EVE Search - CSM - Our Interests or Personal Interests?

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

CSM - Our Interests or Personal Interests?

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Neesa Corrinne Einherjar Rising	Posted - 2008.08.02 15:47:00 - [1] From the minutes of one of the CSM meetings: Quote: Rebalance Capital Ships Currently, a lot of players hold the opinion that Minmatar capital ships in particular are weaker compared to the capital ships of the other factions. The issue was voted as follows: Ankhesentapemkah - Aye Bane Glorious - Aye Dierdra Vaal - Aye Hardin - Nay Inanna Zuni - Aye Jade Constantine - Aye LaVista Vista - Aye Serenity Steele - Nay Tusko Hopkins - Aye This issue was passed. Overall Hardin didn't manage to effect the outcome of this vote, but the very fact that he voted against a buff for Minmatar Carriers speaks volumes to the fact that he is a die-hard CVA loyalist. Anyone who has actually seen parsed data regarding all of the capital ships in the game knows without a doubt that the overall weakest capital ship are the Minmatar Carriers. I feared that personal and Alliance politics would drown out objectivity and unless Hardin actually believes that Minmatar carriers don't need any changes, then I was proven correct. I rue the day that any change that would negatively effect Goonswarm were to come to a vote. I think we can see where objectivity would go on that one given that CCP doesn't limit the amount of sitting CSM members per alliance. I'm apologize if I'm late with this insight, but the war in Iraq has kept me knee deep in RL for the past two months thanks to my profession.
Dirk Magnum Spearhead Endeavors	Posted - 2008.08.02 15:50:00 - [2] Next time around I hope they only allow a maximum of one person from any given alliance on the CSM. Goonswarm may be the largest alliance but it's still only a fragment of the total Eve playerbase. As for one person voting that Minmatar caps are weaker, I wouldn't read too much into it.
Ruze Amarr No Applicable Corporation	Posted - 2008.08.02 15:54:00 - [3] Does it say he's anti-Minmatar, or that he has fought pilots who use the Minmatar ships well and don't see why they are so maligned? Not that you can expect real objectivity from any player. We don't play this game to lose. It's like expecting a politician to keep his religion out of his work. If he's really religious and not just pretending, it is simply impossible. But there are multiple arguments your trying to make. One quote, about 'anyone who has actually seen' is a gross assumption. The point about GoonSwarm is obvious, and though I know very little about them, even I am disturbed by their possible influence, due to their actions in the forums and various encounters in high-sec. Our best bet is that the CSM's suggestions are kept as that ... suggestions, from players, many of which part of large alliances with their own agendas. Even if these players do their finest to keep an objective outlook, they would be hardpressed to recognize unconscious leanings towards one argument or another. Let's face it, most people aren't very self aware. Then again, CCP have been playing this game for years. How many of their decisions have seen some of these same hidden influences? "The greatest offense is no defense."
Frug Repo Industries R.E.P.O.	Posted - 2008.08.02 15:59:00 - [4] Might have something to do with the fact that their mandate is or shouldn't really have anything to do with voting directly on specific balance changes. - - - - - - - - - Do not use dotted lines - - - - - - - If you think I'm awesome, say BOOO BOOO!! - Ductoris Neat look what I found - Kreul Hey, my marbles
Neesa Corrinne Einherjar Rising	Posted - 2008.08.02 16:00:00 - [5] Originally by: Dirk Magnum Next time around I hope they only allow a maximum of one person from any given alliance on the CSM. Goonswarm may be the largest alliance but it's still only a fragment of the total Eve playerbase. As for one person voting that Minmatar caps are weaker, I wouldn't read too much into it. It's not that one person voted that they are weaker. I can understand that and deal with it. But having an overwhelming majority vote that yes they are weaker, while the Amarr sympathizing, and sometimes CVA member, votes that Minmatar carriers are just fine despite known recorded data to the contrary.... that's where I have a problem.
