Welcome to Jester's Trek.
I'm your host, Jester. I've been an EVE Online player for about six years. One of my four mains is Ripard Teg, pictured at left. Sadly, I've succumbed to "bittervet" disease, but I'm wandering the New Eden landscape (and from time to time, the MMO landscape) in search of a cure.
You can follow along, if you want...

Monday, May 21, 2012

Quote of the week: Play another game

The quote of the week this time around comes from Alekseyev Karrde, a member of CSM7.  Over the weekend, this CSM had their first "town hall meeting" with players.  Instead of a direct conversation with players via Teamspeak as was done during the first CSM6 "fireside chat", the CSM was broadcasting live on EVE Radio.  Questions were accepted via EVE mail and within an in-game channel.  Overall, this was a good technical compromise, but probably should be regarded as a process failure.  As I said at the time, the CSM6 first firechat chat was chaotic.

This was just anarchy.

There was very little rhyme or reason or structure to the thing, unfortunately.  Now, part of this is perhaps because I missed the first 20 minutes of the meeting.  The CSM apparently doesn't like people who live within 500 miles of the Pacific Ocean any more than CCP does, because it was scheduled for 1700 EVE time.  So if there were opening remarks or structured dialogue as part of this thing, I missed that.  By the time I got on, the meeting consisted of random, mostly badly-worded questions being chosen by someone who clearly didn't have a good feel for the sorts of questions that the CSM should and should not be asked.  Compared to the fine job that DJ FunkyBacon did with The Mittani/Riverini debate on EVE Radio during the elections, this was a farce.

Pro tip for next time: if the question is silly, hard to understand, unreasonable, or is not something the CSM can address... don't ask it!

Cough.  Anyway, good thing about the part of the meeting I heard was that most CSM members got a say about topics that interested them.  In particular, when asked such a badly-worded unreasonable question about high-sec war-decs, Seleene immediately bounced the question to Alekseyev Karrde, who as part of Noir. makes his EVE living on high-sec war-decs.  Reworded to something semi-relevant, the question was basically "What do you say to high-sec players who simply want to opt out of war-decs because PvP has no interest for them whatsoever?"  Aleks's answer:
You have to deal with it... or stay docked... or play another game.
Er... yeah.  I immediately joked in the in-game channel that "CSM member encourages high-sec EVE players to stop playing EVE" and he clarified his statement with this:
[17:51:27] Alekseyev Karrde > Some players have unrealistic expectactions of safety in EVE.  My constituants know that and wont miss people that quit because they face the cold dark reality of New Eden
Sic throughout.  Take it for what it's worth, but keep in mind that Aleks's "constituants" are probably people that like high-sec war-decs.  ;-)  But that's the quote of the week.

By the end of the meeting, anarchy and pointlessness had taken over to such a degree that the "moderator" -- and Dear Heaven, do I hesitate to dignify whomever was running this thing with that title -- read a question from Darius III.  Yes, that Darius III.  The one that's on CSM7.  The one that should have been answering questions, not asking them.  When asked why he wasn't in a position to answer questions himself live, Darius stated that "he wasn't invited."  This statement drew mocking insulting commentary from the rest of the CSM.

At that point, I shut down EVE Radio and left to do something productive.

If it isn't clear enough, the members of CSM7 are not impressing me so far.  The fact that most of the CSM members got a chance to speak?  That's a good thing, compared to CSM6.  The fact that they're having town hall meetings, and I hope that they will indeed be plural?  Also a good thing.  The rest of this first town hall meeting?  It was a disaster, in my opinion.  Let's hope CSM7's performance at the May/June Summit is better than this, and let's hope future town halls are handled with a lot more professionalism.


EDIT (22/May/2012): Two step informs me that the recording of this town hall is available at http://www.eve-radio.com/csmtownhall .  Thanks for the link!

61 comments:

  1. So you missed out on the question from person that wanted to have sex with me? I thought that was the best part!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Glad I didn't catch any wind of this or I would have suffered through it listening while I do something else.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "By the time I got on, the meeting consisted of random, mostly badly-worded questions being chosen by someone who clearly didn't have a good feel for the sorts of questions that the CSM should and should not be asked."

    It's a townhall, an opportunity for the players to ask questions of the CSM and get answers in real time. Those "random badly-worded questions" weren't picked out of a hat, those were the questions PLAYERS ASKED.

    I'm not sure which is worse, that you either so grossly misunderstand what a town hall is or the low regard you have for your readers and the player community.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are a complete idiot, if you think that this is how a town hall meeting is run.

