EVE Search - CSM impotent?

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

CSM impotent?

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
khosta	Posted - 2008.07.29 12:14:00 - [1] I would love to know (and perhaps other players would too) if the CSM had any part in the proposed balance changes? I can understand CCP devs inadvertently destroying a weapon and ship type whilst trying to nerf something else, but I really expected experienced players such as those in the CSM to spot such things quickly. So were you consulted over the speed balance changes before they were proposed? Did you not notice that halving the effects of webifiers would have a huge detrimental effect on blasters and ships designed to use them? Or did you notice this, but felt blasters needed a major nerf, and like CCP, didnt want to admit it? I would love to know which it was. I havent paid that much attention to the activities of the CSM as I just felt they wouldnt be able to be effective. Unless I get a satisfctory response to this issue, that belief will become concrete. I'd say this is crunch time for the CSM. Are they a force for helping make EVE better, or are they utterly impotent, and less worthy of reading their posts than even CAOD? Sometimes it takes an event to define an organization. For me, this is it.
Plumpy McPudding	Posted - 2008.07.29 12:21:00 - [2] Well we don't need anymore babies anyway. __________________________ Fear me for I have an insatiable appetite! Proprietor and inventor of Chocolate Chip Chocolate Donut flavored Ice Cream.
Cpt Branko Surge. NIght's Dawn	Posted - 2008.07.29 12:24:00 - [3] Originally by: khosta So were you consulted over the speed balance changes before they were proposed? Did you not notice that halving the effects of webifiers would have a huge detrimental effect on blasters and ships designed to use them? So CCP is supposed to ask CSM about changes to their game, and CSM members should think the same way you do? Sorry, are you Jade Constantine's alt or? Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Jowen Datloran Caldari Science and Trade Institute	Posted - 2008.07.29 12:24:00 - [4] Edited by: Jowen Datloran on 29/07/2008 12:24:43 What is going on with the blaming here? Can't you accept it is the game developers that have the ultimate say in any decision regarding the game, and it is them that decides what aspects to promote and what to gimp? As such, they are gods of our little virtual world and far beyond the possibility for us to hold them accountable for anything. If you don't like it, I hope you know where to cancel your subscription. Trying to put any kind of blame on your fellow player and/or CSM is pretty lame and pathetic ---------------- Mr. Science & Trade Institute
Avon Caldari Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.07.29 12:26:00 - [5] So if the proposed changes go through then the CSM are worthless? I'd say the opposite is true, these changes are very much needed to balance the game in general, even if it means reducing the effectiveness of some aspects. I'd worry more about the CSM if they listened to your whining over looking at what is best for Eve. Eve-Online: The Text Adventure
Scagga Laebetrovo Ammatar Free Corps	Posted - 2008.07.29 12:27:00 - [6] Just curious, have you been reading/asking in the CSM sections of the forum instead of here? San Matari Official forums
Sheriff Jones Amarr Please Enter Password	Posted - 2008.07.29 12:29:00 - [7] I hope you mean incompetent 'cause i doubt the penile functions have anything to do with the issue My opinions represent the opinions of my corporation completely. I'm the CEO damnit.
khosta	Posted - 2008.07.29 12:32:00 - [8] Originally by: Jowen Datloran What is going on with the blaming here? No blaming, just wanting to know if the CSM play any advisory role, or indeed any role at all, when it comes to making large changes to EVE. Cant see any blame in that. Originally by: Jowen Datloran Can't you accept it is the game developers that have the ultimate say in any decision regarding the game, and it is them that decides what aspects to promote and what to gimp? Yes I completely accept that. That wasnt my question. My question is if the CSM are involved in any part of the balancing process, especially an advisory role. If the CSM plays no role whatsoever, whats the point in taking notice of them? What is their relevance? Learn to read.
Call'Da Poleece Minmatar	Posted - 2008.07.29 12:43:00 - [9] Why do you think the CSM's have any more input in this than you do..... especially in this case where CCP are interacting with the playerbase directly. The CSM's have their role(s) and this isnt it.
