CSM 15 - All You Need to Know

This is where the scarcity is only part of things—something CCP’s already said. Supercapitals and sov need to be overhauled so that everything can go back to exploding. Once that starts happening, and the levels of ambient wealth start coming down, CCP can open up the taps a bit, and people will have more routes into null.

Eh, SP-farming’s the easiest way to make stupid amounts of ISK if you’re willing to do a lot of repetitive crap. Has been since it went in.

It’s an unwinnable war because as long as there is a demand, there will be a supply. Period. There is no MMO out there that has gotten rid of the scourge of ‘gold farming’. Doesn’t mean you stop trying.

Nope, nope, nope. That’s not the right adjective.

It’s not ‘useful’, it’s ‘indispensible’. It’s not that these things have a benefit, it’s that you can’t afford to lose them. Not in numbers. Not the way they need to be able to be lost.

So they don’t get risked. If they can get things to where supercapitals are useful, but not necessary… then they’ll get used. They’ll get risked. And they’ll blow up. Because we want to use them. We want to risk them. We want to see them all blowing up all over the place… but nobody will do that while losing your supercapital fleet means more than losing the current war.

Because right now, losing your supercapital fleet means losing the current war. And it means not being able to fight the next one. And the one after that. It means being locked out of sov null for probably 2-3 years if not longer, because you need them to take space.

Because if you don’t have them, then when you try to take space… you get supers dropped on you, and you can’t do a damned thing about it.

And remember: the only way to build them… is to already own space.

3 Likes

Regular capitals, people tend to be willing to use and lose. They’re relatively easy to replace. Supercapitals… you don’t much tend to see them owned by small knots of players in any numbers. Basically, you need to be able to defend a Keepstar so you have someplace to put it.

Which is also inherently unfair, and something more than a few of us have pointed out pretty damn often. Right now, large groups can have supers, dock up those supers, and use those high-sp characters in other ships. Small groups… can’t. So they have to decide between ‘not have a super’ or ‘not use that character for anything but sitting in the space coffin I never use’.

What it’s going to take is for losing them to not be a death blow to your ability to hold sov.

Make them something we can afford—strategically afford, I mean, not money-wise—to lose.

2 Likes

I’d suggest that this comment shows how sov-holding has become too important to the alliances which hold vast quantities of sov.

My change would be (as someone who owns multiple capital ships but is nowhere near using a supercapital and not making that a priority) that player-owned structures which can dock regular capitals (not NPC stations though) should be able to dock supers and supercapital production should no longer be tied to sov upgrades so that supercapital production and storage stops being as much of a massive advantage that the big alliances have over the smaller ones.

CCP knows where each character spends their time and what content they engage in. I really don’t care if he runs for the Trade seat or the Null Sec seat. If he’s experienced with a large history of engaging in that content, then he’s qualified to run for the position to represent that seat.

You seem to be under the impression that we as players are going to figure out if they’re qualified to represent the seat they want. We don’t know them or their history, and we’re certainly not going to take your word since we also don’t know you. Like I said before, CCP knows what each character has done and where they’ve spent their time in-game. Basically any candidate running for the CSM should be vetted first for that position by an outside party.

If a candidate has spent 60% of his time in Null Sec, 30% of his time doing Trade and 10% of his time in High Sec, after his experience has been verified he’s then qualified to run for the Null Sec seat. Doesn’t matter if he has recently moved into a W-hole, his experience shows him qualified for the Null Sec seat. How hard is that to understand?

I really don’t care about your examples because that’s all in the past from an old system that has proven itself year after year that it doesn’t equally represent the majority of the playerbase. Like I said, those who oppose making a change to the current election policy just want to maintain their 'Status Quo’. In short, that’s the root of the problem.

So instead of constantly trying to shout out those who seek a change for a better policy, how about helping to figure out a better procedure that will enable a more balanced CSM, one that will provide equal representation for all.

1 Like

Arrendis is disagreeing with your idea because it is idiotic and doesn’t work with how the game’s component communities actually connect to each other.

1 Like

Some pretty good insight on how the cards are stacked. I know it’s probably pointless since you’ll defend your position until you get a finger cramp but whatever.

1 Like

That’s kind of like saying that mission-running is too important to players who want to run missions, or wormholes are too important to players who want to live in wormholes.

I mean, that’s the point for empire-builders: to build an empire. You know? That’s the actual part of the game that matters.