      More questions are submitted at such meetings than can be answered in the allotted time. Thus, a competent moderator is always required, to clarify and group questions from the floor, such that the answers provide the most benefit to the largest number of meeting attendees.

      "Anarchy", as Jester puts it, is a polite description of the sheer incompetency of how this meeting was organized and run.

      As for your "answer" to the high sec wardec question, it was utterly pointless. Effectively, all you did was tell a bunch of players "if you don't like it, go **** yourselves." If this is the best you can contribute to the CSM, then you don't belong on it.

      Delete
    2. Alekseyev, you are a blight on the face of the game. Mittens has some advice for you that it would be wise for you to follow. See the video of his drunken performance at Fan Farce if you need clarification.

      Delete
    3. A town hall meeting is only of interest if there are interesting answers to interesting questions. Just randomly answering random questions in the order that they are received is foolishness bordering on incompetence.

      Do not do "first come, first served." The moderator needs to be picky about questions: avoid the "so when did you stop beating your wife" questions, stick to the "what's your opinion on …" questions (this will also help you avoid NDA stuff).

      Even better, pick a "theme" for the Town Hall (e.g.: Inferno is coming out, let's talk about whether flying in space deserves as much focus as it's getting for cosmetic stuff, how badly the ISK/hr attractiveness of FW LP store will break the FW game for people who loved the PvP for PvP sake, and how boneheaded CCP Soundwave is for moving data cores to "research with guns") and favour the questions that fall into that theme.

      My apologies to Hans Jagerblitzen, I'm not trying to say that you're a bad moderator, just that you did a bad job of moderating. I hope to give some constructive criticism even if it is swamped in cynicism and dripping with disdain.

      Pick questions that will be moderately challenging to answer, that don't ask for an opinion about Goonswarm or PL or how bad a news editor riverini is, but that also don't ask for an essay on the Objectivist nature of EVE Online and how the ultra capitalistic world of EVE will permanently taint the minds of our aspiring young Communists.

      So my guide is to look for the questions that you as an EVE player and a CSM member find interesting, which will help develop your concept of the rest of the CSM as players and as people (because those are two different roles), which would make future Town Hall meetings much more interesting to me as a player and as a person (i.e.: actually worth listening to, rather than feeling like a waste of 2 hours 37 seconds of my life).

      Please try to take the Town Hall meetings a little seriously: we're not all mouth breathing sycophants to a galactic spymaster looking for some sound to pour into our ears to distract us from the sheer boredom of structure bashing. Some of us have real lives, and want our entertainment to be entertaining.

      If I want mouth breathers rabbiting on about Easter being about rabbits humping chickens I'll go listen to CFC voice.

      PS: please stop with the "my constituents" crap. You all represent all players: there are no seats allocated to "people who voted for faction warfare/hisec wardecs/nullsec monopoly on T2 industry". There are no electorates. There are no division boundaries. There is only "this person received this many votes".

      Delete
    4. To be honest, we covered just about every question asked of us, only skipping the ones that were repeats. If I had cherry picked questions that I thought were interesting, we would have said what we could say about each of them, and the show would have been over in a fraction of the time.

      And don't worry, I don't take the criticism personally, this was my first time doing anything like this and of course I already have things I want to do differently the next time. I think one simple solution is to do more promotion in the lead up to the townhall, so that we have "extra" questions and can pull the "good ones" out. Having a theme would be important too, to keep things focused.

      Also - if questions ARE filtered somehow, I don't think it should fall on the CSM itself to do it. I don't know who that should be exactly, but it seems incredibly self serving for us to choose only the questions we personally thought were worthwhile and disregard the rest. That seems to be the opposite of community interaction, in my opinion.

      Point is, we wanted to host a townhall as soon as possible, whether or not we had a perfect format worked out or whether or not we had interesting answers to interesting questions. This wasn't designed as entertainment, despite the fact we all have a sense of humor. The intent was to be a resource for players asking whatever they wanted to ask, not to wax eloquent about what we like or don't like. We all have personal blogs for that stuff.

      Delete
  4. Even if hundreds listeners to a radio show send in the question "Did Chris Brown hit you with a fist or an open hand?", I assure you the DJ does not ask this question of Rihanna. Failure to do so does not disrespect the listeners to that show.

    That said, if you believe this is the case, this doesn't explain the several questions to which CSM members gave mocking or openly dismissive answers to.

