EVE General Discussion

 
11 Pages123Next pageLast page
 

The CSM – Council of Sov. Management.

First post
Author
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#1 - 2017-04-18 22:10:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Vic Jefferson
Hello!


EvE online is nominally a sandbox game, where many play-styles are possible and players are only really limited by their imagination in how they assemble and use various mechanics and components that make up the sandbox. However, the CSM, or council of stellar management, is supposed to act as a sounding board for developers to get player feedback on various aspects of the game and potential changes. I propose that what we actually have is a council of sov management, not stellar management, as the repeated gaming of the CSM election system ends up disenfranchising most play-styles from having any effective voice, instead resulting in a stacked panel of hand-picked candidates representing established nullsec power-blocs and their interests. Play-styles that do not innately revolve around mass organization are effectively blockaded out of having any feedback, which is dangerous and anathema to a game that is nominally a sandbox, where many styles of play are supposed to be possible.

Many sweeping changes are currently in the development or implementation process. These changes could have broad impacts on the viability of many play-styles, particularly low-sec. Furthermore, the repeated emphasis on revising sov mechanics and sov-null has left many areas untouched for long periods of time, and in dire need of attention. As players are in the process of finding a play-style that suits them, and in turn finding themselves in New Eden, why are they effectively funneled to the only play-style that is actively developed and cared for, i.e. Sov? Surely there are many reasons, but I'd wager the lack of a diverse CSM panel that would be capable of articulating feedback for many types of players and many play-styles, rather than the current monolithic CSM, may have some part in it. EvE and New Eden are special places because you can be anyone you can imagine in this 'game', yet there is effectively a monopoly on player feedback.

EvE players are very resourceful and quickly learn to game most aspects of their virtual universe. Eventually, CCP generally steps in and fixes things which are too easily abused or exploited, once sufficiently raised to their attention. I would propose that it is time to re-examine their voting system used to elect the CSM panel. The Single Transferable Vote system is a great idea on paper, however, attached ( http://i.imgur.com/ukGHHUC.png )are graphs of some of the vote distributions of CSM 10 and 11. I will update this post when they release the data for CSM 12 but I am very doubtful it will be much different. One thing is overwhelmingly clear: the blocs have a very effective hold on the panel, and there is very little effective representation of groups other than massive null blocs. There are obviously many reasons why this is the case, and dissecting them is not the point of this post. Rather, if the stated objective of the CSM panel is to have an effective panel to collect player feedback, it has utterly failed on account of the panel being so homogeneous.

I do not have a proposed fix for the problem, however the scope of the problem is huge. There are people, many people, advocating to eliminate the CSM as it appears to serve only as a source of leaks for the powers that be. This should come as no real surprise given how thoroughly brokered it is. Some say the CSM has no power, and that it is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things; however I doubt the blocs would game the vote so thoroughly every time if that was true. By seeding the council with biased representation, even if their voice isn't all powerful, they succeed in doing something potentially more powerful – silencing the voices of others.

This is on you CCP. When you are interested in listening to the players, if you are interested in listening to players, if you are interested in how actual people, not appointees with a strong agenda, feel about the game, this would be a top priority. If New Eden is to thrive, in all its sublime creation and destruction, the players should give feedback, not the blocs.

Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM X.....XI.....XII?

#2 - 2017-04-18 22:47:37 UTC
?

TL;DR pls

Quote:
Bla bla bla bla
#3 - 2017-04-18 23:12:06 UTC
Eve is dying, slowly. (markets are stagnant, EVE numbers are down by 30%. NA time zone doesn't even crack 20k players anymore)

ATM EVE is just a placeholder until the greatest space sim ever (if it ever) comes out.

But if they wanted to turn EVE around it would require 3 things.

1) Reduce Sub fee or give a discount to multiple accounts. I know at least 20 people who've all complained they aren't getting value for the sub costs since EVE is a game that having multiple accounts is essential so they simply just don't play.

2) Stop screwing players over at the behest of the CSM - the CSM is not representing the majority of EVE players. They are pushing an agenda that suits the leadership of whatever group they are apart of.

3) This is what needs to change most.