Abrazzar	Posted - 2008.08.02 16:01:00 - [6] It's all a conspiracy I say! -------- Ideas for: Mining Ships
Jade Constantine	Posted - 2008.08.02 16:02:00 - [7] Edited by: Jade Constantine on 02/08/2008 16:02:39 Sunday's meeting will be very interesting. Issue 1. "the nano nerf" will be sure to be exciting. Issue 3. "sovereignty revamp" will probably be opposed by people with power in 0.0 since it will make defending more difficult whilst making the game immeasurably better for a raiding/aggressive warfare style. Issue 5. "covert cynos immune to jammers" will be vital post nano nerf to provide more options for getting past the hugely buffed 0.0 bubble camps. Issue 6. "turn titans to mobile stations" would radically change the balance of power in 0.0 alliance wars at the moment. Issue 10. "carrier combat roles" could always massively change the balance of power and impact large capital fleet using alliances. I'm anticipating some pretty robust discussions here and if you are in contact with your favourite CSM delegates its probably high time to let them know how you think about these things. Sunday August 3rd Meeting 16:00 hours 1. The "nano-nerf" implications as per dev blog - Popular Issue 2. Musical Instruments in Ambulation - Bane 3. Specific Proposal for 0.0 Sovereignty Revamp - Jade 4. Remove Ship Maintenance Bay Restriction - Inanna 5. Covert Cyno Fields should ignore Cyno Jammers - Jade/Tusko 6. Turn Titans into Mobile Stations - Bane 7. Remote rep criminal flagging is broken - Jade 8. Autopilot Options in FW - Avoid enemy Sov - Inanna 9. Covert Jump bridge activation range (too short) - Jade 10. Changing Carriers Combat Roles - Bane 11. Prime fiction for the 3rd bloodline (more needed) - Jade 12. MOTD for Fleet/Gang window - Jade 13. UI issues, More UI issues, And yet more UI issues - Inanna Star Fraction \| Dare to Dream!
Neesa Corrinne Einherjar Rising	Posted - 2008.08.02 16:15:00 - [8] Originally by: Jade Constantine Issue 3. "sovereignty revamp" will probably be opposed by people with power in 0.0 since it will make defending more difficult whilst making the game immeasurably better for a raiding/aggressive warfare style. Case in point. After reading the proposed changes to sovereignty, which I actually happen to agree with, I would be shocked to my core if any member of the CSM delegates who hold large portions of 0.0 space were to vote in favor of this proposal. In fact I would be willing to predict that both of the Goonswarm delegates and the CVA delegate (who is currently masked behind a different affiliation) will vote against this measure.
Jade Constantine	Posted - 2008.08.02 16:24:00 - [9] Originally by: Neesa Corrinne Originally by: Jade Constantine Issue 3. "sovereignty revamp" will probably be opposed by people with power in 0.0 since it will make defending more difficult whilst making the game immeasurably better for a raiding/aggressive warfare style. Case in point. After reading the proposed changes to sovereignty, which I actually happen to agree with, I would be shocked to my core if any member of the CSM delegates who hold large portions of 0.0 space were to vote in favor of this proposal. In fact I would be willing to predict that both of the Goonswarm delegates and the CVA delegate (who is currently masked behind a different affiliation) will vote against this measure. Its a real challenge to the CSM actually. We've been asked specifically to look at changes to the sovereignty mechanic and present some real proposals as to how to achieve this. Kelsin's thread is in my opinion a VERY good approach to the problem, it provides a way of splitting up blobs, making sovereignty contest a thing that involves three separate layers of attack/defense / resolves the problems with cyno jammers/jump bridges at deathstar POS and generally does exactly what we've been asked to advise by the Dev team. But I do worry that any sovereignty change issue that goes up could run into the problem of existing interests from 0.0 powers. Lets be honest about it - Kelsin's change if implemented would make it harder for 0.0 powers to defend their territory. It would mean that 0.0 powers would have to patrol gates and fixed non pos installations. It would remove afk no-risk gameplay from 0.0 territories. Small unit pvpers, aggressive alliances and those who genuinely want to see blobs broken up would love it. Defensive alliances with extensive holdings and a risk-averse approach to gameplay in 0.0 will hate it. But thats eve really. And do we always listen to the people with an currently overpowered ship/situation in game trying to defend that position? Still, we're raising the proposal on sunday and I'm keeping my fingers crossed that we can get the Issue through the council because I honestly believe we will be failing a lot of people in Eve online involved with (or who want to be involved with) territorial 0.0 warfare if the CSM decides to veto this kind of issue and prevent it reaching the eyes and attention of the developers in charge of improving and fixing the current broken state of 0.0 warfare. Like I said, fingers crossed. Star Fraction \| Dare to Dream!
