| Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Major Stallion
The Dark Horses
   |
Posted - 2008.07.29 14:17:00 -
[31]
 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.
make it stop...please make it stop. you're looking for someone to blame for the impending nano nerf, look no further than these forums. CSM had very little say. Nanos were an issue long before the CSM convened in Iceland.
If you are looking for someone to blame for the nano nerf, do a forum search for "NERF NANO SETUPS" and see the results you come up with. The devs changed the game based on the feedback they see in these forums. Face it, the majority whines about something, it will, at some point be nerfed. Theres no stopping that.
I can't emphasize it enough that you are looking for a scapegoat, and you are pointing your finger at everyone but the obvious parties.
|
Sheriff Jones
Amarr
Please Enter Password
|
Posted - 2008.07.29 14:26:00 -
[32]
Originally by: Heartstone
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.
But it's not funny that way 
My opinions represent the opinions of my corporation completely. I'm the CEO damnit. |
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.07.29 14:27:00 -
[33]
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?
Pretty much no. Some of us did have some off the record discussions in Iceland with CCP developers over dinner and such on the topic of speed and nanos and some opinions were expressed. But speed-nerf didn't make it onto the formal agenda for the first session of talks with CCP because there wasn't a speed Issue presented for the assembly hall that any of us agreed with enough to bring before the CSM for vote. This should tell you quite vividly that in the opinion of the CSM as a whole we thought there were at least 30 odd other issues that were more important and deserved CCP intervention well before speed did.
Quote:
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.
Our first sight of these specific changes was the same time everyone else saw it - in the blog. In recognition of the huge player interest in the implications I've tabled the first topic for sundays CSM meeting to discuss the proposed nano changes and we'll get a collective opinion from the CSM for transmission to CCP one way or the other. I think its unlikely that the nano-changes will make it to the live server prior to the secend CSM session with the CCP council (late august/early sept) so hopefully we'll get to present feedback before these things go live.
Quote:
So were you consulted over the speed balance changes before they were proposed?
Not formally, and certainly not with specific proposals.
Quote:
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?
Like I said, no formal proposals were shown to us. Remember, it was our job to take player proposals from the community to CCP and say "this is the stuff people want done and implemented in eve and here is the order of priority for implementation please". Speed nerf wasn't in an ISSUE we presented to CCP.
Quote:
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.
Well you need to understand what I've posted in the paragraph above. CSM collects and advocates player ISSUEs and then takes them to CCP council and says "this is what the player base would like done". CCP give us answers on these issues and where things are technically possible they will go onto a prioritized list for future development. We've never had a remit to veto or critique changes from CCP's end. This is new territory for everyone.
Quote:
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.
Well you make a good point. I (like LaVista) feel this is change is being presented at the wrong time. I strongly feel we need many other changes to the game of Eve before we nerf speed. There are a lot of relatively small changes to the pvp dynamics that we advocated in Iceland that the community actually asked for through the formal structure of the CSM that I believe should be rolled out before the "nano nerf". I completely agree with LaVista that blob-warfare and broken 0.0 sovereignty mechanics are the mature problem with Eve online's pvp model at the moment - not speed. Fix 0.0 sov, fix broken cyno-jammers, reduce jump-bridge abuse, introduce realistic targets for roving gangs, fix black ops, fix dock timer etc etc.
Then fix speed.
In that order
Star Fraction | Dare to Dream!
|
TheG2
Gallente
Dirty Rotten Scoundrels
|
Posted - 2008.07.29 14:35:00 -
[34]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
Well you make a good point. I (like LaVista) feel this is change is being presented at the wrong time. I strongly feel we need many other changes to the game of Eve before we nerf speed. There are a lot of relatively small changes to the pvp dynamics that we advocated in Iceland that the community actually asked for through the formal structure of the CSM that I believe should be rolled out before the "nano nerf". I completely agree with LaVista that blob-warfare and broken 0.0 sovereignty mechanics are the mature problem with Eve online's pvp model at the moment - not speed. Fix 0.0 sov, fix broken cyno-jammers, reduce jump-bridge abuse, introduce realistic targets for roving gangs, fix black ops, fix dock timer etc etc.
