EVE Search - CSM - Time to clean out the stink

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

CSM - Time to clean out the stink

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Le Skunk Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2008.08.03 20:47:00 - [31] 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
Zeba Minmatar Pator Tech School	Posted - 2008.08.03 20:47:00 - [32] Originally by: Tzar'rim If you would have read it, the consensus was that since it is still in the testing stages and NOT on TQ it's not something the CSM can comment on. All they can do is bring it to the attention of CCP that people are worried (doh) but without (f)actual changes they can not do anything at this point. Remember, the CSM doesn't change things, all they can do is raise issues. Since it's not on TQ yet it can not be an issue. lol no? It on sisi right now with the intention of getting extended player feedback so they can tweak it out into something that can be released on TQ. If gathering that playerfeed back and condensing it into something that can be passed on to CCP is not what the CSM is suppost to do then wtf are they supposed to do? inappropriate signature. ~WeatherMan
McDonALTs	Posted - 2008.08.03 20:48:00 - [33] Edited by: McDonALTs on 03/08/2008 20:49:12 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. Despite being the chairman of the CSM, you still have not got a clue about what it is meant to do. You do not exist to design the game. CCP disign the game and they can see thousands of players leave because pvp went to shit due to nano. The same nano that meant ships could outrun their own missiles that they fired. You do not exist to tell them, The Ceaser that is CCP, how high they should jump. You exist to tell them that aquducts are leaking or that the gardens need improvement, or to advise on things that CCP's bloated structure would not know about (e.g how 0.0 pvp is fought etc). Its CCP's game and CSM has no power other than to sort out the dirt for CCP. Sometimes the dirt has a nugget of gold that CCP can look at. That is the Job of the CSM, since the CMS are not the balance team. The CSM are just the dirt sorters and dealers of petty issues. CSM do not look at hard data. They look at subjective data. That is why the balance team will balance baised upon hard facts insted of whatever flavor of the month that you guys get stuck upon.
Jimer Lins Gallente Federation Fleet New Eden Research	Posted - 2008.08.03 20:49:00 - [34] Consider also that the CSM delegates are aware of the fact (or I sure hope they are) that in general people aren't going to spend a Sunday afternoon defending something that's already seen as a fait accompli. When you have participatory systems like this, only those who are worked up enough about an issue are going to participate. That means that most of the people who support speed changes aren't going to show, simply because CCP's already said they're doing it, and it's obviously been in the works for some time, and because they agree with it. The vocal minority shouting down any changes to their favorite game mechanic should be listend to, but not allowed to dominate, the discussion.
Furb Killer Gallente The first genesis Veritas Immortalis	Posted - 2008.08.03 20:50:00 - [35] Nanos killed non nano small gang/solo combat Apparently many CSM members agree in general with the nano nerfs (yes there need to be some boosts to minnie ships to compensate). Just because the assembly hall is filled with alts posting doesnt mean that csm should agree with them. Especially considering all the strange statements that are being made by the nano'ers. (when will they learn that hit and run guerilla tactic is not the same as orbitting your enemy?)
Tzar'rim Minmatar	Posted - 2008.08.03 20:54:00 - [36] Originally by: Jade Constantine Originally by: Tzar'rim If you would have read it, the consensus was that since it is still in the testing stages and NOT on TQ it's not something the CSM can comment on. All they can do is bring it to the attention of CCP that people are worried (doh) but without (f)actual changes they can not do anything at this point. Remember, the CSM doesn't change things, all they can do is raise issues. Since it's not on TQ yet it can not be an issue. I really don't buy that. You can test the changes on SISI and see the way the wind is blowing. We need large scale testing of this stuff to ensure it doesn't get rolled out to the live server in a form that right royally screws small unit combat and roving playstyle. Only way to do that is get players energized to test test test and I really don't see any reason why the CSM couldn't advise that. 2008.08.03 16:20:46 ] Darius JOHNSON > To be frank I have no idea why we're wasting our time discussing htis. There's nothing even on test so I can't have an opinion about what doesn't exist. 