Simetriz	Posted - 2008.08.02 16:37:00 - [10] I guess the fact Serenity Steele also voted no doesn't mean anything. Is it more that you don't like Hardin personally or perhaps it is just CVA. Coincidence does NOT make a Conspiracy.
RogueWing Evolution Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.08.02 16:41:00 - [11] Anyone who believes the CMS has any power at all to affect the direction of the game is smoking really good stuff.... We don't want your region....we just want to smash all your stuff....
Jim McGregor	Posted - 2008.08.02 16:43:00 - [12] Edited by: Jim McGregor on 02/08/2008 16:45:01 Originally by: Jade Constantine 1. The "nano-nerf" implications as per dev blog - Popular Issue 2. Musical Instruments in Ambulation - Bane 3. Specific Proposal for 0.0 Sovereignty Revamp - Jade 4. Remove Ship Maintenance Bay Restriction - Inanna 5. Covert Cyno Fields should ignore Cyno Jammers - Jade/Tusko 6. Turn Titans into Mobile Stations - Bane 7. Remote rep criminal flagging is broken - Jade 8. Autopilot Options in FW - Avoid enemy Sov - Inanna 9. Covert Jump bridge activation range (too short) - Jade 10. Changing Carriers Combat Roles - Bane 11. Prime fiction for the 3rd bloodline (more needed) - Jade 12. MOTD for Fleet/Gang window - Jade 13. UI issues, More UI issues, And yet more UI issues - Inanna Lots of 0.0 stuff on that list, so I guess I will look forward to point 12-13 anyway. By the way Jade, judging from that list, looks like you are 50% of the CSM... --- Originally by: Roguehalo Can you nano Titans?
Jade Constantine	Posted - 2008.08.02 16:50:00 - [13] Originally by: Jim McGregor Edited by: Jim McGregor on 02/08/2008 16:45:01 Originally by: Jade Constantine 1. The "nano-nerf" implications as per dev blog - Popular Issue 2. Musical Instruments in Ambulation - Bane 3. Specific Proposal for 0.0 Sovereignty Revamp - Jade 4. Remove Ship Maintenance Bay Restriction - Inanna 5. Covert Cyno Fields should ignore Cyno Jammers - Jade/Tusko 6. Turn Titans into Mobile Stations - Bane 7. Remote rep criminal flagging is broken - Jade 8. Autopilot Options in FW - Avoid enemy Sov - Inanna 9. Covert Jump bridge activation range (too short) - Jade 10. Changing Carriers Combat Roles - Bane 11. Prime fiction for the 3rd bloodline (more needed) - Jade 12. MOTD for Fleet/Gang window - Jade 13. UI issues, More UI issues, And yet more UI issues - Inanna Lots of 0.0 stuff on that list, so I guess I will look forward to point 12-13 anyway. By the way Jade, judging from that list, looks like you are 50% of the CSM... Bare in mind that the stuff I'm advocating generally comes from other players with whom I just happen to agree. Hell, its shocking just how many goon issues I've advocated in this session - just goes to show that anyone can have a good idea. Star Fraction \| Dare to Dream!
Jade Constantine	Posted - 2008.08.02 16:51:00 - [14] Originally by: RogueWing Anyone who believes the CMS has any power at all to affect the direction of the game is smoking really good stuff.... I'm pretty glad that eve devs haven't turned over game direction to those evil programs. Star Fraction \| Dare to Dream!
