I am glad you are all for openness. I would suggest that csm members simply start a seperate thread about what they might talk about for the next summit. So for example, if you were planning on presenting something in the fw topic then you would put in to that thread what you wanted to say. If you had nothing you were planning to say in the fw thread then you wouldn't need to follow it the thread at all. No one from csm would need to post at all. But then don't be surprised when players think little of csm. Players who are interested in that topic can post. If the thread gets too unwieldly you have to at least count it as some sort of plus in that players are actually taking interest in the csm. But yes there might be negatives to the threads getting too large. And in those cases moderation or splitting of topics may need to happen. Not consider an idea due to some personal grudge against the poster? That fits the view many players have that csm are just special interest groups for their friends. 5) I would like to know what your views are on topics. Private emails you have with others is not going to help. Let's say day 4 comes out and people want to address some of the topics in an open way. Wouldn't it be nice if there was a seperate thread for each topic? I mean posting in this thread will just a be a huge mass of different topics. That is all I am suggesting. I would just like to see separate threads that address the topics csm intends to propose to ccp. Is that asking too much? Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
Mike Azariah The Scope Gallente Federation 3037	Posted - 2015.09.30 18:45:29 - [110] - Quote Cearain wrote: Let's say day 4 comes out and people want to address some of the topics in an open way. Wouldn't it be nice if there was a seperate thread for each topic? I mean posting in this thread will just a be a huge mass of different topics. That is all I am suggesting. I would just like to see separate threads that address the topics csm intends to propose to ccp. Is that asking too much? Nope, and a few folks help by sending links to threads they have started to csm asking for comments. That removes the 'private clique' aspect and helps save the csm from having to wade into the forum muck looking for gems m Mike Azariah Gö¼GöÇGöÇGö¼n++ ¯\|(pâä)/¯

Karti Aivo KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 32	Posted - 2015.10.03 18:16:25 - [111] - Quote The Day 4 minute PDF closes with "this is the end of Day Two". other than that, thanks!! Lots of NDA, but thanks!

CCP Falcon 12433	Posted - 2015.10.03 18:29:21 - [112] - Quote Karti Aivo wrote: The Day 4 minute PDF closes with "this is the end of Day Two". other than that, thanks!! Lots of NDA, but thanks! This is fixed. There was also an entire session missing, which has also been fixed. Sorry for the confusion! CCP Falcon \|\| EVE Universe Community Manager \|\| @CCP_Falcon Happy Birthday To FAWLTY7! <3

Salpun Global Telstar Federation Offices 834	Posted - 2015.10.03 18:42:50 - [113] - Quote CCP Falcon wrote: Karti Aivo wrote: The Day 4 minute PDF closes with "this is the end of Day Two". other than that, thanks!! Lots of NDA, but thanks! This is fixed. There was also an entire session missing, which has also been fixed. Sorry for the confusion! Which section was missing? The pdf version has not changed. If i dont know something about EVE. I check https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/ISK_The_Guide See you around the universe.
Mike Azariah The Scope Gallente Federation 3046	Posted - 2015.10.03 19:40:02 - [114] - Quote http://cdn1.eveonline.com/community/csm/Meetings/summit/CSM10-S1-D4.pdf http://cdn1.eveonline.com/community/csm/Meetings/summit/CSM10-S1-D4.txt links for the last day m Mike Azariah Gö¼GöÇGöÇGö¼n++ ¯\|(pâä)/¯
Salpun Global Telstar Federation Offices 834	Posted - 2015.10.03 19:47:35 - [115] - Quote Mike Azariah wrote: http://cdn1.eveonline.com/community/csm/Meetings/summit/CSM10-S1-D4.pdf http://cdn1.eveonline.com/community/csm/Meetings/summit/CSM10-S1-D4.txt links for the last day m still not the new version for me If i dont know something about EVE. I check https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/ISK_The_Guide See you around the universe.
Kynric Sky Fighters 359	Posted - 2015.10.03 20:28:24 - [116] - Quote With regard to the comments on headshotting FCs being an issue; has anyone comsidered simply not showing the pilots name on the overview. That is a very strong piece of intel which is not necessary. Ship names could be displayed instead, tags and broadcasts used to designate the target. I cant think of any military reason a pilot would want to share that intel.
Harvey James The Sengoku Legacy 1202	Posted - 2015.10.03 20:38:23 - [117] - Quote still no mention of when T3 cruisers are going too get a nerf bat/ rebalance, its sooooo.. overdue and needed. links should be a permanent bubble (invisible) that buffs anyone inside it from say 50km upto 75km maybe, as the different types of links could have different ranges, say siege and armour links could be shorter ranged than the info and skirmish links. T3's need to be versatile not have T2 resists, OP dps and tank obsoleting T2 ships entirely. ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name, remove drone assist, nerf sentries, -3 highslots for droneboats Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
motie one Secret Passage 43	Posted - 2015.10.03 22:57:17 - [118] - Quote 10:56 Gmt still showing the old version, looks like you might have an issue with the CDN
Steve Ronuken Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM 5601	Posted - 2015.10.04 00:41:56 - [119] - Quote http://pastebin.com/TiSSBX43 if you want the text from the missing section. (the CDN has long cache timers. Depends where you are in the world, what you see) Woo! CSM X! Fuzzwork Enterprises Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
Masao Kurata Perkone Caldari State 279	Posted - 2015.10.04 01:00:10 - [120] - Quote So the Tribute System is... daily quests? Really? And indeed it's an ISK faucet I'm very disappointed that Sugar Kyle apparently doesn't know the difference between faction police and faction navy but still thinks they should be buffed. No mention of pinning LP payouts at tier 5 for kills? What's the holdup on that?



Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.