Speed affects everyone, the things you listed (sov, cyno-jammers, jump-bridges) only affect Large 0.0 alliances. And before we go fixing BlackOps, how about making AF's useful. Although I agree with you on the targets and docking timer situations. Speed was ruining not only Empire/Low-sec PVP but 0.0 PVP as well, when it basically becomes "nano or die" in 0.0, somethings broken.
|
Call'Da Poleece
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2008.07.29 14:53:00 -
[35]
What percentage of the playerbase voted for (wanted?) the CSM in the first place? I abstained btw, self important and self serving being the reasons, like all elected people.
Next look at the majority of posters on the assembly hall forum, yeah mostly 0.0 alliance members and forum *****s (I make a distinction between them but I would guess that they are mostly the same people).
Now comapre the quantity of anti nano threads on General Discussion and compare to the assembly hall. What does that tell you? Answer: normal non alliance players couldnt give a shit about CSM ... the very fact that the CSM did not mention nanofit ships to CCP when the CSM guys got a free trip to Iceland shows that the CSM dont give a shit about the non alliance players either. |
Lily Cole
|
Posted - 2008.07.29 14:57:00 -
[36]
Originally by: Call'Da Poleece
free trip to Iceland
Do you work in mobile phone marketing by any chance? |
Call'Da Poleece
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2008.07.29 14:59:00 -
[37]
Edited by: Call''Da Poleece on 29/07/2008 14:59:14
Originally by: Lily Cole
Originally by: Call'Da Poleece
free trip to Iceland
Do you work in mobile phone marketing by any chance?
Didnt really look into it, do you mean they had to pay? FFS, what a crap job.
And please comment on the rest of my post, kthxbye. |
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.07.29 15:02:00 -
[38]
Originally by: TheG2
Speed affects everyone, the things you listed (sov, cyno-jammers, jump-bridges) only affect Large 0.0 alliances. And before we go fixing BlackOps, how about making AF's useful. Although I agree with you on the targets and docking timer situations. Speed was ruining not only Empire/Low-sec PVP but 0.0 PVP as well, when it basically becomes "nano or die" in 0.0, somethings broken.
I think we have different definitions of the word "ruin". People were still pvp'ing in Eve (a lot) they still are on the live server. Most nights I'm out with Star Fraction gangs killing people. In empire, in lowsec, in 0.0. I see a lot of fighting, a lot of tactical innovation, sometimes we win, sometimes we lose, sometimes there is a quick scrap and one or other side bails but pvp in eve in the current state is by no means "ruined".
The problem with this nano-nerf if it comes before neccessary changes to 0.0 sovereignty rules is that it massively promotes blob warfare and further empowers already broken jump bridge mechanics and this can actually "ruin" a whole area of pvp opportunity and reduce diversity in pvp combat techniques.
Sometimes you do need to choose the order of your changes carefully. If you overclock your computers cpu without adding additional cooling fans you'll risk burning the thing out. If you add an extra graphic card without a decent power supply it won't start. You need to bring a bit of logical process here and realize that its not enough to nerf a pvp technique out of viability without providing alternative means of achieving the same playstyle in different ways. It isn't a "good thing" to remove the roving pvp option in 0.0 space from Eve Online.
If this happens you'll see hungry blobber alliances in 0.0 crying about no targets again and urging ccp to move all level 4 agents to nullsec to let them shoot things :) Because you can be pretty sure that if the nano-gangs of today are phased out of existence before sovereignty warfare is fixed in 0.0 there won't be ANY reason for non territorial holders to go to 0.0 outside of a blob (capital or otherwise).
Star Fraction | Dare to Dream!
|
Spectre80
Caldari
The Knights Templar
Pure.
|
Posted - 2008.07.29 15:04:00 -
[39]
Oh please.. it is ccp right to do what they want and no, csm should have nothing to say to it. this broken thing called nanoing has lived its lifecycle and now it is time to bury it. people who used these ships/tactics have had fun with it plenty im sure. and i think it is time for a change. good work from ccp to acknowledge the problem, thank you.
|
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.07.29 15:05:00 -
[40]
Originally by: Call'Da Poleece
... the very fact that the CSM did not mention nanofit ships to CCP when the CSM guys got a free trip to Iceland shows that the CSM dont give a shit about the non alliance players either.
It actually shows that not one of the 9 CSM reps was appropriately convinced by any player issue addressing speed in Eve online by the time of the first formal session. Either that or we felt there were 30 odd more pressing issues that would better serve the interests of Eve online that should be addressed first.
