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. ---

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. ---

Call'Da Poleece Minmatar	Posted - 2008.07.29 16:21:00 - [61] Originally by: Beltantis Torrence 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. QFT CSM were an idea, CCP have a lot of those, some work, some dont.
Treelox Amarr Market Jihadist Revolutionary Party	Posted - 2008.07.29 16:29:00 - [62] Solution --
Jade Constantine	Posted - 2008.07.29 17:26:00 - [63] 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 You'd probably find my preferred ships overview on our statistics page here more useful, as you can tell my favourite ships aren't really getting the shaft from the nano nerf. And the point was NONE of the CSM delegates believed the speed-issue had been appropriately made by the community with assembly hall topics and thats why 30 other more pressing issues were brought to CCP's attention. Star Fraction \| Dare to Dream!
TheG2 Gallente Dirty Rotten Scoundrels	Posted - 2008.07.29 17:45:00 - [64] Originally by: Jade Constantine 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 You'd probably find my preferred ships overview on our statistics page here more useful, as you can tell my favourite ships aren't really getting the shaft from the nano nerf. And the point was NONE of the CSM delegates believed the speed-issue had been appropriately made by the community with assembly hall topics and thats why 30 other more pressing issues were brought to CCP's attention. Having a look, I'd say about half of your ships, maybe more, rely on nano. And I think thats why CCP isn't listening to CSM's in regards to balance. There is way too much bias when it comes to this sort of thing, and the devs are simply better suited and have more experience.
Avon Caldari Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.07.29 17:59:00 - [65] This issue is here, now, and being addressed. The fundamental balance of Eve is more important than the fragile ego of CSM members who feel left out. Let's bite the bullet, get this done, and then we can move on to building from a more even foundation. If you read back on nano related proposals in the CSM forum section it is clear that there were many concerns, but because they were not all in one place and voted on as such, they never made it to the agenda. For any member of the CSM to imply that they were unaware of any community concern is somewhat worrying. Eve-Online: The Text Adventure
Arlenna Molatov Caldari The 59th Parallel	Posted - 2008.07.29 18:03:00 - [66] Quote: 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. You're kidding, right? Since when does CCP need to "consult" ANYONE about ANYTHING in their game?? CCP makes changes to their game THEY think they need to make wether or not YOU like it or not. If you dont like the changes, then you dont need to subscribe anymore. Thats what it comes down to. If I were CCP i wouldn't give two $hits wether you liked it or not, especially when I already TOLD you and EVERYONE else that it breaks MY physics engine and I'M going to FIX it. PERIOD! So, you can stay or you can go. You decide.
mishkof Caldari Finis Lumen Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2008.07.29 18:04:00 - [67] Originally by: Avon This issue is here, now, and being addressed. The fundamental balance of Eve is more important than the fragile ego of CSM members who feel left out. Let's bite the bullet, get this done, and then we can move on to building from a more even foundation. If you read back on nano related proposals in the CSM forum section it is clear that there were many concerns, but because they were not all in one place and voted on as such, they never made it to the agenda. For any member of the CSM to imply that they were unaware of any community concern is somewhat worrying. This. There have been many topics on this issue. Granted they werent all in the assemly hall area, but it is a serious topic of discussion that affects EVERYONe who participates in PVP, and not just the nanoer either. I own a T2 BPO and Capital alt, therefor all of my views will be pro-Capital Alt/T2 BPO orientated. Please pick one of the following settings for your response. []hate me []troll me []smack me
Thommy	Posted - 2008.07.30 06:42:00 - [68] Jade and other csm members its probably not the right place to bring this to your attention but i have put out an 3 point list of questions here aimed at CCP regarding the nano nerf and specificly regarding the afterburner module. I think more people would feel the same way about the afterburner module and the consequences therein (more time sink issue, less actual play). Also got an bonus question in there but it is unrelated and therefore not really important. I am not sure it is even seen by anyone from CCP because the topics got many replies and i also think they serve more as an controlled rant space then an actual feedback considering there is very little EvE dev input there . Since the discussion about nano's is in the agenda can you tell me the points i put up there are allready going to be put forward or if they can be included in things to discuss on the CCP - CSM meeting? You probably allready get so many requests from everyone about an huge ammount of various questions though it would be an big relief for me if i know atleast part of my worries are heard by CCP. Guide \| Patch day
Beltantis Torrence	Posted - 2008.07.30 07:08:00 - [69] Edited by: Beltantis Torrence on 30/07/2008 07:09:53 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). And we see the problem with the CSM. I was under the impression more than half the game didn't live in 0.0. But as you mentioned, all you care about is 0.0. Ultimately though, the playerbase doesn't care because no one in their right mind holds the expectation that you will have any influence or authority over CCP. Rather, I assume and expect, you'll be shown 'behind the curtain' and given a cookie and told to make yourself useful and moderate a forum. And here and there, they'll actually fix one of those items and there'll be a feel good piece on it on the home page for PR reasons. OP was mentioning that the CSM is impotent - I don't think it was ever meant to have any power to begin with (nor should it, for sanity's sake). If the players actually felt like CSM had any power they might actually care who sits on CSM. As it stands right now though, the CSM's job as far as I can tell is to present an optional prioritized list to CCP's attention, upon which at CCP's discretion it can choose to fulfill some or all or none of those items, in whatever order it sees fit. In other words, to summarize forum posts... Which is good, because I made it a couple paragraphs into the CSM chats and closed it in sheer disgust.
Viqtoria Caldari Groping Hand Social Club	Posted - 2008.07.30 07:17:00 - [70] Originally by: Jade Constantine 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 thank heavens we can just circumvent the CSM and post our concerns on the forum, then.