2008.08.03 16:21:18 ] Darius JOHNSON > When I know what the changes to be implemented REALLY are I can discuss it as an issue 2008.08.03 16:21:27 ] Darius JOHNSON > Yes but test is subject to change [ 2008.08.03 16:21:42 ] Darius JOHNSON > This is a phenonmenal waste of time. 2008.08.03 16:22:13 ] Omber Zombie > everything being put forward by ccp has already been marked as "subject to player input', so until a final version of teh changes are ready, the topic isn't really something we should be discussing [ 2008.08.03 16:22:27 ] Bane Glorious > i agree with that, for the most part 2008.08.03 16:23:34 ] Inanna Zuni > I tend to agree with Darius; just because some idea is being tested on SiSi doesn't mean it will make the final cut. Whilst some of the devblog ideas will no douibt migrate to TQ I am sure the feedback will result in not all of them doing so, but [ 2008.08.03 16:23:45 ] Inanna Zuni > until we know which ones we can't really speak to the issue. 2008.08.03 16:31:16 ] Jade Constantine > but I do take the points raised by the CSM here [ 2008.08.03 16:31:21 ] Jade Constantine > this is a patch in testing 2008.08.03 16:37:02 ] Tusko Hopkins > I think it is way too early to handle this problem. Everyone who is whining or waving is trying to protect his own playstyle and is not considering the big picture. 2008.08.03 16:37:44 ] Tusko Hopkins > As for me, I would wait and see how it all turns out in the end. And rediscuss it in 3 months time or so when its already rolled out. 2008.08.03 16:40:15 ] Jade Constantine > itÆs the CSMÆs position that the best answer to the anti-speed-nerf ISSUE at this time is that people feeling strongly against this balancing patch should make time to test it on SISI and form realistic combat situations and provided detailed feedback 2008.08.03 16:42:54 ] Inanna Zuni > point of information - the only thing as CSM we can do is write that we widsh to bring something to the Dev's attention. This already has their attention as it is pre-live. As such we can comment but not vote (imho) 2008.08.03 16:45:40 ] Jade Constantine > okay its 4/4 and decision is that CSM will say nothing on the issue I'd say that can be seen as "the CSM feels it's not the time to act since there's nothing official yet" Perhaps I'm blind or something?
Ankhesentapemkah	Posted - 2008.08.03 20:55:00 - [37] I think some CSM members are walking away from their responsibilities if they refuse to take part in the development process and the critical communication between the players and the developers during this phase, and instead prefer to wait till the changes hit and THEN go cry about it. The CSM was formed to get player input to the developers to help them, well, develop. If these CSMs are deaf to the current TOP ISSUE amongst the players, do not want to hop to sisi to see what the changes are all about, and do not want to relay the concerns to the developers, then I think they are in the wrong place. Simple as that. You can't have all play and no work. Right after the vote I called them slackers, and I'm not going to take back that comment. Oh and here is how the individual votes went: Jade Constantine: For Bane Glorious: Against Omber Zombie: For Darius JOHNSON: Against Ankhesentapemkah: For Tusko Hopkins: Against Inanna Zuni: Against Ben Derindar: For However, do not panic, you will be heard. We might not directly discuss this issue with CCP, but I've just had a word with Jade Constantine, and we're going to WORK on this together and report our findings and concerns to CCP in our own document. Sometimes the CSM might not work, but there's always an individual CSM that's there for you! If you would like to assist with our tests or have constructive comments in general, please, contact us. We will announce the details in the near future and set up a topic in the CSM section of the forum where you can leave feedback, expect that up tomorrow, I'll link to it from this post when we're done. --- Thanks for all that supported me. Let me know if there's anything I can do for you.
Jimer Lins Gallente Federation Fleet New Eden Research	Posted - 2008.08.03 20:56:00 - [38] I'm curious, though. If you could say what you wanted and have the CSM escalate it to CCP with their imprimatur, what would you say? Don't make any changes? Make some changes? Don't make the changes as they exist now? The first is right out, there's no way they're not going to, and nothing the CSM says or does is going to affect that. The CSM doesn't have control over such things and while it might be gratifying for some to carp in a more official capacity than on the forums, it's basically wasting bandwidth to bring it to CCP. The second and third- well, that's what they're doing, you can engage on that by going to sisi and trying them out and providing feedback.
Tzar'rim Minmatar	Posted - 2008.08.03 21:01:00 - [39] I welcome the changes, for now. Have them come through and see how we all react to it, what new problems/tactics arise, only then can you have an educated opinion wether the changes are good or not. Changes will be happening, no amount of whining can stop that. Lets see what CCP comes up with and how it pans out.
Mr Friendly	Posted - 2008.08.03 21:03:00 - [40] Oh look... Skunk is stinking up the place again with another "I hate everything about Eve, the devs, the forums, the CSM, oxygen, the Sun, the Universe, my own existance, other possible existences, physically impossible realities et al" whine thread. Surprise surprise. I'm left wondering why you pay for a game you so clearly loathe.