Star Fraction | Dare to Dream!
|
|
|
XJennieX
|
Posted - 2008.07.29 15:13:00 -
[41]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
Originally by: Call'Da Poleece
... the very fact that the CSM did not mention nanofit ships to CCP when the CSM guys got a free trip to Iceland shows that the CSM dont give a shit about the non alliance players either.
It actually shows that not one of the 9 CSM reps was appropriately convinced by any player issue addressing speed in Eve online by the time of the first formal session. Either that or we felt there were 30 odd more pressing issues that would better serve the interests of Eve online that should be addressed first.
no. it just shows majority of csm are nanojunkies.
|
TheG2
Gallente
Dirty Rotten Scoundrels
|
Posted - 2008.07.29 15:13:00 -
[42]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
Originally by: TheG2
Speed affects everyone, the things you listed (sov, cyno-jammers, jump-bridges) only affect Large 0.0 alliances. And before we go fixing BlackOps, how about making AF's useful. Although I agree with you on the targets and docking timer situations. Speed was ruining not only Empire/Low-sec PVP but 0.0 PVP as well, when it basically becomes "nano or die" in 0.0, somethings broken.
I think we have different definitions of the word "ruin". People were still pvp'ing in Eve (a lot) they still are on the live server. Most nights I'm out with Star Fraction gangs killing people. In empire, in lowsec, in 0.0. I see a lot of fighting, a lot of tactical innovation, sometimes we win, sometimes we lose, sometimes there is a quick scrap and one or other side bails but pvp in eve in the current state is by no means "ruined".
The problem with this nano-nerf if it comes before neccessary changes to 0.0 sovereignty rules is that it massively promotes blob warfare and further empowers already broken jump bridge mechanics and this can actually "ruin" a whole area of pvp opportunity and reduce diversity in pvp combat techniques.
Sometimes you do need to choose the order of your changes carefully. If you overclock your computers cpu without adding additional cooling fans you'll risk burning the thing out. If you add an extra graphic card without a decent power supply it won't start. You need to bring a bit of logical process here and realize that its not enough to nerf a pvp technique out of viability without providing alternative means of achieving the same playstyle in different ways. It isn't a "good thing" to remove the roving pvp option in 0.0 space from Eve Online.
If this happens you'll see hungry blobber alliances in 0.0 crying about no targets again and urging ccp to move all level 4 agents to nullsec to let them shoot things :) Because you can be pretty sure that if the nano-gangs of today are phased out of existence before sovereignty warfare is fixed in 0.0 there won't be ANY reason for non territorial holders to go to 0.0 outside of a blob (capital or otherwise).
That affects your play style, unfortunately for you, a large portion of the game isn't affected by the whole sov. thing. Yes, there are plenty of good fights going on all around EVE, unfortunately the ridiculous speeds people were going were breaking what could otherwise be good fights.
Nanos weren't the solution to blobs, they just created nano-blobs. The very tribal nature of people is what created blobs, and no amount of changes are going to fix that. More numbers = more damage and safety is always in the numbers. Removing the speed "you can't touch my ship" aspect will fix a lot of PVP all over the game.
EVE has been around for 5+ years, obviously CCP is doing something right.
|
GallenteCitizen20080615
Gallente
Federation War News
|
Posted - 2008.07.29 15:16:00 -
[43]
the reason that they might of not shared it with the CSM is they are looking for a total community reaction. although that was a perfect time to use the CSM system when rolling it out for you guys to get feedback on the problems with the nerf and get back to them on ways to adjust it or change it as CCP are clearly wanting to go through with it.
they should of done it in a simple set solution
1. idea "nerf nano to make it in line with other tanking"
2. tell the community that this is what they are thinking about
3. draw up some ideas on how and effect on planning that out
4 tell the community get some feedback
5 put propsed ideas into the SISI for testing
6 let the community know get some feedback
7 updates and changes in modules/ships
8 let the community know and announce realese
CCP really need to think about how they announce stuff like this instead of just dumping it in the community i believe that CCP need to be more vocal with the community which is where i feel they are lacking,
if they went around somewhere like that on announcing it yes there would still be people upset but they might get a bit more understanding and actually be helpful at giving information back at each stage of the development.
BUT i dont work for CCP ( wish i did though would be a awesome job  )
Originally by: CCP Wrangler
We are pleased to aim!