    I stand by my position: the "moderator" did a poor job in selecting and filtering questions, and the CSM did a poor job endorsing such an unprofessional, disorganized structure for this town hall meeting.

    Who was the moderator, anyway? I want to avoid this person in the future.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hans Jagerblitzen was taking and moderating questions. But I would love to know which questions asked of us you thought were equivalent to your woman beating example...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Karbox DelacroixMay 21, 2012 at 6:06 PM

      How about the one where the guy asked how the hi-sec gankers were going to be punished for space terrorism?

      Delete
    2. yep all of you laughed at him if i remember correctly!

      Delete
  6. hey jester, nice twisting of meaning. Some people won't take any risk at all, and those people are the people EVE can do without.

    idiot.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Enjoy the game you like to play after CCP shuts down the servers after half the players bail. Before you call anyone an idiot, look in the mirror.

      Delete
    2. I agree! Nullsec ratters should be kicked out of the game!

      Delete
    3. @ Anonymous: At least I post with my actual player name :)
      and @ Mara: lol. Wasn't who I meant, but I can't argue there either.

      Delete
    4. Players that would unsub over a war dec or being griefed wouldn't be long-term players even if they had perfectly safe sandbox. They're the players unwilling to adapt because they're used to playing games like Diablo 3 and Skyrim and EVE does not fit that mold. With that being said, they're also the players that simply quit after they rat up a ton of ISK, get a few cool pimped out mission ships, and get bored of EVE like they do all the other games they play.

      The response to his question was purely reasonable. The question wasn't "how do I handle being war dec'd" the question was "what if I want to opt-out of the PVP portion of EVE". There is no opt out of PVP in EVE and there hopefully never will be. I think while Alek's quote may be blunt, I think if you asked CCP Soundwave how to opt-out of PVP in EVE he would probably ask if you were kidding if he even answered you at all.

      Delete
  7. I'm curious (a) what fraction of the CSM would agree with the "play another game" statement, and (b) what fraction of the player base would. I'm guessing that (a) is "lots" and (b) is "not so much", but it's hard to know. I suspect that there are reasons why nullsec and wardec alliances tend to get more people voting for CSM members than random carebear corps do. And, I suspect that nullsec and wardec players want there to be more people like them, and are just as happy to see carebears pushed out of the game. But is that what CCP wants? And is that what we, as a player base, really *should* want?

    To be sure, one of the attractions of EVE is that what you do can make a difference. There are consequences to actions. It's impossible for that to be a case and ALSO to have a game that's completely safe for people uninterested in PVP.

    However, the perception amongst a lot of non-PVP highsec corporations is that the coming changes in Inferno are going to make life miserable for them. Particularly if you're a small corp, it becomes near-trivial for any sizeable alliance to maintain a permanent wardec on you. And, if they're interested in hunting and ganking easy targets, why not maintain wardecs against lots of small corps?

    Assuredly the wardec mechanics needed changes, but are these the changes we wanted?

    I predict that a lot of small corps evaporate and the membership in NPC corps goes up. I predict that except for the PVP-focused players that are overrepresented on the CSM, the Inferno wardec changes push EVE towards being *less* social. Which will of course only feed back to the preconceptions of the PVP focused players that only the PVP players are social, so if CCP wants a social game it should push people in that direction....

    If you think about what we *really* want in the game with respect to wars, we want wars that are mutual, and wars with consequences. Mutual wars are no problem. By wars with consequences, I mean, if somebody has a tower, and somebody else wants the moon, then the corp who owns the tower should be succeptible to a wardec. However, if you consider the multitude of small PVE-focused corps who don't have any resources worth taking, by and large a wardec on them is just done for purposes of obtaining cheesy targets to pad your killmail stats. Is this really what we want to be encouraging in the game mechanics? Are the corps who want to have the easy targets really any less cheesy and pathetic than the PVE corps they deride, the PVE corps who want to be able to escape all wars altogether?

    I don't know what the right mechanic is, but I fear that the Inferno changes are designed primarily in the interest of large aggressive corporations that want to have lots of targets that are (a) easy to gank and (b) most likely to be angry or sad when they're ganked. (Because, somehow, ganking is better if it makes the other person particularly upset-- the "harvesting of tears" and all that. It's that immature schoolyard-bully mentality that too many EVE players mistake for liking a mature and serious game with consequences.)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I predict a quiet and large number of unsubs, followed by yet another round of layoffs at CCP.

      The fact is that most of the player base consists of high sec dwellers, who are not interested in non-stop non-consensual PVP, don't bother ranting in forums/blogs, and don't give a damn about CSM or other meta-gaming nonsense.

