Just as they shouldn’t represent their specific style of gameplay. There is nothing vague or ambiguous about the term “community of EVE players”, unless you’re suggesting membership of this group is dependent upon factors other than playing EVE?
Actually, it isn’t. Your role was to provide focused and structured feedback from the playerbase, not determine whether those ideas have merit and dismiss them out of hand. Following your logic, if an idea has a lot of support but you happen to disagree with it, you wouldn’t pass that information on to CCP. Would that be a fair assessment to make? It certainly seems like it.
If you received a thousand individual crackpot ideas about a specific area of the game, do you throw them all in the trash and ignore the fact that a thousand people seem to think X is in need of improvement?
It should be noted that it’s possible to track CSM votes, if you get your people to vote in a particular fashion.
No-one’s done it. (At least not at any significant scale. Someone selling their own votes may have. Not alliance level)
It’s not even particularly difficult to do. I’m not going to go into how. That’s tinfoil on my site. It is impossible to do without it being noticeable, at any significant scale.
Ive been plaing since 2009 and i promise you im not an idiot when it comes to the internet, but no sorry did not know that one either, i have joined, ill give it the benefit of the doubt and we shall see how this goes i guess. On thing i dont like in this thread, and it always seems to happen, in that we as forumposters, stray away from what has been discussed in the CSM Minutes, and are explaing to each other who has the biggest e-peen, wich well …meh cba to care anymore
It wasn’t lip service. I passed on much of the stuff you guys suggested to me, but I never hid the fact that I supported CCP’s war dec changes as a means of helping stop the hemorrhaging of new players from war dec mechanics. Not sure where this suddenly turned in to “lip service.”
Take the level of feedback that a CSM gets, multiply it by 100,000 and that’s the amount of feedback that CCP devs that actually interact with players get. When everybody is screaming at you that “this is the most important issues in the game!” it gets hard to filter the noise from what’s real. This is why the CSM exists, after all.
Wrong. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of representation. You aren’t electing someone to vacuum up feedback and dump it into the laps of the Devs. You’re electing someone to represent you, while using their judgment as to what issues are important and what are not. Otherwise, you wouldn’t need actual people to do this job.
This is different from what I’m talking about. I have passed on concerns with which I did not agree. That does not mean that I have passed on every mechanic change or idea to fix a problem that exists.
What I would do - what any good representative would do - is say “I’ve received a thousand requests for changes to this area of the game - it seems like this area of the game needs a lot of work, because everybody is fixated on it.” For example, I do not need to pass on every nutty suggestion about how to fix faction warfare (“Let us have titans in plexes!”) to be able to pass on that FW needs a complete revamp.
This is the biggest disconnect I find between the player base’s view of what the CSM is and what the CSM actually does. We do not need to come to CCP with a fully designed and realized solution to every problem we raise with them. There are times when it’s valuable to do that - especially if it’s just a dial change like “The muninn needs a 2.5% reduction in range” - but when it comes to more in-depth development, it’s almost never that useful. It’s a better use of our time to highlight the problems and let CCP find the solutions than it is to sit around coming up with detailed solutions to problems that aren’t that much of a priority.
Cut them some slack. It’s always hard. The whole point of using the CSM to highlight areas that need work rather than come up with solutions negates most of the bias. And it’s not as if the CSM hasn’t highlighted non-nullsec areas as needing work, because there’s ample evidence that has happened.
Agree, things have improved from previous time with shady tweaks. But I think CCP people have to see hands-on in game, how things really work and can be used.
I understand that the CSM needs to be a filter of all the player’s suggestions, but what is questionable is the effectiveness and reliability of that filtering. If the CSM has an innate bias against a play style or area of play, then certain worthwhile concepts are not even given a chance to be passed on to CCP. Nor are those same concepts used as counter arguments to any CCP plans that may run divergent from what a certain part of the EVE community are looking for.
One example is the introduction of RW. According to the devs, this was introduced because there was a strong demand for group mining activities in HS. Say what? Hundreds of hours were spent on a project that was near DOA and is currently mostly ignored. Those development hours could have spent on enhancing other areas of EVE such as…
Missions. Stagnate in most part for over a decade, CCP has fiercely refused to overhaul the mission system or introduce a large number of new missions. They claim that making new missions are too developmentally resource intense for them to address. They claim that the overwhelming number of mission runners are speed running them for the maximum ISK per tic, so runners want zero variation or changes that interfere with their money making to fund their PvP. The same with new exploration or combat sites. Since CCP’s data reveals that mission running and exploration are still going strong, then that aspect of EVE, according to CCP, must be fine. The CSM has always sided with CCP’s view of the issue because the few CSM members (or their voting block) that run mission/explore fall into the “give me ISK quick from missions/exploring so I can get back to PvPing” camp, ignoring the far larger group holding an opposite view. No matter how hard people try to get the CSM (let alone CCP) to understand a contrasting view, the ability to remain neutral and REALLY listen just isn’t in the apparent ability of the powers that be. They may be innately unable to comprehend contrarian opinions.
Other issues suffer the same problem.
Look, CCP is going toward the direction that they want to go. The CSM may or may not be able to turn the rudder a bit one way or the other, but regardless of that, to see the blatant derision toward others and the self serving attitudes of many of them is really disheartening. That the CSM’s overall attitude combined with CCP’s sometimes clueless arrogance in knowing what is best for their customers is a recipe for disaster.
If the CSM is a focus group, then they should stop focusing on themselves!
Yeah, which is why Dunk Dinkle decided to come out and ask the entire community at large to contribute to his Industry survey. Looking for Industry Feedback rather than just staying and having discussions with his alliance.
It’s also why almost all of the CSM are easily accessible on twitter, r/eve, the CSM discord even: Official CSM Discord and a bunch more ways to get in touch with them.
Have you actually reached out them or are you just trying to soapbox?
This is not true. I pushed multiple times to get CCP to add additional missions to the game, saying this was the key thing that I heard over and over from highsec PvErs. And while I think they still have some work to do, I am happy to see that they have found a way to add additional missions to the game, so I hope to keep pushing them to add new missions, and I also think they should be canvassing the community for ideas on what kinds of missions to add.
Because each member of the CSM comes to the table with a different view of what their role is, it’s not always possible for some of them to do this. That being said, there are some folks who can and do, and I would urge you to vote for the folks who’ve demonstrated they can do this.
This is very surprising to me to see how many people do not understand how a representative democracy works. The CSM’s or any representative’s job isn’t to filter out and bring up ideas from their constituents, it is to bring their own ideas and plans to the table. The idea behind a representative democracy is that candidates campaign on their ideas and then you elect who ever is most aligned with your current philosophies.
If you don’t like what the current CSM is doing and want some CSM members who are going to push heavily for more highsec missions then you need to vote for that type of candidate when it comes time. If after the election none of the CSM members align with your ideologies maybe it is time to take a step back and analyze if the ideology you hold is truly the “majority of the players” like you claim it is.
My English is not very good. But I can use the dictionary and make a close translation for the Russian community.
Does this make sense or will a professional translation be made?
I think that most people understand the idea. However, simply having an electorate that elect individuals to represent them does not, in and of itself, mean that there is open, honest and true representation. Just ask Putin - and no, I’m not comparing the CSM to the Russian Government!
CCP’s own explainer states, “The CSM brings focused and structured feedback from the community to CCP and represents their views and interests”. You assertion appears to contradict this point - unless I am missing something?
Agreed. A fundemental principle.
Equally fundemental is transparency and the right to question the integrity of one or more of those who represent you - which is, for the most part, what I am seeing on this thread. Scrutiny of their actions is both necessary and to be expected - politics is no place for a sensitive soul.
But through whatever lens you or I may view the CSM, we can’t really comapre it to real-world representative democracies as they are fundementaly different in a number of important ways, and anyway, any such debate is really just academic.
Edit: As a footnote, I see some important changes are in place for CSM15 and beyond that may go some way to addressing the concerns held by some. I guess that only time will tell if these changes lend traction to bringing an alternative perspective into the CSM focus.
Then I suggest you tell CCP their definition of the CSM Representative role is wrong, because that’s where I got my information from. I won’t bother quoting it again as someone else has already done so.
Which was the point I was driving at, their role has already been defined. Quite clearly, by CCP.
While the manner in which they perform this task is left largely to their own interpretation, there is little room for flexibility in who they are meant to represent. It’s all of us, equally. A fact some people seem to have their doubts about, whether they’re defending the CSM members or not.
Which is the clarification I was looking for. Your original, rather dismissive comment, suggested otherwise. Also, for the record, you can already take Titans into plexes.
I certainly wasn’t suggesting that CSM members present feature-complete solutions to every problem in the game, that isn’t their job. My issue was centered around the assertions that it is the CSM members themselves who should determine which problems are a priority, and that any feedback that contradicts these priorities should be ignored.
I’ve provided feedback on areas I’m familiar with. Have I directly approached a CSM Representative with that feedback? I doubt it. Personally, I believe they have better things to do with ther time than listen to me ramble on about whatever grievences I might have when we’re provided with public forums to do that in.
Soapboxing? Please. Comments were made that ran counter to the entire purpose of electing a CSM Representative in the first place, and I was seeking clarification that this wasn’t the case. I’m terribly sorry if this offends your delicate sensibilities.
The API is an out-of-game, not an in-game, mechanic and if it is so irrelevant then its removal from the game shouldn’t hurt anyway. You have no more reason to oppose its removal than to support its retainment. So your opposition is telling.
I have plenty of reason to oppose it’s removal - I like and use a ton of third party apps that are made possible by API, like zkill. These help add spice to the game and the game wouldn’t be the same without them.