Or was that the other way around?
|
khosta
|
Posted - 2008.07.29 15:19:00 -
[44]
Thank you for your reply Constantine. Im feeling much positive could come from this situation as it illustrates in the most obvious way possible the need for developers and experienced players to communicate possible changes to the balance of a complex game such as EVE.
Triumph out of adversity hopefully 
On the issue of speed, I personally disagree that solving ludicrous speed problem isnt very important, but I'll be the first to admit I dont know as many aspects of this game as the collective minds in the CSM must do.
My shock and disbelief is the obvious side effect on blasters that comes with a massive webifier change going completely unnoticed by whoever is on the balancing team
|
TheG2
Gallente
Dirty Rotten Scoundrels
|
Posted - 2008.07.29 15:22:00 -
[45]
Originally by: khosta
On the issue of speed, I personally disagree that solving ludicrous speed problem isnt very important, but I'll be the first to admit I dont know as many aspects of this game as the collective minds in the CSM must do.
They know probably just as much as you do, less or more +-5%.
|
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.07.29 15:28:00 -
[46]
Originally by: TheG2
Nanos weren't the solution to blobs, they just created nano-blobs. The very tribal nature of people is what created blobs, and no amount of changes are going to fix that. More numbers = more damage and safety is always in the numbers. Removing the speed "you can't touch my ship" aspect will fix a lot of PVP all over the game.
And the whole nano/anti-nano thing is another "tribal thing" of course. The logic of debate tends to be submerged by the tendency to gloat and snarl "adapt" at the other side of the argument. Of course I'm going to disagree with you here. You can introduce game changes that punish blobs. You really can. There are many such ideas on the table and in the end CCP is going to have to do it because blobs break their game. There is no cure for lag that will allow massive blobs to fight in the same systems and grid. Eve is crap with lagfests. Ultimately they need to grasp the nettle and introduce meaningful distributed objectives and actively punish blobs with game mechanics that reduce and restrict their effectiveness against more intelligent deployment of ships and assets. But that stuff is away on the horizon and at the moment we are living in a time where one playstyle is being eradicated by a placatory reaction to constant whines from people that don't like the fact their single drake/raven whatever isn't a single pwnmobile in pvp. It really isn't a good thing.
As for "my playstyle" - heh, seriously. I'll adapt. I fly all racial cruisers, battlecruisers, hacs, recons, inties and kitchen sinks at level 5 and use all weapon systems. I'm actually specialized in Caldari and Amarrian battleships, EW, missiles and lasers. My alliance is good at adapting, we've been doing it for five years straight and I expect we'll be annoying the FW blobs next with ECM superiority and "untouchable" sniper fleets :)
Quote:
EVE has been around for 5+ years, obviously CCP is doing something right.
Sure, and I don't really pay much attention to any "omg I'm quitting" posts whatsoever. Good players will adapt and find new ways to hurt bad players with pvp expertise but its going to be a narrower field of possibility for a while and it will hurt pvp opportunity in 0.0 sovereignty regions. More victims will get ganked by more powerful gate camps, more people will get annoyed by falcons, more people will realize that ultimately this is a small ship nerf and we'll get back to the "battleships online" phase of the game we reached in year 2 of eve way before any kind of missile nerfs first time around. All these things are cyclic though. Eve is a great game, CCP are pretty damn good developers, but they aren't perfect and they do make mistakes. This is one.
Star Fraction | Dare to Dream!
|
GallenteCitizen20080615
Gallente
Federation War News
|
Posted - 2008.07.29 15:34:00 -
[47]
just like people adpated to use nano against normal ships people will adapt out of them
it the circle of eve and it been happening for a long time
it the loss of isk that will force people to do this.
blobs is a hard one to fix and hopefullyl CCPplay that to the books of going over various senarios to find a fix andplay testing them before even going on sisi
i have been playing eve for a long time and even though sometimes there choices dont seem right i have full trust in CCP as even though they do this is still got the individuality of every other MMO and eve still feels eve if you know what i mean
Originally by: CCP Wrangler
We are pleased to aim!
Or was that the other way around?
|
Jenny' JoJo
Caldari
State War Academy
|
Posted - 2008.07.29 15:35:00 -
[48]
i aM hAPPY tHAT nANO iS gETTING dISCUSED hERE. jADE, wHAT sOLUTION wOULD yOU pROMOTE iF yOU aRE uNHAPPY wITH nANO nERF?