As for making supercapitals more accessible… the problem is that then makes them more common, which brings with it all sorts of problems like the ones we already see, and have seen for almost 10 years, even before Faxes were a thing. Ask some of the older PanFam pilots about the ‘Wrecking Ball’.

It’s pretty simple: get people to vote.

Seriously, any set of rules can be gamed. The only way to get equal representation is to get those groups of people who believe they’re under-represented to invest equal participation in the system. Does it suck? Yeah. But that’s the only safeguard you’ve got. Price of freedom eternal vigilance yadda yadda, and all, you know?

You just can’t ensure equal representation unless you get equal buy-in from the people being represented.

It’s really not. It is, in fact, nothing that hasn’t been said by people in this thread, including me. It all comes down to “they are organized, and their members participate”. Again: if you want people from highsec to get elected, they just have to, you know, get off their butts and start organizing and getting their message out.

What methods should such a candidate employ? The advantage lies in that historically the CSM members belonging to null group can rely on a massive network of players. Such network doesn’t exist in Highsec as there’s nothing drawing players together to the sizes you see in Nullsec. The only exceptions are the largest groups you DO see in Highsec and they are feeder alliances for Nullsec groups, that will assuredly push a Nullsec dominated ballot.

It’s not as easy as “lol just do it”.

2 Likes

Any and every method they can, I’d say. @Steve_Ronuken or @Mike_Azariah can give you an idea of what’s worked for them in the past, but I’d say: go on every podcast or stream you can, do interviews, write opinion pieces, talk to people in the rookie help channels, etc etc. Go on /r/eve. Hit up the FW discord, the RP discord, the news site and podcast discords, and of course, the CSM discord. And the EVE forums, too! Get your name out there. Get your message out there, Talk to everyone you can.

And get friends to help. Talk to your corpies, your buddies in different corps (yes, even some highsec players know people in other corporations). Find out where they’re getting their EVE news. Get them talking to people. Have them keeping an eye out for more places you can go to talk to people.

3 Likes

Do you see how all of that requires significantly more effort than the average Nullsec candidate has to put in when he has the voting power of a bloc behind them?

Again it’s not as easy as “lol just get off ur butt”. Highsec is a neglected part of the game and it shows everywhere: here on the forums, on r/eve, and through CCPs lack of “getting Highsec right”. People that play in other areas of space appear to not care at all about Highsec other than new player retention. The average player in Highsec is either new or casual and has little stake in it.

Who do you think watch these talk shows and listen to the pod casts? I can tell you it’s not your average Highsec player. I get it though, “we should get off our buttz!”. I concede here though because it’s clear you expect Highsec candidates to do things to get elected that your Nullbloc friends absolutely do not have to do.

Also nothing against Steve, but at this point I believe he gets elected because everyone just likes him and he’s a 3rd party app guy. I don’t recall reading anything of substance from him in any of the CSM minutes. I’d be curious to know what he actually has done and what kinds of players and groups he’s approached for feedback. He isn’t what I would consider to be a Highsec candidate. He’s just… there.

2 Likes

I really don’t care if you or anybody else disagrees with it or not.

The current system has already proven itself not to work, it’s an unbalanced biased procedure that favors a small group of well established organizations within the game. Just like in the past, the current CSM didn’t even come close to representing the majority of the playerbase.

What’s idiotic is doing the exact same thing every year and thinking the results will be different. For far too long this charade has been allowed to continue without making any attempts to change it for the better. This whole ‘Election’ bit is nothing more than a well rehearsed farce, one that’s been bought and paid for by corrupt Null Bloc’s.

It’s like watching a rerun of a bad ‘Larry H. Parker’ commercial, complete with smooth talking charlatans, all presenting their cards with false promises of ‘I will fight for you’.

In my opinion all those who vehemently oppose players who suggest making the current system better are the actual root of the problem. I’m now inclined to agree with Gowa Hyasyoda’s suggestion to just outright disband the CSM.

1 Like

Never said it didn’t. But at the same time, ‘the average Nullsec candidate’ does put in a pretty massive amount of work. They just don’t put it in on the campaign trail.

Look at Dunk. Dunk didn’t get the backing of Legacy because he’s some schmuck who said ‘vote for me, I’m in your Coalition’. Dunk’s an alliance executor. He’s demonstrated intelligence, competence, the ability to listen, solve problems, and get a clear-eyed, accurate assessment of what’s going on—and he’s done that for years. That’s not ‘easy’. That’s a lot of effort, and it’s a lot of effort for (in Dunk’s case) more than seven years.