Eliminate the high sec ganking of players. It's the new blood that usually suffers the most. but it's also the old blood that is trying to play in high sec to actually get some game time in where they don't have to be on high alert all the time (you know... a lot of us have kids and can't get too involved in things, so mining, ratting hauling etc in high sec at least we get a feel of having some semblance of game time.... When these people get ganked in their haulers, their mining ships or their expensive mission ships....

Since so many of them lose all their belongings to high sec gankers who are mostly just bored, and aren't looking for a return on their gank (just in it to grief/ collect a killmail) they leave and never return. CCP has bled out more players to this than anything else.

The people that do the ganking, sure they would be pissed that griefing people is no longer an option. They might quit. But I bet 99% of them would stay.

You'd also lose fewer people, and you can be damn sure people would come back knowing they can play without being hassled.

but EVE is a Niche game you'll argue....

Sorry no, it isn't. They lost that title a long time ago. Especially after it went FREE TO PLAY.

But we know CCP will not change any of this.

So the outcome will be obvious. There will be those that will hang on simply because of the investment of time in EVE.

But EVE will die down to the point it will be a shadow of it's former self.

I know I'm waiting for that one well known space sim....I'm gone when it comes out.



#4 - 2017-04-18 23:12:44 UTC
What I get from all this is that more people invested in Null actually vote.
Gallente Federation
#5 - 2017-04-18 23:30:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Orin Solette
Avaelica Kuershin wrote:
What I get from all this is that more people invested in Null actually vote.

Yes, but non-voting players who are less invested into the game should be represented as well. Just because you don't play in null and you have less time invested into who is running CSM, what's happening in EVE, etc. does NOT mean that your interests should not be represented at the same level.

CSM is honestly a sham at this point. It's sad because it's a great idea but campaigns take organization and most players don't play a game to get into political campaigns. They log into shoot stuff and make stuff, whether be it solo or with a couple of friends without the affiliation or rules of large alliances. That's a valid playstyle and one that needs to be embraced if we want to reverse the shrinking population of New Eden.
#6 - 2017-04-18 23:48:29 UTC
Quote:
I know I'm waiting for that one well known space sim....I'm gone when it comes out.



This is a no-brainer really and i don't say it for or against EVE and for many choice will be clear from having a book looking at ship interior or being in ship interior watching a book.

Next gen is next

Wont waste any energy pointlessly debating but mostly agree with you.

You choke behind a smile a fake behind the fear

Because >>I is too hard

#7 - 2017-04-18 23:57:39 UTC
Orin Solette wrote:
Yes, but non-voting players who are less invested into the game should be represented as well. Just because you don't play in null and you have less time invested into who is running CSM, what's happening in EVE, etc. does NOT mean that your interests should not be represented at the same level.

CSM is honestly a sham at this point. It's sad because it's a great idea but campaigns take organization and most players don't play a game to get into political campaigns. They log into shoot stuff and make stuff, whether be it solo or with a couple of friends without the affiliation or rules of large alliances. That's a valid playstyle and one that needs to be embraced if we want to reverse the shrinking population of New Eden.


So run for CSM yourself and motivate people in high sec to vote for you.
#8 - 2017-04-19 00:21:59 UTC
Sonya Corvinus wrote:
Orin Solette wrote:
Yes, but non-voting players who are less invested into the game should be represented as well. Just because you don't play in null and you have less time invested into who is running CSM, what's happening in EVE, etc. does NOT mean that your interests should not be represented at the same level.

CSM is honestly a sham at this point. It's sad because it's a great idea but campaigns take organization and most players don't play a game to get into political campaigns. They log into shoot stuff and make stuff, whether be it solo or with a couple of friends without the affiliation or rules of large alliances. That's a valid playstyle and one that needs to be embraced if we want to reverse the shrinking population of New Eden.


So run for CSM yourself and motivate people in high sec to vote for you.


I do recall (last year, two years ago?) a candidate trying to motivate hi sec dwellers. Can't remember how that turned out.