khosta	Posted - 2008.07.29 12:47:00 - [10] Originally by: Avon So if the proposed changes go through then the CSM are worthless? I'd say the opposite is true, these changes are very much needed to balance the game in general, even if it means reducing the effectiveness of some aspects. But neither CCP nor the CSM have announced the need to (heavily) nerf blaster ships. Read this carefully: If blasters are considered overpowered, then someone from CCP should TELL US. If this is the case, im happy to adapt etc, I have no problem with needed change to keep things balanced. What I DO have a problem with, is apparent complete ignorance of game mechanics. Since neither CCP nor the CSM, nor even whiney players (!!!) have ANNOUNCED the need to nerf blasters, i think it is entirely reasonable for most of the rest of us to assume that this change is accidental and unintended, and frankly, evidence of utter incompetence! So the main point of this thread is to try to determine if this unforeseen by CCP side effect of nerfing speed, was also unforseen by the CSM, or indeed, if the CSM were even involved! This can only be resolved by a reply froma CSM member, and as such, I may have posted in the wrong forum, and if so, perhaps this thread could be moved there

Venkul Mul Gallente	Posted - 2008.07.29 12:57:00 - [11] Originally by: Jowen Datloran Edited by: Jowen Datloran on 29/07/2008 12:24:43 What is going on with the blaming here? Can't you accept it is the game developers that have the ultimate say in any decision regarding the game, and it is them that decides what aspects to promote and what to gimp? As such, they are gods of our little virtual world and far beyond the possibility for us to hold them accountable for anything. If you don't like it, I hope you know where to cancel your subscription. Trying to put any kind of blame on your fellow player and/or CSM is pretty lame and pathetic Well, when gods don't listen to the people the usual procedure it to burtn someone at the stake, possibly the clerics that failed. The CSM are EVE clerics, those with a direct channel to the gods. So BURN THEM.
Zephyr Rengate dearg doom	Posted - 2008.07.29 12:58:00 - [12] **** up for the whole CSM guys. Also someone call the NY Times.
LaVista Vista	Posted - 2008.07.29 13:01:00 - [13] I had no idea this was happening. I could have told CCP that some of their ideas were quite crappy, before they even wrote the dev-blog. So to answer: No, CSM was not asked about their opinion. We had no say in the way it was implemented, which is a very big shame. But I think that is where we will have to shape CSM ourself. If the community agrees that CSM should be used for CCP to bounce off ideas, then I totally think that it's a quite decent idea. So I'm quite interested in hearing, what you guys think. Should we encourage CCP to be more active with the council, in order to not release half-baked ideas, just like this one?
Heartstone Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.07.29 13:02:00 - [14] Edited by: Heartstone on 29/07/2008 13:04:19 The CSM is not there for this sort of thing. It is for your representation to CCP not CCP's litmus test in regards to new ideas. CCP don't have any need to pass or inform the CSM about anything let alone things they see as balancing issues. I'm not saying this idea that Nozh has outlined is good or bad (it is both) but the degree of seperation between CCP and the CSM is there for a reason. If CCP had to bounce things off of the CSM the CSM could, in some way depending on the role of the CSM in that type of discussion, paralyze any decision making from CCP which they obviously won't allow to happen. In regards to this specific thing I seem to remember Jade posting something about this is one of the many many many threads on the topic. ---
Dr Slaughter Minmatar Rabies Inc.	Posted - 2008.07.29 13:02:00 - [15] Originally by: khosta I'd say this is crunch time for the CSM. Are they a force for helping make EVE better, or are they utterly impotent, and less worthy of reading their posts than even CAOD? They have no executive power. They can present 'issues' to CCP. If they start telling the developers what to do, and the developers 'have to do it' it would be ludicrous. I must assume you're a troll otherwise I would be left with the opinion you're an idiot. Originally by: "Tarminic" Stay in close and scoop the drones once he's jammed Trust his advice. Please. 8P
Winterblink Body Count Inc. The Requiem	Posted - 2008.07.29 13:04:00 - [16] Originally by: Avon So if the proposed changes go through then the CSM are worthless? I'd say the opposite is true, these changes are very much needed to balance the game in general, even if it means reducing the effectiveness of some aspects. I'd worry more about the CSM if they listened to your whining over looking at what is best for Eve. I wouldn't say worthless, not by a long shot. Though it is rather amusing when you look in assembly hall, there's separate for and against threads, and the against one has twice as many supporters. Of course that all assumes the support mechanic is without flaws. :) warp drive active \| nature vraie
TheG2 Gallente Dirty Rotten Scoundrels	Posted - 2008.07.29 13:18:00 - [17] CSM's lost their relevance due to scandals, weeks of endless squabbling and petty/irrelevant arguements. I think I've seen MAYBE 1 or 2 of their ideas I actually agreed with. But overall think the entire process only went to prove that players, when given power over others, have the incredible ability to act like the 8 year old at the top of the slide.