Khlitouris RegusII	Posted - 2008.07.30 07:44:00 - [71] 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. Why would a ccp pr campaign have any effect in game?
Lily Cole	Posted - 2008.07.30 10:24:00 - [72] Originally by: Runner647 CSM election reminded me of an election in third world "back" water country. Basically only those who voted really cared to vote or knew to vote. It pretty "LOL" IMHO. Until they do something game changing they are proving to be useless. The Majority of the Nine got less votes than the people that took the time to abstain. CCP first promised a powerful CSM. They watered it down to "absolutely toothless" and are probably wondering why we're struggling to care about the CSM anymore. CCP need to bite the bullet, either give the CSM the teeth it was originally promised, some new teeth we never knew it wanted, or scrap it completely. It's too much of a laughing stock as it is.
LaVista Vista	Posted - 2008.07.30 10:27:00 - [73] Originally by: Lily Cole Originally by: Runner647 CSM election reminded me of an election in third world "back" water country. Basically only those who voted really cared to vote or knew to vote. It pretty "LOL" IMHO. Until they do something game changing they are proving to be useless. The Majority of the Nine got less votes than the people that took the time to abstain. CCP first promised a powerful CSM. They watered it down to "absolutely toothless" and are probably wondering why we're struggling to care about the CSM anymore. CCP need to bite the bullet, either give the CSM the teeth it was originally promised, some new teeth we never knew it wanted, or scrap it completely. It's too much of a laughing stock as it is. So you ACTUALLY think that the CSM, as it was originally presented(Yet that was NOT the way it was originally intended by it's inventor, our dear Xhagen), would WORK? I'm sorry to burst your bubble. The CSM, as it was presented in the NYT, would not work. That, if anything, was a PR stunt.
Protheroe	Posted - 2008.07.30 11:38:00 - [74] Originally by: Call'Da Poleece 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. I think you are misplacing blame here. If "non alliance members" do not submit issues which concern them to the CSM because they don't care about it, and as a result the CSM don't give priority to those issues when they meet with CCP, it is not the fault of the CSM when those issues aren't raised; it is the fault of those, like you, who chose not to participate in the submission process. Incidentally, about a third of the current CSM members were specifically elected on manifestos which favoured empire-based players, and one of them has spent their entire Eve career (over five years) in an NPC corp.
AltBier Minmatar Freelance Unincorporated	Posted - 2008.07.30 11:53:00 - [75] 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? Do encourage CCP to be more active with the council.
Lily Cole	Posted - 2008.07.30 12:06:00 - [76] Originally by: LaVista Vista So you ACTUALLY think that the CSM, as it was originally presented(Yet that was NOT the way it was originally intended by it's inventor, our dear Xhagen), would WORK? I'm sorry to burst your bubble. The CSM, as it was presented in the NYT, would not work. That, if anything, was a PR stunt. I'm not sorry to burst your bubble. You're on the gravy train, that is all you are. No wonder you'll back yourself all the way. Seeing as we're the ones paying for your irrelevance, we should get a say at the next vote: Annoying Veteran #1 Annoying Veteran #2 Annoying Veteran #3 Annoying Veteran #4 Annoying Veteran #5 Annoying Veteran #6 Abstain Disband CSM. And yes it would work JUST FINE. If you believe an overseeing body cannot have a worthy purpose, how do you explain independent bodies elsewhere, shall I list all the industry regulatory bodies, or does your CSM mind allow you to list them for yourself? How do you explain the abundance of independent overwatch organisations if they CANNOT work? If it was a PR stunt to deliberately LIE to EVERYBODY ON THE PLANET, how does that make it better? Two simple questions really.
