The minutes for the recent CSM summit have been released along with information on some changes we’re making to the process and timeline of elections. Please dig in and we’ll monitor and respond to your feedback as needed in this thread.
What is that “Jesus feature” on current road map?
A longer “campaign period” - The period where voters and media can focus on the people they know for sure will be on the ballot.
We don’t need longer campaigning periods, we need shorter, pronounced campaigns that don’t stretch for an eternity like the US election disaster.
Regarding the Agency: No. we don’t need better filters to find agents next to market hubs. We need the old agent finder capabilities back that allowed the player to define what they want to see and not made CCP decide what the player want to see.
The point is to make the whole election process shorter, but allow slightly more space where it makes sense - at the point in time where we all know who’s actually on the ballot.
The PDF is a bit wonky but we’re running another version and uploading, hopefully that will be searchable and let you copy text
Sorry about that guys, my bad.
The PDF has been updated so it’s searchable. You can find a new link here and the devblog has been updated with the new link too.
This guy!! <3
Larrikin asks about feedback regarding the roaming NPCs in high sec. The CSM hasn’t heard any
feedback in that regard.
Oh really? They have not? h
Or is this about the FOB NPC frigate spawns on gates and so on, that can be abused to get freighters killed without players shooting at them? Which is an absolutely great mechanic by the way.
Can someone share a link for this roadmap. Would love a visual to follow.
Oh noes, the poor Navitas!! What about my Osprey?
My second favorite logi-bird was said to get a cooler hull last year…
Is ‘DAU’ ‘Distinct Active Users’?
that means something completely different in German and every German player will find this very amusing.
Kinda my point. Acronyms are only useful if they’re understood.
Thank you for mentioning this, how delightful! Acronym works in English too!
Why not. If CCP does not, then sooner or later a player will force it anyway. Non-Concessional PvP is the primary consideration of Eve. It would be better that the player learn of this early. Making a decision that they will overcome the loss (and future loss) or choose that the game rules to do mesh with their mindset.
It is why I disagree with industry in the NPE. Industry skills give no benefit to a ship’s survival. Keeping your ship alive is 100x more important than how it build it.
There’s definitely a place for ‘here, learn the industry interface’ as an optional branch of the NPE… and hey, you know what? There should be optional branches available in the NPE! EVE’s too big to push everyone through exactly the same starting experience.
As for forcing two players against one another… I can see this being a problem if, you know, you’re forcing people to wait for one another. But maybe a toned-down version of the burner AI?
I Agree, preparing new players to deal with loss should be one of the main focus’s of the tutorial stage’s as many new players come from games where a loss of assets is unheard of.
CCP, It’s nice to read the meeting note’s and realized that the things we have been complaining about are being worked on (time restraints), the absence of communications just makes it feel like us as the players are being left in the dark, but thanks for this it was needed.
MORE DOOM & GLOOM FROM CLOSING SESSION OF SUMMIT
Thanks for getting the minutes out in a reasonable time despite the length. I also must note that a lot more passed through the NDA filter here, which is pleasantly surprising. Will be interesting to see what the community makes of it.