khosta	Posted - 2008.07.29 13:23:00 - [18] Originally by: LaVista Vista I had no idea this was happening. I could have told CCP that some of their ideas were quite crappy, before they even wrote the dev-blog. THANK YOU I suspected this was the case. Since the CSM members actually play the game, I would have had faith they would have spotted the obvious unintended nerfs, and your reply confirms that the CSM were not given the chance to offer advice and thoughts on the proposed changes. Originally by: LaVista Vista So to answer: No, CSM was not asked about their opinion. We had no say in the way it was implemented, which is a very big shame. Absolutely. May this amazing exposure of the difference between those people who are left to manage the 'old product' (while the quality people are working on the 'next product') and elected representatives who actually play the game, highlight the need for consultation with players when it comes to balancing and/or improving the game. Originally by: LaVista Vista But I think that is where we will have to shape CSM ourself. If the community agrees that CSM should be used for CCP to bounce off ideas, then I totally think that it's a quite decent idea. Indeed. Become relevant. What is the point of a council of experienced players, on a mission to work with the game developers, if sweeping changes are made without them even being consulted? Originally by: LaVista Vista So I'm quite interested in hearing, what you guys think. Should we encourage CCP to be more active with the council, in order to not release half-baked ideas, just like this one? Well you know what I think Perhaps some good can come from this whole episode. It is a shining example of the need to consult a council of experienced players. Thank you again, LaVista, for honestly answering my question. Im sure other players will be pleased to learn of this also.
Dalia Diamond	Posted - 2008.07.29 13:28:00 - [19] Originally by: LaVista Vista So I'm quite interested in hearing, what you guys think. Should we encourage CCP to be more active with the council, in order to not release half-baked ideas, just like this one? LaVista, I've always liked your views, so please don't take this the wrong way - but frankly, developers often have to make changes to a game that players will dislike. See also: WCS nerf, torp nerf, NOS nerf. None of these things were liked, and at each point of implementation for the above nerfs, the community as a whole screamed how it would destroy the game if it were changed. There are some things that letting the players have too strong a voice in will destroy a game - nerfs are usually one of them. Again, I've always felt you took a moderate approach to the CSM role, and applauded you for it - but your contemporaries/sucessors are not you, and I'd never feel comfortable saying that CCP should be running certain types of game decisions through player approval, CSM or otherwise.
Lui Kai Perkone	Posted - 2008.07.29 13:28:00 - [20] Originally by: Dalia Diamond Originally by: LaVista Vista So I'm quite interested in hearing, what you guys think. Should we encourage CCP to be more active with the council, in order to not release half-baked ideas, just like this one? LaVista, I've always liked your views, so please don't take this the wrong way - but frankly, developers often have to make changes to a game that players will dislike. See also: WCS nerf, torp nerf, NOS nerf. None of these things were liked, and at each point of implementation for the above nerfs, the community as a whole screamed how it would destroy the game if it were changed. There are some things that letting the players have too strong a voice in will destroy a game - nerfs are usually one of them. Again, I've always felt you took a moderate approach to the CSM role, and applauded you for it - but your contemporaries/sucessors are not you, and I'd never feel comfortable saying that CCP should be running certain types of game decisions through player approval, CSM or otherwise. Damn alt keeps getting in the way of my posts. The above is me. ---------------- Ambulation Answers

LaVista Vista	Posted - 2008.07.29 13:35:00 - [21] Originally by: Dalia Diamond Originally by: LaVista Vista So I'm quite interested in hearing, what you guys think. Should we encourage CCP to be more active with the council, in order to not release half-baked ideas, just like this one? LaVista, I've always liked your views, so please don't take this the wrong way - but frankly, developers often have to make changes to a game that players will dislike. See also: WCS nerf, torp nerf, NOS nerf. None of these things were liked, and at each point of implementation for the above nerfs, the community as a whole screamed how it would destroy the game if it were changed. There are some things that letting the players have too strong a voice in will destroy a game - nerfs are usually one of them. Again, I've always felt you took a moderate approach to the CSM role, and applauded you for it - but your contemporaries/sucessors are not you, and I'd never feel comfortable saying that CCP should be running certain types of game decisions through player approval, CSM or otherwise. Oh, I agree. There's a reason why only the few actually rules things. But CCP will ALWAYS have the final say. And I'm very thankful for that. But in this case, there's an obvious mistake in CCP's logic: They don't seem to realize what the actual issue is, behind nano. They just fix the effect(nano), but they don't fix the cause(blobs). So it's a really fine balance. And geez, I would HATE to make the call. I have my opinions, but there is nothing to say either of us are right.
Lily Cole	Posted - 2008.07.29 13:36:00 - [22] Just disband the CSM, it doesn't do what CCP originally promised. It only does what they lately promised. ie, absolutely nothing. They said it would be toothless, they said it would rarely be listened to, they said it couldn't insist CCP do anything in particular. It's possibly the one instance we can find evidence of where CCP actually told the truth.
khosta	Posted - 2008.07.29 13:38:00 - [23] Originally by: Dalia Diamond There are some things that letting the players have too strong a voice in will destroy a game - nerfs are usually one of them. Again, I've always felt you took a moderate approach to the CSM role, and applauded you for it - but your contemporaries/sucessors are not you, and I'd never feel comfortable saying that CCP should be running certain types of game decisions through player approval, CSM or otherwise. Please note that neither I nor LaVista have stated that the CSM should make the decisions on balance changes etc. My question, and LaVistas answer, were whether the CSM were allowed an opinion or fundamental feedback on the changes before they went public. Unfortunately some of the trolls in this thread have distorted things, its the way of public forums sadly.