Jim Raynor Caldari Shinra	Posted - 2008.08.03 21:04:00 - [41] Originally by: Le Skunk 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 hilarious. ------ I'll make a sig later.
McDonALTs	Posted - 2008.08.03 21:04:00 - [42] Edited by: McDonALTs on 03/08/2008 21:05:16 Originally by: Ankhesentapemkah If you would like to assist with our tests or have constructive comments in general, please, contact us. We will announce the details in the near future and set up a topic in the CSM section of the forum where you can leave feedback, expect that up tomorrow, I'll link to it from this post when we're done. CCP's idea removed the MWD as 100% needed for pvp, which is good. CCP idea is Rock paper Scissors (MWD > Ab > Scram > MWD). If your idea can give AB's a chance, prevent people from MWDing back to gate by the time you lock them as well as force the attackers to commit to a engagement, then I would love to hear it. because nanos destroyed game balance to such a degree, that you needed a nanoship to counter a nanoship!
Gnulpie Minmatar Miner Tech	Posted - 2008.08.03 21:05:00 - [43] Quote: [ 2008.08.03 16:42:54 ] Inanna Zuni > point of information - the only thing as CSM we can do is write that we wish to bring something to the Dev's attention. This already has their attention as it is pre-live. As such we can comment but not vote (imho) That is some reasonable approach. I mean ... come on guys. Do you really believe that CCP doesn't know that there are players out there who are mighty **** off at the changes? Do you really think they didn't notice the 100+ pages replies of the devblog? The immense posts on the forums everywhere about the changes? What they heck should a simple notification from the CSM help there?! If the CSM can do something, then they can go and gather all the various reports from players on the development forums and condense them into a overview chart. Maybe going through all the ships and just REPORTING what the players are thinking. I think such an approach would help CCP and the playerbase. But just a notification that players are upset about the changes? LOL - CCP knows that already. So what use would it be?
Zeba Minmatar Pator Tech School	Posted - 2008.08.03 21:05:00 - [44] Originally by: Jimer Lins I'm curious, though. If you could say what you wanted and have the CSM escalate it to CCP with their imprimatur, what would you say? I'd have them look at interceptors. If they try to perform thier role with the new speed mechanics they die. Not gradualy take damage so they eventualy have to fly/warp away but get wtfpnd. inappropriate signature. ~WeatherMan
Jimer Lins Gallente Federation Fleet New Eden Research	Posted - 2008.08.03 21:06:00 - [45] Originally by: Tzar'rim I welcome the changes, for now. Have them come through and see how we all react to it, what new problems/tactics arise, only then can you have an educated opinion wether the changes are good or not. Changes will be happening, no amount of whining can stop that. Lets see what CCP comes up with and how it pans out. I think the CSM can help distill player feedback on current and upcoming changes, certainly. But that's not the same as boiling things down to an up/down vote on it. CCP is well aware of the fact that some players don't like the impending changes, certainly. ;) But very few reasonable people would assert that the current situation is working as intended.
Ankhesentapemkah	Posted - 2008.08.03 21:09:00 - [46] Originally by: Jimer Lins I'm curious, though. If you could say what you wanted and have the CSM escalate it to CCP with their imprimatur, what would you say? Don't make any changes? Make some changes? Don't make the changes as they exist now? The first is right out, there's no way they're not going to, and nothing the CSM says or does is going to affect that. The CSM doesn't have control over such things and while it might be gratifying for some to carp in a more official capacity than on the forums, it's basically wasting bandwidth to bring it to CCP. The second and third- well, that's what they're doing, you can engage on that by going to sisi and trying them out and providing feedback. I am neutral on the matter, however, I support a good testrun and discussion on this. There simply are concerns that cannot be ignored, founded or unfounded. What about the impact on 0.0 warfare? What about close range turret ships and the webifier nerf? And the age old turret vs missile damage debate, of course. These are questions that the CSM should be aware of, and that's why I'm going to hop onto sisi and communicate with the players to get some answers. So is Jade. And I believe this is the duty of everyone that signed up to be CSM, they should not run away from a discussion when things get difficult, yet come up with trivial gimmick issues instead! --- Thanks for all that supported me. Let me know if there's anything I can do for you.
Richard Angevian The Crusaders.	Posted - 2008.08.03 21:09:00 - [47] The CSM fails it's first test of relevance without even firing a shot.
Esmenet Gallente	Posted - 2008.08.03 21:12:00 - [48] Originally by: Ankhesentapemkah Originally by: Jimer Lins I'm curious, though. If you could say what you wanted and have the CSM escalate it to CCP with their imprimatur, what would you say? Don't make any changes? Make some changes? Don't make the changes as they exist now? The first is right out, there's no way they're not going to, and nothing the CSM says or does is going to affect that. The CSM doesn't have control over such things and while it might be gratifying for some to carp in a more official capacity than on the forums, it's basically wasting bandwidth to bring it to CCP. The second and third- well, that's what they're doing, you can engage on that by going to sisi and trying them out and providing feedback. I am neutral on the matter, however, I support a good testrun and discussion on this. There simply are concerns that cannot be ignored, founded or unfounded. What about the impact on 0.0 warfare? What about close range turret ships and the webifier nerf? And the age old turret vs missile damage debate, of course. These are questions that the CSM should be aware of, and that's why I'm going to hop onto sisi and communicate with the players to get some answers. So is Jade. And I believe this is the duty of everyone that signed up to be CSM, they should not run away from a discussion when things get difficult, yet come up with trivial gimmick issues instead! Honestly with your nonexisting experience in 0.0 and pvp i'm not exactly reassured by hearing that you will "investigate". Vote against the nano nerf!
Tzar'rim Minmatar	Posted - 2008.08.03 21:12:00 - [49] Edited by: Tzar''rim on 03/08/2008 21:13:22 As I see it, there's nothing the CSM can do, add or change in this situation. Not until the actual changes have gone live and we/the CSM have had the opportunity to construct factual reasoning for or against it. As stated; CCP know already a prtion of the playerbase is kinda miffed, they don't need a note from the CSM for that.
Lolarina	Posted - 2008.08.03 21:14:00 - [50] nice troll skunk hi-5

Ankhesentapemkah	Posted - 2008.08.03 21:16:00 - [51] Originally by: Esmenet Honestly with your nonexisting experience in 0.0 and pvp i'm not exactly reassured by hearing that you will "investigate". If you think you can do better, you're hereby invited to assist. --- Thanks for all that supported me. Let me know if there's anything I can do for you.
Zephyr Rengate dearg doom	Posted - 2008.08.03 21:16:00 - [52] Originally by: Lolarina nice troll skunk hi-5 Do you really think hes trolling?
Jimer Lins Gallente Federation Fleet New Eden Research	Posted - 2008.08.03 21:18:00 - [53] Originally by: Ankhesentapemkah Originally by: Jimer Lins I'm curious, though. If you could say what you wanted and have the CSM escalate it to CCP with their imprimatur, what would you say? Don't make any changes? Make some changes? Don't make the changes as they exist now? The first is right out, there's no way they're not going to, and nothing the CSM says or does is going to affect that. The CSM doesn't have control over such things and while it might be gratifying for some to carp in a more official capacity than on the forums, it's basically wasting bandwidth to bring it to CCP. The second and third- well, that's what they're doing, you can engage on that by going to sisi and trying them out and providing feedback. I am neutral on the matter, however, I support a good testrun and discussion on this. There simply are concerns that cannot be ignored, founded or unfounded. What about the impact on 0.0 warfare? What about close range turret ships and the webifier nerf? And the age old turret vs missile damage debate, of course. These are questions that the CSM should be aware of, and that's why I'm going to hop onto sisi and communicate with the players to get some answers. So is Jade. And I believe this is the duty of everyone that signed up to be CSM, they should not run away from a discussion when things get difficult, yet come up with trivial gimmick issues instead! I agree with you on the approach of getting on Sisi and gathering information. The thing is that many seem to feel that the CSM should have made a statement of some sort. This is not the sort of thing that you can boil down to a simple sentence that you send to CCP in a report. The problem is complex and should bear some more examination in Sisi and forum discussions. The "trivial gimmick issues" thing is kind of silly. I mean, you've got an agenda, and some items are going to be less important in the overall scheme of things than others, but still. It's fluff, deal with it and move on; you're a politician and you've gotta deal with stupid shit as well as the real meat. The problem is really that people are saying the CSM failed because they didn't send a concise statement of some kind to CCP on the upcoming speed changes when you can't even get any 3 people to agree on a given aspect of those changes? How can the CSM be expected to make a statement on anything when there's no consensus among the players, no confirmation on what the final changes are, and active development being done on it even as we speak?
