Sure, because only those changes proposed by CCP get an “approval” if they don’t target the status-quo. The last statement is a myth you try to establish.*
… you perfectly know what you can do, influence CCP to do gameplay measures against botting, AFK mining/ratting, multiboxing scalability, and instanced gameplay. What would you bet, those points are addressed within the next 12 months?
EDIT: * Resource limitations/depletion for example would (have) help(ed) a lot, to keep people moving and spreading in New Eden
My answer was in context, based on the claim of Brisc that most of the recent changes were influenced by the CSM. Which I’m not considering an all good thing.
We’ve already seen them taking solid actions against botting - and that’s stuff that we’ve pushed for. They just nerfed Rorquals when the ended the triple ancillary shield boosters, and got rid of 500mn HICs which were only a thing in nullsec.
AFK mining is a dumb thing to do, and there are already plenty of bad things that can happen to you if you do it. AFK ratting is not something that the larger nullsec blocs do exclusively - it’s usually the lower level guys, honestly - because it’s not as efficient as super ratting, which you can’t AFK.
If you have ideas on how to fix multiboxing scalability, I’m all ears. But I don’t see that being a top priority compared to other stuff.
And what does instanced gameplay have to do with nullbloc power?
If we were fighting against anything that impacts the status quo, you wouldn’t have seen these new navigation structures, you wouldn’t have seen any of the balance changes or nerfs, etc. That’s all arguing against the status quo.
The idea that the CSM is simply trying to protect nullblocs is an age old conspiracy theory that has no basis in fact. I wish people would stop repeating it.
CCP banned a bunch of bots and executed some publicly, a drop in the ocean. I call this a publicity stunt. No changes to gameplay were made to make botting more difficult.
Just read the forums sigh. Hint: add. micro management plus decision points
It encourages “not to move” and “not to play sandbox”, people can stay in their safe capital forever.
You mean the navigation structures, which negate fatigue for capitals and make easy projection across the map possible again?
Sure, nerfing combat ceptors is much more important.
There don’t need to be changes to gameplay to make botting more difficult. What needs to happen is CCP needs to catch botters and ban them. They’re doing that. Every day. Botters and RMTers are getting banned left and right.
And all of that has a negative impact on existing gameplay, which is why folks don’t tend to want it.
But they don’t, even given that option now.
And who was it who complained the loudest when these structures would have allowed supercapital moves? Nullsec and the CSM. It was changed.
Can we quit dumping on Brisc? Yes, he is the most visable CSM member, but that is only because he is about the only current one to be active in the forums and elsewhere. Outside of Jin’taan last year and a very rare instance or two before, the CSM has had a history of being almost outside of communication range for the general EVE player. I’m sure he is frustrated by the NDAs and certain directions in development by CCP, but at least he appears to be listening and responding to the general player population’s imput. Is he gaslighting us? Hell if I know. While he often disagrees in part with what I or others may have stated, I never found him to be always dismissive or unresponsive. Just wish the other CSM members would be as accessable and communicative as Brisc; they currently seem to only communicate with their null sec voting blocks.
This is how you lose the war. BTW, detecting RMTers is way easier than detecting botters (it’s often related but not the same beast).
My problem with this kind of statements is, that for me it looks like, that you do not want effective measures against bots.
… also here, yes it has, that’s the purpose!
The challenge is to find a way to not harm “normal paced” gameplay too much. Besides tags instead of bounties (for more risk), maybe a speed/efficiency penalty would be a good start, i.e. the faster and the more anomalies you farm in one system, the less will respawn.
Kind of soft cap on ISK/h per system, so multiboxers/super ratters will get in trouble with average players (internal conflicts to manage), and players have to switch system more often (risk of getting caught).
As you said, those things will never be brought up and discussed with CCP, because you do not want them to happen, as it harms the easy-peasy nullsec gameplay.
So, I guess we can say that CSM is overwhelmingly an advisory board to the developers. And while it is stated as being there to represent the player community, it is the representation of a representative democracy, which is to say, you better be in a lobby or constituent block or just thank your lucky stars there is at least one Brisc_Rubal.
Also despite the name Council of Stellar Management, it manages nothing in fact. Council of Stellar Advisors might be a more apt name.
Okay. Next question. Do CSM meetings follow a particular format? For example, is there a time set aside for each member to present a proposal or two? Or is it free format? Or whatever the developers dictate for that day? I cannot really tell this from the minutes (which are not minutes, but an overview).
We all want effective measures against bots, and we want CCP to go after botters hard. Nobody is saying they want botting to be easier. The problem is that your proposed solutions have a bigger impact on regular players than they do on botting.
I’m fine with all of that, but not as a solution to botting, because it won’t be. It’s a solution for reducing the isk faucet that ratting presents, which also needs to be fixed.
But yes, you have to expect that existing players who like the current system are going to complain when it’s being changed. And CCP has to balance the desires of a large number of existing players against the desire to stop a very small subset of players (the botters). I don’t think you can justify changes that large just on stopping botting. But you can justify them in terms of trying to reduce the size of the isk faucet that is ratting right now, because it’s unsustainable, which is exactly what Larrikan told me when I asked him that question point blank at the summit.
I think it was just a cool sounding name they came up with.
Generally speaking, our Friday meetings are free form - CCP will give us a rundown on what they’ve been doing, they ask us if there’s anything they need to know, we provide feedback and ask questions, bring up specific issues that we want to bring up, ask for specific meetings with teams, etc. The summits generally are made up of about 2/3rds requests for meetings from the CSM, and 1/3 requests of CCP for the CSM. For instance, we asked for a FW/Wormhole meeting last time, so that was on the schedule. They wanted to present stuff on the new player experience to us, so we had that session.
In terms of presenting ideas, that is largely done on the CCP internal communications stuff, or directly with the dev team or individual devs. Those meetings aren’t the best format for that, since they’re basically us meeting with the community team, not with the individual development teams unless we’ve specifically asked for a meeting on that.
There are two programs they use for internal communications - one is a chat system, kind of lack slack or discord, and the other is a wikipedia style system for internal document review and editing. We use those to communicate.
