How many opinions does ccp take from null sec alliances?
And how many people sit on the community-dev interaction council that are speaking on behalf of Mission runners, incursion players, etc?
Its time ccp changed this position of taking all opinions from nullsec alliances only (or majority).
Two individuals from each sections (High, Low, null, Wormholes) of space (known, and unknown).
One individual for PvP Mechanics (how sov gain loss happens, structures, etc)
One individual for PvE Mechanics (ratting, mining, missions, industry, etc)
Each individual is voted upon by the community, and should be nominated by 500 or 1000 players.
Each individual for their respective space should be knowledgeable on both pve and pvp at least in a limited degree for their respective field (pve, pvp) and highly knowledgeable for their target field (PvP or PvE)
No one organization or affiliation of organisation can hold more then one slot on the council ( so no more 1 person from goons on csm, this makes ccp look bad and also has potential of ābehind the scene advocacyā)
How does that really change anything? Null groups brach out into all parts of space. If you want to be cynical these null blocks could install puppets to game your new āruleā set. It would be too much of a headache to verify these connections.
Moving toward a secret CCP selected NDA bound focus group might be more ideal for capturing diverse viewpoints and dampening feelings that large groups get advanced notice on changes. Leaks will probably still happen and attempts to doxx the secret group may be a factor to consider.
In this new system what would stop goons to vote for their highsec, low sec, wh, pve and pvp mechanic alts and still end up getting a full flush in the csm?
You fail to realise that the āgoon altsā I mentioned are in no way related to goons on paper, they are neither that on ccps eyes if set up properly. Itās what we eve players know as āmetagamingā or āspy gameā.
ccp can track them easily, you underestimate them. they are very good with these things. only ccp could really know how effective that would be, but if we would take you ad face value now, whos to say they dont control all of csm?
They do. But on a serious note. If they were all difrent persons how would ccp know? I mean it might become obvious during summit, but what is ccp to do in that case, kick them all out?
While I would like better representation on the CSM for all areas outside of null, Iām more than willing to settle for people who are willing to listen and at least present my views/problems to both the CSM and CCP. If a CSM member is honestly trying to make the game overall better for most players and not his particular subsect, I really donāt care that much what his affiliation currently is. If a player cannot see the overall game picture and understand about compromise and dev/CCP asset rationing, then he shouldnāt be nominated, let alone elected.
CCP has gone directions that the CSM has fought hard to stop or prevent. They also have gone along with certain suggestions from the CSM. I consider the CSM to be mere tugboat trying to alter the course of a steaming supertanker; you may be alter the course a few degrees port or starboard, but you arenāt going to be able to radically change its determined course, let alone bring it to a full stop. The CSM canāt make CCP do anything, they merely are a sounding board which tries to stop any completely asinine development ideas from reaching you and I.
I have found Brisc to be at least responsive to my concerns, as well as knowledgeable enough to understand aspects of the whole game and the interactions between different styles. We donāt always agree, but I have always felt he gave me a fair hearing on my ideas. To be honest, outside of Jinātaan and Steve, Iām not sure how much the rest of the CSM does that, so in that aspect, I feel you may have a point. However, good luck trying to design out Goon influence; they truely are masters in proper planning, game mechanics, and subterfugeā¦and good for them!
Iād also like point out that if ccp knew the afiliations of their candidates it would be a hell of a way to burn a spy. Just think of the drama when ccp denies the enterance of number one high sec candidate cause of his goonswarm connections. Which brings us to the other problem: how would ccp decide who is a highsec player and who is a Wh player, ect. What if the candidate plays in all parts of space, has been in all major blocs and is loved by many?
I say scrap this idea and embrace democracy, if you dont want goons on csm you need people to not vote for them or vote more for others. Iād also like to point out that the goon csm has been the best reprecentitives for smaller groups/high/low and nullsec in general. They know their stuff and they have advocated against changes that would hurt the game by giving goons an edge. Just look at the new jumpgates and fatigue, it was goon csm that spoke against it. Same with cap balance, structure balance, rorquals, isk faucets, new player experience ect. Read the csm minutes and maybe even you will vote for goons on next round. (not cause they are goons, but cause they know their stuff and are good at keeping the game healthy)
Nullsec candidates dominate the council because Nullsec players vote. There are 5 times as many potential voters in Highsec but, if they donāt vote, they have no right to complain about the outcome.
That said, the Imperium has a vested interest in a healthy, balanced game. Their survival depends on a healthy Highsec. All the ISK in the world doesnāt matter unless CCP is profitable and investing in the game.
My perception is that the council does itās best to fairly represent all regions and playstyles. Itās possible that more industrial/PVE representation could shift priorities (shameless plug for completing module tiercide)
Please keep propaganda off this topic thread. Weāre not interested in talking about āhealthy gameā states for āgoonsā.
I am certain as i see commonly on forums, that diatribe, false propaganda is a frequent weapon goons employ to stop changes that would really balance the game, and help it, but hurt goons as an entity.
Quite a few. Not just from the CSM, but also from all the active players in null that have relationships with Devs, as well as those who post on the forums, on reddit, go to EVE meets and Fanfest, stream, make podcasts and write articles, blogposts and use social media.
Steve, myself and Suitonia have all spoken up on behalf of mission runners (I run level 4 sec missions all the time) and incursion runners.
There is no way to implement this without turning the community team into an elections qualifications office. How do you determine who represents each of those areas? How do you define āPvPā or āPvE.ā What if the PvE person only does Abyssal PvE and nothing else? What if the āwormholeā guy is some slickass politician who only spent a week on WH space but now claims to be the wormhole great white hope?
This would absolutely ensure that only nullsec bloc candidates get on the ballot, because nobody but a nullsec bloc candidate could get 500-1000 players to all nominate them.
Again, how do you judge that? Make them take a test?
Again, this is unenforceable. People will create one-man corps or alliances for their CSM members, and then do whatever they want with the folks they want to in game. There is no way to limit the number of players from one area that canāt be gamed. And, in the end, STV takes care of most of this anyway.
The current system does not need these kinds of radical changes. The reality is that all of the problems that folks believe exist with the CSM arenāt structural problems - itās getting good people to run, getting those folks to run good campaigns and do the things they need to do in order to win, and the lack of organization or willingness to cooperate in some areas of space that make it difficult for them to field a candidate from that area.
This has come up before and I have yet to see a proposal that cannot be gamed by a large bloc.
https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Brisc_Rubal covered most of the points (above) but the one extra thing I would add is that even if you donāt run yourself to correct the imbalance? Campaign for someone who you think WILL make a difference. If you are in incursions talk in fleets, if hisec? channels or even bloody local.
The votes are out there to change the dynamic of the council but only if there is support for it.
Null wins because itās organized. They can get their troops to rally around their politicians. Can highsec do that? You donāt give enough credit to your whole CSM either, thereās plenty of them who are very dynamic and independent and have been highseccers at some point in their Eve careers.