Refresh to see next real life CCP Sig(25 total) |
Jenny' JoJo
Caldari
State War Academy
|
Posted - 2008.07.29 15:38:00 -
[49]
Originally by: GallenteCitizen20080615
just like people adpated to use nano against normal ships people will adapt out of them
it the circle of eve and it been happening for a long time
it the loss of isk that will force people to do this.
blobs is a hard one to fix and hopefullyl CCPplay that to the books of going over various senarios to find a fix andplay testing them before even going on sisi
i have been playing eve for a long time and even though sometimes there choices dont seem right i have full trust in CCP as even though they do this is still got the individuality of every other MMO and eve still feels eve if you know what i mean
tHE sOLUTION tO tHE bLOB iS iF cCP fIX'S tHE sERVERS tO hANDEL 500 mAN bATTLES aND 1000 mAN bATTLES. tHAT wAY mORE pEOPLE wOULD sUBSCRIBE tO eVE
Refresh to see next real life CCP Sig(25 total) |
TheG2
Gallente
Dirty Rotten Scoundrels
|
Posted - 2008.07.29 15:39:00 -
[50]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
And the whole nano/anti-nano thing is another "tribal thing" of course. The logic of debate tends to be submerged by the tendency to gloat and snarl "adapt" at the other side of the argument. Of course I'm going to disagree with you here. You can introduce game changes that punish blobs. You really can. There are many such ideas on the table and in the end CCP is going to have to do it because blobs break their game. There is no cure for lag that will allow massive blobs to fight in the same systems and grid. Eve is crap with lagfests. Ultimately they need to grasp the nettle and introduce meaningful distributed objectives and actively punish blobs with game mechanics that reduce and restrict their effectiveness against more intelligent deployment of ships and assets. But that stuff is away on the horizon and at the moment we are living in a time where one playstyle is being eradicated by a placatory reaction to constant whines from people that don't like the fact their single drake/raven whatever isn't a single pwnmobile in pvp. It really isn't a good thing.
As for "my playstyle" - heh, seriously. I'll adapt. I fly all racial cruisers, battlecruisers, hacs, recons, inties and kitchen sinks at level 5 and use all weapon systems. I'm actually specialized in Caldari and Amarrian battleships, EW, missiles and lasers. My alliance is good at adapting, we've been doing it for five years straight and I expect we'll be annoying the FW blobs next with ECM superiority and "untouchable" sniper fleets :)
Quote:
EVE has been around for 5+ years, obviously CCP is doing something right.
Sure, and I don't really pay much attention to any "omg I'm quitting" posts whatsoever. Good players will adapt and find new ways to hurt bad players with pvp expertise but its going to be a narrower field of possibility for a while and it will hurt pvp opportunity in 0.0 sovereignty regions. More victims will get ganked by more powerful gate camps, more people will get annoyed by falcons, more people will realize that ultimately this is a small ship nerf and we'll get back to the "battleships online" phase of the game we reached in year 2 of eve way before any kind of missile nerfs first time around. All these things are cyclic though. Eve is a great game, CCP are pretty damn good developers, but they aren't perfect and they do make mistakes. This is one.
It's a mistake in YOUR opinion, yet in game, the majority of the player body that I've talked to once they heard about the changes were very excited. This change will shake up the rather stale PVP we have now.
And I don't think we're gonna see Battleship online again, we'll just see slower and more manageable nano ships that can't run away as easily. Battleships make a poor choice for roaming gangs, I think we'll see more support ships, more HACs actually filling their intended role and probably a hell of a lot more Ewar in terms of the Arazu/Lach and possibly the Pilgrim/Curse coming back.
But hey, you've obviously made up your mind and aren't going to change it, but make no mistake, you don't represent me.
|
|
|
GallenteCitizen20080615
Gallente
Federation War News
|
Posted - 2008.07.29 15:40:00 -
[51]
Originally by: Jenny' JoJo
jenny spitfire crap
when you make a server to do that let CCP know now 
Originally by: CCP Wrangler
We are pleased to aim!
Or was that the other way around?
|
Major Stallion
The Dark Horses
|
Posted - 2008.07.29 15:41:00 -
[52]
Originally by: Spectre80
Oh please.. it is ccp right to do what they want and no, csm should have nothing to say to it. this broken thing called nanoing has lived its lifecycle and now it is time to bury it. people who used these ships/tactics have had fun with it plenty im sure. and i think it is time for a change. good work from ccp to acknowledge the problem, thank you.
never thought id find myself agreeing with a TKT guy...but srsly QFT
|
Call'Da Poleece
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2008.07.29 15:44:00 -
[53]
Originally by: XJennieX
Originally by: Jade Constantine
Originally by: Call'Da Poleece
... the very fact that the CSM did not mention nanofit ships to CCP when the CSM guys got a free trip to Iceland shows that the CSM dont give a shit about the non alliance players either.