Richard Angevian The Crusaders.	Posted - 2008.08.03 21:19:00 - [54] Originally by: Tzar'rim Edited by: Tzar''rim on 03/08/2008 21:13:22 As I see it, there's nothing the CSM can do, add or change in this situation. Not until the actual changes have gone live and we/the CSM have had the opportunity to construct factual reasoning for or against it. As stated; CCP know already a prtion of the playerbase is kinda miffed, they don't need a note from the CSM for that. Ignoring your players and getting them riled up and ****ed at you then shoving change they don't want down their throats is not a good thing either. See: Star Wars Galaxies and the Combat Downgrade, and the New Gawdawful Experience for what doing that gets you (90% less subscribers).
Jimer Lins Gallente Federation Fleet New Eden Research	Posted - 2008.08.03 21:23:00 - [55] Originally by: Richard Angevian Originally by: Tzar'rim Edited by: Tzar''rim on 03/08/2008 21:13:22 As I see it, there's nothing the CSM can do, add or change in this situation. Not until the actual changes have gone live and we/the CSM have had the opportunity to construct factual reasoning for or against it. As stated; CCP know already a prtion of the playerbase is kinda miffed, they don't need a note from the CSM for that. Ignoring your players and getting them riled up and ****ed at you then shoving change they don't want down their throats is not a good thing either. See: Star Wars Galaxies and the Combat Downgrade, and the New Gawdawful Experience for what doing that gets you (90% less subscribers). NGE? you can't be serious. I played SWG when the CU and NGE were released, and this doesn't even begin to compare. As I've said in the past, most reasonable people would agree there's a problem with speed that needs addressing. How far those changes go is still unknown, but it's a necessary change. If 0.0 were removed and made highsec- that would be comparable to the NGE. This is nothing.
Vaal Erit Science and Trade Institute	Posted - 2008.08.03 21:28:00 - [56] Bleh, it is no fun when Jade admits to the CSM messing up Anyways, the CSM is for bringing up issues that are either very important or smaller issues that annoys players but CCP never hears about. I think CCP would have to be living under a rock to not notice player feedback on the speed issue. In fact, on the first days of testing, the devs read the feedback thread and were on sisi and told people where to give feedback. So the CSM have no job to do, CCP is already working on the speed issue, there is literally nothing for the CSM to do and it is a waste of time. I mean what do you want the CSM to do, tell the devs, "Hey this speed thing is an issue, some people are not happy". Well no SHIT SHERLOCK. -- http://desusig.crumplecorn.com/sigs.html
Ruze Amarr No Applicable Corporation	Posted - 2008.08.03 21:30:00 - [57] I notice a few VERY loud voices, making endless threads and rants, but otherwise, I've seen a lot of posts saying 'changes need to happen, but not so much or so drastic.' Every change you make will **** off someone. If you aren't willing to make someone upset, you shouldn't even get out of bed in the morning ;?j "The greatest offense is no defense."
Ruze Amarr No Applicable Corporation	Posted - 2008.08.03 21:31:00 - [58] Comparing this 'fix' to the NGE shows how ignorant a person you really are. "The greatest offense is no defense."
Reptzo Channel 4 News Team	Posted - 2008.08.03 21:31:00 - [59] Originally by: Jimer Lins NGE? you can't be serious. I played SWG when the CU and NGE were released, and this doesn't even begin to compare. As I've said in the past, most reasonable people would agree there's a problem with speed that needs addressing. How far those changes go is still unknown, but it's a necessary change. If 0.0 were removed and made highsec- that would be comparable to the NGE. This is nothing. I have to agree with this man. The changes are not really that big. The missile change was bigger than this, that was a total change in gameplay, for every single combat player (PvP and PvE). And low and behold, there are still people playing EVE. Really I don't understand why all the complainers think that CCP will care at all what 1% of their players think about the game. 2500 vocal people think this is a bad idea, you are 1% of the player base. You think a company is going to let they product die (they think it needs changing) because 1% of their income thinks it should stay as-is? I am not saying they won't listen and take your opinions under advisement, but lets think about it. The missiles nerf was HUGE, it was a total change of gameplay. And it happened anyway, despite any complants. (and I am talking about the missile change 3 years ago, where all the extra skills got added, not the torp rng nerf)
Kazuo Ishiguro House of Marbles Zzz	Posted - 2008.08.03 21:35:00 - [60] What's the problem with the CSM making a statement along the lines of: 'x% of people are highly upset for these reasons, y% are in favour for these other reasons, and z% don't care?' There's considerable disagreement outside the CSM as to what should happen regarding speed, so it's only natural that we should see disagreement within it as well. Also, as an accomplished amateur trombonist (at least, that's what we call ourselves in England), I approve of the other submission Zzz research towers Direrie NEW: Liekuri 20:1 low-end compression



Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 :: 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.