So, you wanna put in more than five years of work to establish you’ve got a proven track record? Would that be more or less work for you than one campaign for like 2 months?

And yeah, I expect highsec candidates to do things null candidates don’t have to do, just like I expect null candidates to do things highsec candidates don’t have to do—like actually have a proven track record of years of results on the largest scales in the game.

You’ve kinda got it backwards there. Highsec’s a neglected part of the game, because of the lack of involvement in the community, in the normal avenues of feedback, the lack of interaction with others. Nobody can fix a problem they don’t know exists, including CCP, and they can’t do perfect analysis on all of their data for every potential problem. They need players to talk to them, to get involved and reach out.

I agree. So do something different: get highsec to vote.

Edit: If you want an example of a nullsec candidate who used the highsec model (ie: ‘I’m not actually getting votes from a bloc because I’m just some guy’), look at @Brisc_Rubal. Here, lemme quote you the relevant section of his piece:

Seriously. The man knows of what he speaks, and he didn’t get elected because of any bloc votes. He got elected because he did what you keep insisting can’t be done: he got out there and did the work.

1 Like

I don’t think you can fairly judge that as so. CCP has access to surveys as well as the ability to collect data that we cannot. They see what players are doing, how they are doing it, and should be able to draw plenty of data points from that.

I think you’re just in the wrong echo chamber here, bud. Between their data collection and the people here in Highsec that have proven track records that have attempted to appeal to both CCP and CSM members it’s just seems like it’s a neglected part of the game because of a feedback group that has little interest in it.

You have CSM members calling Highsec dudes bots. Sure CCP doesn’t address issues in every part of space as part of the cyclic development and patching but the funny part is that when it was most recently Highsec’s turn for attention, you had a biased and uninformed CSM in place.

Seriously take a look at these forums and see how much feedback is being given. As someone has pointed out, it’s a lot! Most of the ideas or suggestions are ■■■■ but I can guarantee you that these forums host more feedback, opinions, and ideas than Reddit… and if you read these forums you’ll see that most of the suggestions and feedback are Nullsec based. CCP has what they need, they just aren’t using it well at all.

2 Likes

Except I can, because CCP has said so. According to their presentations at past Fanfests, the vast majority of highsec players never post on the forums, and don’t submit feedback. They just don’t engage with CCP.

And no, data collection doesn’t mean good analysis. The more data you collect, the more work needs to be done to get any meaningful analysis out of it. Yes, you can do better analysis, but it takes more work—exponentially more work, because you have to filter that data in multiple ways just to see the same kinds of trends, let alone really get the advantages and see the things that the lesser amount of data couldn’t show you.

You have CCP calling Highsec dudes bots, too—that’s why Alphas can’t do L4 distribution missions anymore, remember? Cuz they were being botted. In highsec.

Yep. Totally true. And if CCP had put out a roadmap that said ‘in the next year, we want to focus on highsec’, maybe the makeup of the CSM would’ve been different. Maybe not. It’s impossible to say for sure, but CCP’s unwillingness to tell us things like ‘we want to focus on X part of space for the next 6-8 months’ doesn’t exactly help avoid that, you know?

. . . no. No, it’s really not. And uhm…

That doesn’t exactly refute the point that highsec ain’t engaging and giving feedback. Null is. So guess where CCP’s most able to consistently identify problems.

Like maybe we’ll have a libertarian candidate win the Oval Office…

Maybe if there was an “Abolish the CSM” option?

That doesn’t make me want to vote for you any less, now that if everyone voted for you and only you, its effectively abolishing the CSM, right ?

Will you be posting a summary of results?

I’d like to see it.,.

WOW - One of the most narrow minded and utterly stupid sentences i’ve ever read on these forums.

Followed by another little gem;

Trying to say the CSM is the cream of the crop as far as Eve goes - How fuking deluded are you - Whatever drugs you are taking, I want some.

NB; Not one of the games you compared Eve to is anything like Eve.,. But you do make a great argument for not having a CSM

Everyone needs to bycot the next CSM elections - They are impotent and as Scoots just pointed out so clearly AREN’T close to representative of Eve as a whole but simply their playstyles which does not fit with Scoots own description of what CCP should be looking for when it comes to input.

2 Likes