It actually shows that not one of the 9 CSM reps was appropriately convinced by any player issue addressing speed in Eve online by the time of the first formal session. Either that or we felt there were 30 odd more pressing issues that would better serve the interests of Eve online that should be addressed first.
no. it just shows majority of csm are nanojunkies.
Just looked at jades losses on battleclinic and speed fits are the order of the day ... with the odd painful exception .... most likely the reason why he/she/it found 30 things that were more pressing than speed and its unbalancing effects on eve |
Beltantis Torrence
|
Posted - 2008.07.29 15:47:00 -
[54]
CSM's purpose is that of oversight, specifically overseeing how CCP's internal staff interacts with the game and to provide an overall feeling of fairplay. CSM is not the new mechanism for game design and I don't think it was ever sold as that. They can bring issues to the attention of CCP and help as an aggregate for player opinion but ultimately Eve's entire direction isn't going to be controlled by the CSM.
|
GallenteCitizen20080615
Gallente
Federation War News
|
Posted - 2008.07.29 15:48:00 -
[55]
4 stabs
that a bit weird
man i would not like the penalities from those ...no sir re
Originally by: CCP Wrangler
We are pleased to aim!
Or was that the other way around?
|
Lily Cole
|
Posted - 2008.07.29 15:51:00 -
[56]
Originally by: Beltantis Torrence
CSM's purpose is that of oversight, specifically overseeing how CCP's internal staff interacts with the game and to provide an overall feeling of fairplay. CSM is not the new mechanism for game design and I don't think it was ever sold as that. They can bring issues to the attention of CCP and help as an aggregate for player opinion but ultimately Eve's entire direction isn't going to be controlled by the CSM.
You missed a meeting. The meeting where CCP decided they didn't want anybody looking over their shoulder after all. |
Beltantis Torrence
|
Posted - 2008.07.29 16:01:00 -
[57]
Originally by: Lily Cole
Originally by: Beltantis Torrence
CSM's purpose is that of oversight, specifically overseeing how CCP's internal staff interacts with the game and to provide an overall feeling of fairplay. CSM is not the new mechanism for game design and I don't think it was ever sold as that. They can bring issues to the attention of CCP and help as an aggregate for player opinion but ultimately Eve's entire direction isn't going to be controlled by the CSM.
You missed a meeting. The meeting where CCP decided they didn't want anybody looking over their shoulder after all.
If that's the case I think that's a separate issue. This thread is regarding people expecting CCP to flush their balance ideas through the CSM first, as if the CSM were a bureaucracy which CCP had to garner support for balance decisions from. I don't think that's the case nor do I really think that'd benefit anyone - it'd simply impede the change process and skew the game more heavily in favor of alliances/veterans.
|
Heartstone
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.07.29 16:01:00 -
[58]
Originally by: Call'Da Poleece
Just looked at jades losses on battleclinic and speed fits are the order of the day ... with the odd painful exception .... most likely the reason why he/she/it found 30 things that were more pressing than speed and its unbalancing effects on eve
Awww aren't you cute. Reading into to things much?
A.) Jade is one person on the CSM and ANY of them could have bought up the issue. They didn't.
B.) Jade's losses on Battleclinic show a number of different ships from stand off nano ships like the Cerb and the Sac to the brick like Ravens he is fond of.
C.) Yeah we ripped it out of him for that loss too ;)
---
|
GallenteCitizen20080615
Gallente
Federation War News
|
Posted - 2008.07.29 16:04:00 -
[59]
wow ravens i have lost all respect for you
(jk if you want to use caldaricrap boats then that up to you )
Originally by: CCP Wrangler
We are pleased to aim!
Or was that the other way around?
|
Heartstone
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.07.29 16:07:00 -
[60]
Originally by: GallenteCitizen20080615
wow ravens i have lost all respect for you
(jk if you want to use caldaricrap boats then that up to you )
Actually since the Torp Boost I have been having fun with them on my alt quite a bit and I must say they are good fun.
---
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |