I explained this in my previous post.
If you want a CSM capable, willing to risk it, then you must elect them.
I will be such a candidate.
Most of the current CSM are what I like to refer to as subject matter experts. They aim to bring their knowledge about an overarching area of the game (like Aryth’s knowledge of macroeconomics) to CCP. Often they don’t feel communication is a vital part of their role, and quite frankly it doesn’t seem to effect their ability to make solid rational points to CCP.
If you think communication is important, vote for those who communicate and you’ll have more of them. But you’ll likely never reasonably expect everyone on the CSM to be a full communicator because it takes a lot of time to do. I probably spend 10h a week on making and being in content for the community, that’s not something every CSM member can reasonably be expected to do on top of the 10-15 or so hours you tend to spend working with CCP, Reading hipchat and all the standard CSM stuff.
3 Likes
I’d greatly appreciate an answer to my question in the other thread about why we should run for CSM when bugs or broken things are continuously passed to TQ after being reported on SISI for months.
Allow this real-world hypothetical.
A building is opened up, provisionally, to see if it’s ready for the public. Lots of people are invited, but just a handful show up.
It becomes reported that “a door won’t open when you turn the handle.” Only a fraction of people report it, and none of the devs can duplicate it. Slowly, they get better information, like “The door to the mens bathroom on level 2 won’t open from the inside when you turn the handle”.
They still can’t duplicate it, and it doesn’t seem to effect but maybe one in 100 people.
They open the doors to the general public.
Come to find out, one in 10 people can’t open the door, because they grab the handle with their left hand, jamming the mechanism.
But.
Not every lefty used the restroom on level 2. Not every lefty is male. Not every lefty reported the problem.
And finally. The questionaire didn’t have any way of knowing whether or not someone was left-handed.
The bug didn’t get caught, and it’s not until they have a much larger pool to look at that someone goes “Hey…I know those two guys, and they’re both southpaws…I wonder.”
Alternately, the developers hang a big “out of order” sign on the second floor mens room, and pretend like it doesn’t exist.
Edit. This doesn’t explain why they release “new” features that fail to duplicate the full utility of the old feature.
1 Like
Please read my other post and you’ll see it’s not only about bug reports. CCP Goliath’s doing great work, sure, but when everyone has a friend who has had a bug report sitting without being looked at or responded to in over two years, you know that not everything is going well behind the scenes.
Your little story/analogy still doesn’t explain why it took CCP 6 months to declare Alpha clone training an exploit, to change Rorqual PANIC to require an asteroid, to remove teleporter citadels, Drifter incursions, PVE AI changes, capital wormhole escalations, the shitfest that is the current pirate Sotiyos, the SKINs, or any of the hundred and one other things that were or still are completely ignored by CCP to this day. CCP doesn’t listen to the CSM unless the planets align, and you nor anyone else can disprove that.
So I ask again: Why should we run for CSM?
Because they still get listened to more.
50% more than nothing is nothing.
The planets do align though. And the CSM does get listened to. 50% more than 0.0000001 is still 0.00000015
1 Like
You’re right. There is absolutely no reason for you to run. I certainly wouldn’t vote for you.
Also, I’m not digging through all your posts to find the one that asks the question. I gave you an answer, maybe not the best answer, based on what I read in this thread, just now.
2 Likes
And again, you’re missing the point, but I’ll change my question for you:
Why should the average player care about who gets elected to CSM when they’re constantly being ignored by CCP?
Because they aren’t constantly ignored by CCP?
1 Like
Well, maybe they shouldn’t. If they figure it doesn’t matter how the game gets developed, it won’t change their enjoyment of it, then it really doesn’t matter who, or what platform, they vote for.
If they think the game needs This(), and it’s a feature that is partially implemented, or non-existant, then they should get behind the CSM candidate that best represents getting This() into the game.
The CSM grew out of a need for oversight, because someone in CCP did a Naughty Thing®, but it has become a sounding board for ideas. Creators, if they aren’t careful, find themselves creating for themselves, without regard to the intended audience.
Just download half, better than half, of all the modules made available for Linux, and see just what kind of boneheaded design choices were made, because they made sense to the developer.
The CSM provides CCP with someone they can bounce ideas off of to make sure they aren’t doing that (too much,) although I’ll admit it does appear that they still do that to some extent.
Not every idea will appeal to every person. CCP has an agenda. That is a game that continues to be profitable in a market of some-what similar alternatives. Some times the best thing from a practicality standpoint isn’t the best thing from a broad enjoyability standpoint. Or it may be something that makes solid sense to CCP, but isn’t a “Low hanging fruit”, meaning it’s worth doing, but maybe not worth devoting two hundred developer hours to.
Of COURSE CCP listens to the playerbase. That doesn’t mean they give the player base what they “want”. Sometimes the cost will be too high. Sometimes they may be reluctant to make such a sharp turn, fearing what follow-on issues it brings. Sometimes it’s just not a good idea for a healthy game.
Half the “new ship” and “new module” ideas are probably “Yeeeaahh. No.” ideas.
Let me tell you what that sounds like to me;
“Why does my car have airbags if I get a puncture on my tire?”
The CSM can’t program the game, but we can help CCP make long term decisions that we think are healthy for the game and the players, and provide feedback on the features intended to be added.
Sure, we can sometimes get bugs addressed, but it’s not a massive part of what we do.
Hey I got my balance passes again, that’s like 1 of the hundred or so suggestions I’ve given 
A lot more of them have been addressed too, like the Logistics UI (reps being added to the combat log) & Jump Fatigue. 3/100 isn’t the worst odds out there 
1 Like
Thanks for the reply, but I guess I was unclear:
Given all of the things that have happened in regards to CCP ignoring the playerbase, and CSM, for instances where both sets of players told CCP that something was broken and needed to be changed, that include but are not limited to: Alpha clone training exploit, Rorqual PANIC requiring asteroid, removing teleporter citadels, Drifter incursions, capital wormhole escalations, the mess that is the current pirate Sotiyos, not having a proper SKIN system, let alone “another green gallente skin!”, the instanced missions, etc.
Given all that, why should the average player believe that the CSM is nothing other than a powerless, mute, figurehead, why should we give a damn, and what can we do to fix that?
You should link your skills in communication:
2 Likes
I do find it funny that you’d say CCP never listens to the community and then list off a reel of things ccp fixed due to the community.
And, I mean, to your point of “The CSM is useless because they don’t achieve anything”; I’ll note that your list is missing what I would have considered default additions to it just 2 months ago. Jump Fatigue, Aegis Sov & the rate of balance in EVE have been addressed in part due to our (and the community’s) feedback on them.
There will always be problems and bugs with EVE. Justifying not voting for the CSM because they exist is like not voting for a politician because they’re not promising to lay down pothole-proof roads.
It’s a resource allocation problem, and consequently, a position based around that.
2 Likes
CCP fixed that after GSF started using it against Pandemic Legion, after MULTIPLE MONTHS OF THEM CLAIMING IT WAS OK AND AND INTENDED. There’s a picture of Rocket X literally telling Fozzie that the rorqual was OP in it’s released state, and his response was that it was ok. It shouldn’t take using a mechanic/thing against PL to force CCP to change it. That is what I see as the failing of the CSM.
I’ll counter your claim with 2 questions:
- How long ago was Aegis Sov released?
- How long have we been complaining about Aegis Sov and fatigue?
Sure, stuff got changed, but I’m seriously reminded of when Russia created a car that was designed to compete with Ford, but they accidentally made it to compete with a car that was over 20 years retired. You can’t claim victory for getting something changed two years after people have been begging for a change…
I’m not justifying not voting, im justifying not caring, and not running.
2 Likes
And yet you said…
Edited to preserve the line I was commenting on.
We told them the exact same thing as Rocket. Sometimes you don’t win. It’s a super unfair comparison, and I’m not trying to imply I’m the GOAT when I say this, but Michael Jordan didn’t win every game in his career. Even if we had the best CSM of all time, CCP is still going to do dumb things, and CCP is still going to do great things.
As I said, problems will always exist in EVE. We’re here to minimise and prioritise, not to eliminate. We were the ones who first heard the ‘only PANIC if you can target an asteroid’ suggestion, and strongly agreed with it. I’d love to say we came up with it, but we didn’t.
Dominion Sov wasn’t iterated on for nearly 4 years. That’s double the time Aegis Sov has existed, in which we’ve seen 2 major attempts to revitalise it and make it less terrible.
If I can’t take that as a victory, I don’t think you’re going to be very happy with many of the victories I can publically talk about. And if that’s the way you see it, that’s fine. You can choose to not vote or run because of your idealism of what a win should be and knowing nothing will meet that - You’re an individual making an individual choice. I’d just argue that you’re not contributing to the legitimacy of what is currently a net positive to the game because of your lack of pragmatism.
1 Like