Maybe I should put my name forward even though I've misbehaved in hi.
Gallente Federation
#9 - 2017-04-19 00:46:44 UTC
Sonya Corvinus wrote:
Orin Solette wrote:
Yes, but non-voting players who are less invested into the game should be represented as well. Just because you don't play in null and you have less time invested into who is running CSM, what's happening in EVE, etc. does NOT mean that your interests should not be represented at the same level.

CSM is honestly a sham at this point. It's sad because it's a great idea but campaigns take organization and most players don't play a game to get into political campaigns. They log into shoot stuff and make stuff, whether be it solo or with a couple of friends without the affiliation or rules of large alliances. That's a valid playstyle and one that needs to be embraced if we want to reverse the shrinking population of New Eden.


So run for CSM yourself and motivate people in high sec to vote for you.

Point went way over your head.

There are so many people living in high sec, low sec, wormhole, etc. who play the game casually and don't keep up with space politics and they NEVER will. That's not why they play. But their interests should still be equally represented because we need them to keep a healthy population in the game and they pay just as much as everyone else to play this game.

Remember this is not real life. It's a game. It's not analogous to not voting in a democracy because that effects your real life. This is a hobby and we shouldn't expect people to put the same time into it as real life elections.
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#10 - 2017-04-19 01:01:05 UTC
Kirell wrote:

ATM EVE is just a placeholder until the greatest space sim ever (if it ever) comes out.


That's impossible. EvE is already the greatest space sim ever. It has seem many pretenders over many years.

Kirell wrote:
Eliminate the high sec ganking of players.


Hisec has never been safer than it is now*, so if ganking was really scaring people off, we should expect to be growing at an unprecedented pace at the moment, and have done poorly in the past, rather than the other way around. An EvE without risk is not EvE at all, and they should never create areas that violate the core principles of the game.

Players of all types these days are welcome additions to null alliances, and the play style offers more to players than hisec ever could. While to some extent this feeds the problem described in the original post, historically hisec in general has been a dead end for player retention, so the emphasis on null, and making it accessible for new players, does do some good for the game, and newbies in particular - suddenly, despite a tiny bit more danger, they have an actual corp to face the world with.

* T1 Industrial buffs, Freighter eHP buffs, barge-buffs, the list goes on really...


Avaelica Kuershin wrote:

I do recall (last year, two years ago?) a candidate trying to motivate hi sec dwellers. Can't remember how that turned out.


It is absolutely a legitimate response to implicate people for not being organized enough to win. However, as alluded to in the original post, play-styles which are literally made and defined by mass organization will have an innate advantage, even if the player population is tipped in the opposite way.

Much of the atrophy in the player base is because the playstyle that hooked em, the playstyle they grew up on, is just no longer cared for or spoken for, either by representation or by developer action. Regardless of the way the panel is being stacked, being so stacked combined with the cold shoulder (real or perceived) that many areas of the game are experiencing is exacerbating burn-out for a lot of the types of players that are good to keep around.

The panel should be more balanced for the good of the health of the game, first and foremost. There's no point in comparing one group against another, it's a net loss for everyone whenever New Eden is less than it could be - and New Eden should be the amalgamated sum of many viable play-styles all interacting.

Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM X.....XI.....XII?

Yulai Federation
#11 - 2017-04-19 01:08:45 UTC
>Eve is dying...

After 7 years of playing this game, I've found that when a post starts with that phrase, it's an excellent indication that the author has no idea what they're talking about.

-- Alan Mathison, Explorer & Industrialist, Star Tide Industries

#12 - 2017-04-19 01:19:28 UTC
Orin Solette wrote:


There are so many people living in high sec, low sec, wormhole, etc. who play the game casually and don't keep up with space politics and they NEVER will. That's not why they play. But their interests should still be equally represented because we need them to keep a healthy population in the game and they pay just as much as everyone else to play this game.

Remember this is not real life. It's a game. It's not analogous to not voting in a democracy because that effects your real life. This is a hobby and we shouldn't expect people to put the same time into it as real life elections.


Maybe I'm not as casual as I think I am. I quickly looked over the candidates statements and chose some who I felt aligned with what I do in game (which is not null sov - too casual for that). From recollection, 5 of my choices made it on to CSM.

