|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Le Skunk
Low Sec Liberators
   |
Posted - 2008.08.03 20:14:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Le Skunk on 03/08/2008 20:16:32
Edited by: Le Skunk on 03/08/2008 20:15:46
1. The "nano-nerf" implications as per dev blog - Popular Issue
CSM voted 4-4 not to escalate or make any kind of collective statement on the current speed patch on SISI.
2. Musical Instruments in Ambulation - Bane
CSM voted to escalate this proposal.
 So we get "musical instruments" put forward, and not the biggest protest the CSM has seen (nano objection)
YOU COULDNT MAKE IT UP!
Musical instruments? What is this shit! Can you have blue aliens with big noses playing the saxaphone please!
Resign all of you! - your stinking up the place
SKUNK
|
Le Skunk
Low Sec Liberators
|
Posted - 2008.08.03 20:21:00 -
[2]
 Originally by: Dirk Magnum
Edited by: Dirk Magnum on 03/08/2008 20:18:30
Maybe the fact that more people support instruments in ambulation than don't support the nano change is saying something about the nano change....
WRONG
Player supports for in game trombones : 36
Player supports for an expression of severe malcontent by the CSM to CCP: 1248
SKUNK
|
Le Skunk
Low Sec Liberators
|
Posted - 2008.08.03 20:26:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Jimer Lins
Originally by: Le Skunk
Originally by: Dirk Magnum
Edited by: Dirk Magnum on 03/08/2008 20:18:30
Maybe the fact that more people support instruments in ambulation than don't support the nano change is saying something about the nano change....
WRONG
Player supports for in game trombones : 36
Player supports for an expression of severe malcontent by the CSM to CCP: 1248
SKUNK
And Player support for NOT putting forth an expression of "severe malcontent"?
590. So under half and therefore irrelevant.
SKUNK
|
Le Skunk
Low Sec Liberators
|
Posted - 2008.08.03 20:29:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
Originally by: Le Skunk
Originally by: Dirk Magnum
Edited by: Dirk Magnum on 03/08/2008 20:18:30
Maybe the fact that more people support instruments in ambulation than don't support the nano change is saying something about the nano change....
WRONG
Player supports for in game trombones : 36
Player supports for an expression of severe malcontent by the CSM to CCP: 1248
SKUNK
It is a bit pathetic. Especially since we specifically agreed in the CSM we'd let the big issues from the assembly hall make the agenda. For the CSM to be relevant to the players it needs to look out for the interests of players and I have to say a big sorry to everyone who expected something better of us on the speed-issue. Its very disappointing to me personally to have us ducking out on a huge issue like the speed changes and sovereignty and generally only being able to escalate little things like instruments and fixes. All I can personally promise is that I'll be on the test server this week and I'd advise as many people who care about the speed issue to do the same and lets look at sending in some detailed feedback documentation to CCP on the issue. Even if the CSM as a body isn't interested in this stuff I'll undertake to send this stuff personally and try my best to get the issue heard somehow.
I think the CSM had a damn good opportuinity to prove its worth on this issue. Even if CCP ingnored you (which they no doubt would have done) you had an opportunity to express the obvious disquiet felt by large sections of the eve playing community.
By NOT expressing it, CCP will now have carte blacnhe to do what they want, and if criticised, will simply say
"Well the CSM didnt mention it. And they are your go between. "
SKUNK
|
Le Skunk
Low Sec Liberators
|
Posted - 2008.08.03 20:30:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Dirk Magnum
Edited by: Dirk Magnum on 03/08/2008 20:27:41
Originally by: Le Skunk
Player supports for in game trombones : 36
True fact: I was a tromboner from fifth through twelfth grade.
Other true fact: nano mechanics needed a change
Therefore: internet trombones > nanoships
Sorry you are in the minority with this opinion. And its a democraticaly elected CSM. So im afraid you must pipe down.
SKUNK
|
Le Skunk
Low Sec Liberators
|
Posted - 2008.08.03 20:37:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
I agree with you. We failed mightily and if anbody wants to call me a useless so and so on this issue go ahead, failing to get a CSM statement on this speed nerf I kinda feel like one 
Stop doing that your making me feel guilty!
SKUNK
|
Le Skunk
Low Sec Liberators
|
Posted - 2008.08.03 20:46:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Dirk Magnum
The fact that CCP didn't want ultra high speed should have been obvious when they nerfed the use of multiple MWD's. I hadn't even heard of this game when they did that, so there's a long-established precedent for speed limits.
I will rephrase then: Arguments for and against the nerf are irrelevant in this thread.
What is relevant - and undeniable
1Their is clear support for the "anti nerf" movement in the assembly forums.
2The assembly forum are designed to allow the player base to express concern/support/ideas to the CSM
3The CSM is designed to pass on these concerns/support/ideas to ccp.
This has not happened, in the most supported issue in the game. Instead, we have utterly peabrained (and it should be noted majorly self proposed by members of the council) issues put forward.
SKUNK
|
Le Skunk
Low Sec Liberators
|
Posted - 2008.08.03 20:47:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Danton Marcellus
However else would we be able to play the miniature violin?
Thats the funniest thing ive read of the forum for weeks :)))
SKUNK
|
|
|
| |
|