Protheroe	Posted - 2008.07.30 12:25:00 - [77] Originally by: Lily Cole The Majority of the Nine got less votes than the people that took the time to abstain. This is incorrect. There were 869 abstentions, and two (not five) of the nine CSM representatives received fewer than 869 votes. Link to the results.
Crumplecorn Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations	Posted - 2008.07.30 12:51:00 - [78] I will make myself useful by standing around pointing out how other people are not being useful. - DesuSigs
Lily Cole	Posted - 2008.07.30 12:52:00 - [79] Originally by: Protheroe Originally by: Lily Cole The Majority of the Nine got less votes than the people that took the time to abstain. This is incorrect. There were 869 abstentions, and two (not five) of the nine CSM representatives received fewer than 869 votes. Link to the results. Hey, you're right, it was 50& of the total candidates got less votes than the number of abstains. That doesn't make them any more or less relevant. Quote: There were 24,651 votes cast out of a pool of 222,422 eligible voters, amassing a turnout of 11.08%. This is irrelevant too. If the CSM was going to be what was promised, this would be hugely relevant. This toothless lip service department has no relevance, and the pathetic turnout reflects well the interest in paying for Veterans to play a different game to the rest of us.
Sidrat Flush Caldari legion of qui Atrum Tempestas Foedus	Posted - 2008.07.30 13:24:00 - [80] It took me about thirty minutes to short list my top three candidates. I then spent another thirty minutes speed reading the manifestos on each candidate. After that I narrowed it down to two and found that the detailed manifesto was closer to my views as a player so I made my vote. Just because only 11% of the "character/account population" voted is not my concern. I voted and yet even if you didn't vote you still retain your voice and can propose any change or issue you wish. Toothless organization? Not really, I don't even think the CSM truly represents the full scope of the eve playing demographic, I don't think it should either. What it should do is present a structured list to CCP and get feedback from them and report it to the players (voters and non-voters alike) for further feedback. What CCP can and should do is exactly what they done with this nano-nerf blog. Change the mechanics of the game without intervention or oversight from the CSM. It's their game after all, we have the final say in whether we play or not. Thankfully more so in most games, the devs are open to suggestions, opinions and on these forums at least whinage and abuse. I've seen many changes over the years. The one that really sticks in my mind was logging in one sunny afternoon to find the skill requirements for Miner 2' were changed and I didn't have a clue about it. Since then, I've kept up with the patch notes and the dev blogs. In fact when I have better hardware, I'll take a visit to the Test Server. You chose your own level of involvement, the CSM and the voters have chosen to put forward ideas, suggestions, comments and questions to the higher ups at CCP in a scheduled format. Did I think CCP wouldn't keep changing the game without our input? Thankfully I'm not that ni-eve. Life is about memories the more the better. http://lifeisexperience.freeforums.org (because it's a small corp)

Schani Kratnorr x13	Posted - 2008.07.30 14:47:00 - [81] Who are CSM and why should we care that they are impotent? Also - Viagra


Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one 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.