Belatu Cadro Minmatar Kinda'Shujaa	Posted - 2008.08.02 18:22:00 - [15] Edited by: Belatu Cadro on 02/08/2008 18:23:29 Originally by: Neesa Corrinne Originally by: Dirk Magnum Next time around I hope they only allow a maximum of one person from any given alliance on the CSM. Goonswarm may be the largest alliance but it's still only a fragment of the total Eve playerbase. As for one person voting that Minmatar caps are weaker, I wouldn't read too much into it. It's not that one person voted that they are weaker. I can understand that and deal with it. But having an overwhelming majority vote that yes they are weaker, while the Amarr sympathizing, and sometimes CVA member, votes that Minmatar carriers are just fine despite known recorded data to the contrary.... that's where I have a problem. Neesa, as in "real life" polotics, the CSM is a representative body, with members representing thier constituants and thier interests, if everyone agreed on everything there would be no need for the CSM. As for Hardin's vote, I'd wager that he's vote is based more on experience than on personal interests, look up my corporations history and you'll understand that I'm in no way defending him, but Hardin has faced together with CVA some of The best pilots that the Minmatar have to offer, including many who would be considered ammong the top carrier pilots of our nation. As such it is no surprise that he considers Minmatar carriers to be as good as any. Having said that, on paper they are indeed sorely in need of a buff, even if not allways in practice.
Theo Samaritan Gallente Aliastra	Posted - 2008.08.02 18:25:00 - [16] Am i the only one who noticed that Hardin was not the only one who voted Nay in that vote, thus the original argument is either flawed, or at the least this is a bad example? This seems like an attack at hardin than anything for me. No I didnt read the replies in this topic. ________________________ Lord WarATron: "To do the Abaddon Hadoken, you need to do the following manover with the joypad. ↓ .... ↓→ .... → + ●
J Kunjeh Gallente	Posted - 2008.08.02 18:26:00 - [17] Originally by: Dirk Magnum Next time around I hope they only allow a maximum of one person from any given alliance on the CSM. I absolutely support that idea. There should not be undue representation from any one alliance or corp. in the CSM.
Ruze Amarr No Applicable Corporation	Posted - 2008.08.02 18:30:00 - [18] Originally by: J Kunjeh Originally by: Dirk Magnum Next time around I hope they only allow a maximum of one person from any given alliance on the CSM. I absolutely support that idea. There should not be undue representation from any one alliance or corp. in the CSM. I support. Or have force players to leave their alliance for the length of their participation as a CSM. But what about those groups who are 'allied' the old way? I mean, not in an alliance together, but share space, ideals, enemies? Do you still consider those overpowered? "The greatest offense is no defense."
Lui Kai Better Than You	Posted - 2008.08.02 19:17:00 - [19] Originally by: Jim McGregor By the way Jade, judging from that list, looks like you are 50% of the CSM... 50% of the noise =! 50% of the content ---------------- Ambulation Answers
J Kunjeh Gallente	Posted - 2008.08.02 19:37:00 - [20] Originally by: Ruze Originally by: J Kunjeh Originally by: Dirk Magnum Next time around I hope they only allow a maximum of one person from any given alliance on the CSM. I absolutely support that idea. There should not be undue representation from any one alliance or corp. in the CSM. I support. Or have force players to leave their alliance for the length of their participation as a CSM. But what about those groups who are 'allied' the old way? I mean, not in an alliance together, but share space, ideals, enemies? Do you still consider those overpowered? Yes, I do, but there's only so much you can do. CCP knows who are in alliances together, they can't possibly know all of the backdoor friendships going on in the game.
Roy Batty68 Caldari Immortal Dead	Posted - 2008.08.02 21:38:00 - [21] Originally by: Jade Constantine 2. Musical Instruments in Ambulation - Bane Are you frikken kidding me? Sig removed, inappropriate content. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Estel Arador Minmatar	Posted - 2008.08.02 22:31:00 - [22] Originally by: Neesa Corrinne Overall Hardin didn't manage to effect the outcome of this vote, but the very fact that he voted against a buff for Minmatar Carriers speaks volumes to the fact that he is a die-hard CVA loyalist. You might've had a point if he was the only one to vote against, however Serenity Steele voted against too. To the best of my knowledge Serenity Steele is not a "die-hard CVA loyalist". Estel Arador corp services (high-sec POS/JCs) just 120M isk!
Hardin	Posted - 2008.08.02 22:47:00 - [23] If I recall correctly on that particular issue was pretty clear cut in terms of the way CSM was going. As I am not at home atm and am at an EVE meet in Austria I am not 100% correct but think I said something along the lines of I am voting against this on #principle# in a jokey RP fashion as it was quite clear that it was passed anyway... If you want to condemn me for being #jokey# or humourous then go right ahead... ----- Alliance Creation/Corp Expansion Services Advert

Pages: [1] :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

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