I do have one question, who are the people who don't vote and who need representation?
#13 - 2017-04-19 01:22:20 UTC
CCP announced csm 12 at fanfest and I went and got a screen cap cuz noone seems to have a list anywhere http://i.imgur.com/HIxT0Un.png

their briefs or whatever you want to call them can be found here, I cba to like them directly right now https://community.eveonline.com/community/csm/candidates/

Steve is a highseccer, and sutionia and Rhiload are both small gang pvpers that seem far more interested in game balance than handing things to the big nullseccers. Noobman is a WHer, and Jin'taan wants "focus on the issues of balance and iteration on stagnant features such as PI, Faction Warfare and PvE"

there are 2 goons, 1 co2, and a NC member, of course null blocks are going to get a few in, 4/10 doesn't seem that over powering.

selling officer BCUs! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6872141

@ChainsawPlankto on twitter

#14 - 2017-04-19 01:25:16 UTC
Avaelica Kuershin wrote:

Maybe I'm not as casual as I think I am. I quickly looked over the candidates statements and chose some who I felt aligned with what I do in game (which is not null sov - too casual for that). From recollection, 5 of my choices made it on to CSM.

I do have one question, who are the people who don't vote and who need representation?

Per fanfest I believe something like 30k people voted. I think I have that number right, if not someone can check the keynote and link the time segment with the right number please.
That is maybe 10-15% of the player base (per break down on CCP's financial statements)
The voting of those people is incredibly weighted towards the null sec candidates, so we can reasonable assume that most of those voting are null sec alliance members being told to go out & vote also.

Which.... should answer your question about who needs better representation from there.
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#15 - 2017-04-19 01:26:37 UTC
Avaelica Kuershin wrote:
Orin Solette wrote:


There are so many people living in high sec, low sec, wormhole, etc. who play the game casually and don't keep up with space politics and they NEVER will. That's not why they play. But their interests should still be equally represented because we need them to keep a healthy population in the game and they pay just as much as everyone else to play this game.

Remember this is not real life. It's a game. It's not analogous to not voting in a democracy because that effects your real life. This is a hobby and we shouldn't expect people to put the same time into it as real life elections.


Maybe I'm not as casual as I think I am. I quickly looked over the candidates statements and chose some who I felt aligned with what I do in game (which is not null sov - too casual for that). From recollection, 5 of my choices made it on to CSM.

I do have one question, who are the people who don't vote and who need representation?



I have a follow up for that question. How do you represent people who don't engage?

(The silent majority is great. They don't complain when you put something in their mouth.)

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter

#16 - 2017-04-19 01:55:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Soel Reit
Steve Ronuken wrote:


(The silent majority is great. They don't complain when you put something in their mouth.)


they do complain.
it's just that you are deaf enough to not hear them Cool

GET GUD


edit: or even better!
they do complain. just find useless to report the reclaims to CSM.
becouse... yea.. it's useless... the CSM i mean Cool
#17 - 2017-04-19 02:01:34 UTC
Kirell wrote:
3) This is what needs to change most.

Eliminate the high sec ganking of players. It's the new blood that usually suffers the most. but it's also the old blood that is trying to play in high sec to actually get some game time in where they don't have to be on high alert all the time (you know... a lot of us have kids and can't get too involved in things, so mining, ratting hauling etc in high sec at least we get a feel of having some semblance of game time.... When these people get ganked in their haulers, their mining ships or their expensive mission ships....

Since so many of them lose all their belongings to high sec gankers who are mostly just bored, and aren't looking for a return on their gank (just in it to grief/ collect a killmail) they leave and never return. CCP has bled out more players to this than anything else.

The people that do the ganking, sure they would be pissed that griefing people is no longer an option. They might quit. But I bet 99% of them would stay.

You'd also lose fewer people, and you can be damn sure people would come back knowing they can play without being hassled.

but EVE is a Niche game you'll argue....

Sorry no, it isn't. They lost that title a long time ago. Especially after it went FREE TO PLAY.

But we know CCP will not change any of this.

So the outcome will be obvious. There will be those that will hang on simply because of the investment of time in EVE.

But EVE will die down to the point it will be a shadow of it's former self.