Lui Kai Perkone	Posted - 2008.07.29 13:43:00 - [24] I honestly wasn't trying to distort or troll, either one. I was trying to give a genuine answer to the question he asked: "So I'm quite interested in hearing, what you guys think. Should we encourage CCP to be more active with the council, in order to not release half-baked ideas, just like this one?" Admittedly, the question itself has a bit of a bias, so I may have come off stronger in my opposing answer than I meant to - but it was a genuine sentiment. ---------------- Ambulation Answers
ramzahn Caldari	Posted - 2008.07.29 13:50:00 - [25] Originally by: khosta ...the difference between those people who are left to manage the 'old product' (while the quality people are working on the 'next product')... You succeeded to formulate what I always dreaded to contemplate. Thank You.
Rakshasa Taisab Caldari Sane Industries Inc. Ursa Stellar Initiative	Posted - 2008.07.29 13:52:00 - [26] It's true, I heard it from the exotic dancers that were hired for the private CSM party in Jita 4-4. All of them impotent!
Cat Gilligan Caldari Blair Corporation	Posted - 2008.07.29 13:54:00 - [27] Originally by: khosta I would love to know (and perhaps other players would too) if the CSM had any part in the proposed balance changes? I can understand CCP devs inadvertently destroying a weapon and ship type whilst trying to nerf something else, but I really expected experienced players such as those in the CSM to spot such things quickly. So were you consulted over the speed balance changes before they were proposed? Did you not notice that halving the effects of webifiers would have a huge detrimental effect on blasters and ships designed to use them? Or did you notice this, but felt blasters needed a major nerf, and like CCP, didnt want to admit it? I would love to know which it was. I havent paid that much attention to the activities of the CSM as I just felt they wouldnt be able to be effective. Unless I get a satisfctory response to this issue, that belief will become concrete. I'd say this is crunch time for the CSM. Are they a force for helping make EVE better, or are they utterly impotent, and less worthy of reading their posts than even CAOD? Sometimes it takes an event to define an organization. For me, this is it. They had no role. Which exposes the unimportance of the CSM, they are symbolic only. Which is pretty much how I figured it'd turn out.
Richard Angevian The Crusaders.	Posted - 2008.07.29 14:00:00 - [28] Originally by: Zephyr Rengate **** up for the whole CSM guys. Also someone call the NY Times. Why not? They did an article on the CSM. Maybe they'd like to do a follow up on the fact that the CSM is a sham, that CCP won't even run a poorly designed game change by them...
McDonALTs	Posted - 2008.07.29 14:03:00 - [29] Originally by: LaVista Vista But CCP will ALWAYS have the final say. And I'm very thankful for that. But in this case, there's an obvious mistake in CCP's logic: They don't seem to realize what the actual issue is, behind nano. They just fix the effect(nano), but they don't fix the cause(blobs). So it's a really fine balance. And geez, I would HATE to make the call. I have my opinions, but there is nothing to say either of us are right. While I agree with you that CCP are too busy fixing the effect rather than the cause, they got the number 100% correct on this one. Nano was a brainfart that existed because CCP made a change to inerta stabalisers etc etc. Even since then, anti-bob tactics dissapeared. Before you could use smaller numbers to beat clumsey blobs by making the blob work hard to chase you down. There are number videos of people like AAA and BoB etc taking down blobs with small numbers using cov ops to position themselves on top driveby spots. Smaller forces would slowly grid down a blob by peeling it like a onion. Since nano came out, your location on grid mattered less since a 15k/sec crow and you have the entire enemy blob warping to you instantly. Nano changed eve from tactics beating blobs to just both sides using biggist blob possible since all tactics were obsolete. Now Afterburner, MWD, Scramber is a rock paper scissors. New tactics will now emerge. This nano nerf is a massive anti-blob tactic boost.
Heartstone Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.07.29 14:14:00 - [30] Originally by: Sheriff Jones I hope you mean incompetent 'cause i doubt the penile functions have anything to do with the issue (plus other penile obsessed people.... im+po+tent (mp-tnt) adj. 1. Lacking physical strength or vigor; weak. 2. Lacking in power, as to act effectively; helpless: "Technology without morality is barbarous; morality without technology is impotent" Freeman J. Dyson. 3. a. Incapable of sexual intercourse, often because of an inability to achieve or sustain an erection. b. Sterile. Used of males. 4. Obsolete Lacking self-restraint. ---



Pages: [1] 2 3 :: 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.