I know I'm waiting for that one well known space sim....I'm gone when it comes out.


lol Roll

been running missions for 10+ years, been ganked 0 times. I also have been hauling for most of that time, and even dabbled in mining for a bit. If you put all your eggs in one basket and lose everything on one ship loss well that's a you problem.

ungankable highsec likely results in a bunch of isk printing which isn't really a good thing.

selling officer BCUs! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6872141

@ChainsawPlankto on twitter

#18 - 2017-04-19 02:02:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Magnus Jax
Mina Sebiestar wrote:
Quote:
I know I'm waiting for that one well known space sim....I'm gone when it comes out.



This is a no-brainer really and i don't say it for or against EVE and for many choice will be clear from having a book looking at ship interior or being in ship interior watching a book.

Next gen is next

Wont waste any energy pointlessly debating but mostly agree with you.


People who play EVE because they are interested in a pure spaceship game will leave for SC the simple reason that's really the game they have been looking for. Nothing CCP can do or change to stop that from happening

People who play EVE because it's a PVP centric non-instanced sandbox about interacting with other players on a massive scale will either stay or, most likely, have a peek at SC and then come back once they got the hype out of their system because to them SC not what they're looking for in an MMO.


And BECAUSE CCP can't stop the carebears (for lack of a better word) they might as well not bother trying because by doing so they alienate the part of of their customers who love EVE for what it IS. Doesn't mean there shouldn't be improvements and updates to PVE but the "fix EVE to be PVE or I leave" is an empty threat: you're going to stay or leave regardless of what CCP does.
#19 - 2017-04-19 02:18:05 UTC
1) yes, CCP cares more about nullsec than any other style of gameplay.
2) No, it's probably not because of the CSM, or at least not exclusively so.
3) No, ganking doesn't drive away players. Lack of hooks into adventure drives away players. Ganking can be a hook, or it can be a symbol of tedium. I'd guess it's probably neutral.

The core of CCP's marketing is the size of the fleet fights. They've spent years now trying to convince more people to pile in on one node, because they are chasing the same headlines that they were 10 years ago. As far as I can tell, CCP's main push right now is alternate income streams. As soon as they've got enough alternate income that they don't have to do EVE any more, I imagine they'll just stop. But in the mean time, they just have to keep feeding the nullsec machine for a few more years before they can finally be rid of this big ol' drag of a commitment called EVE. Funny how Hilmar's golden goose has turned into an albatross.

Maxim 6. If violence wasn’t your last resort, you failed to resort to enough of it.

#20 - 2017-04-19 02:45:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Mina Sebiestar
Magnus Jax wrote:
Mina Sebiestar wrote:
Quote:
I know I'm waiting for that one well known space sim....I'm gone when it comes out.



This is a no-brainer really and i don't say it for or against EVE and for many choice will be clear from having a book looking at ship interior or being in ship interior watching a book.

Next gen is next

Wont waste any energy pointlessly debating but mostly agree with you.


People who play EVE because they are interested in a pure spaceship game will leave for SC the simple reason that's really the game they have been looking for. Nothing CCP can do or change to stop that from happening

People who play EVE because it's a PVP centric non-instanced sandbox about interacting with other players on a massive scale will either stay or, most likely, have a peek at SC and then come back once they got the hype out of their system because to them SC not what they're looking for in an MMO.


And BECAUSE CCP can't stop the carebears (for lack of a better word) they might as well not bother trying because by doing so they alienate the part of of their customers who love EVE for what it IS. Doesn't mean there shouldn't be improvements and updates to PVE but the "fix EVE to be PVE or I leave" is an empty threat: you're going to stay or leave regardless of what CCP does.


Not sure where make eve PVE again is coming from or who you are responding but SC is about much more than spaceships and with amount of bullets and various space weapon armaments I stuffed in other ppl faces I don't think you know what are you talking about.

Will it have infinitely better PVE yes
Will it be a PVE game only no it won't
Will it have more skillful PVP yes it will and by very definition more complex f1smacking won't get you anywhere.

You choke behind a smile a fake behind the fear

Because >>I is too hard

11 Pages123Next pageLast page
Forum Jump