      These folks log in to play a game with their friends. If they cannot do this, because of excessive harassment from other players, then they will just go find something else on which to spend their money. And, they mostly won't come back, even if fixes/changes are made to the game after the fact.

      Sure, you can say "good riddance, get rid of the losers who can't or won't PVP", but every lost sub means less revenue for CCP - and one more step towards shutting down the game for everyone.

      Delete
    2. I'm not in a 0.0 corp. I live in high sec. I have never declared war on anyone.

      The changes you are asking for would ruin the EVE I have loved for the last 2 1/2 years since i stared playing. "we *really* want in the game with respect to wars, we want wars that are mutual" No, no "we" don't! You might, but I certainly do not. First off you would kill the Merc profession for many players. Second, you seem to think only corps that own POS's should be subject to non-mutual wars. That's just arbitrary. "resources" do not have to be just moons, they can be trade routs, market transaction, DED plexs. All these things are reasons for high sec corps to go to war.

      Also, the idea that wars should be "mutual" to prevent what some call "griefing" is really just providing a safe haven for actual griefers. Some of the miners in my home system are right now getting ready to declare war of a group of griefers who are experts at the 15min timer. They can flip, steal mission loot, trick agro ect. They then hide in station when outnumbered for the 15min agro timer. So this group of carebears are going to declare war, one that the griefers can not hide fro, for 15min. But if you make wars only mutual, greifers like this can grief away with immunity.

      Delete
    3. I fail to understand where the new mechanics will make life miserable to the non-PVP corporations and why should these members move to NPC corps!

      - Before, the cost of a war was 2 million for a corp and 50 for an alliance. Now its always minimum of 50!
      - Before, the price multiplied by the number of active wardecs the defender had. Now it multiplies by the number of active wardecs the aggressor has!
      - Defender now can call for help of mercenaries

      So, wars are more expensive. No more wardecs just for the sake of wardecing someone since it costs much money! And starting a rampage of wardecs its not viable anymore like some corps used to do!

      How this is benefiting the aggressors? Even the tactics of using multiple corps to wardec multiple targets and jump between them when you see a target(and the target didnt notice you as you are still a neutral) will not work anymore since after you leave a corp with an active war you need to wait for the war to end or 7 days!!!

      So... again... how this is making life of non-pvp gamers more difficult? And even if it was doing it, why shouldnt it be more difficult?

      It's a PVP game!! I understand that EVE got so full of bears on the last years that 80% of EVE players dont know what PVP is and dont want to get close to it, so used are they to the 'safety'. But EVE didnt become THE GAME playing with Hello Kitty style and whiners!

      EVE equals PVP

      Dont like it, GTFO and let the ones who love the game for what the game is play it!

      CCP doesnt change stuff, bears whine for lack of new stuff. CCP changes bears whine coz their stuff changed. Creates more PVP, bears whine how unfair and unsafe for them. CCP protectes them and they whine while failing to realise its for their good. They are so used to whining.....

      Delete
    4. The Captain -- I'm not saying that there should only be mutual wars. But wars where there is some reason or consequence are the sorts of things that make more sense than lol griefer wars. I have no idea how to enforce that, but ideally that's what we should want.

      Nuno -- it's folks like you who gives PVPers a bad name in these discussions. "EVE equals PVP, don't like it, GTFO." Give me a break. That's how some people play the game, but it's not how everybody plays it. Your insistence that everybody play the game your way is the stereotype that carebears have for PVPers, and your echoing that (if you aren't just trolling) is only going to enforce that view.

      Re: why the new changes are scary for small alliances, it's because there is no way out if an overwhelming aggressor wardecs you. Also, the changes make it possible (for example) for the entire CFC to pick a handful of highsec alliances and declare war on them just for the lulz.

      Delete
    5. I was going to agree with Nuno until the point of the "EVE equals PVP", which is just a mindless pvper moto.

      Eve is a sandbox game and while pvp is the most important aspect of it there are more things involved.

      Delete
    6. @Nuno - if 80% of the players are not interested in PVP, then Eve does not equal PVP. And, if 80% of the players GTFO, then you can also GTFO because CCP will no longer be generating sufficient revenue to keep running "THE GAME".

      Perhaps you and the 20% idiot minority should actually be the ones to GTFO, so that CCP can concentrate on making the game better for the 80%.

      Delete
    7. You know, I keep reading various opinions on how eve should be playing.

      If you harbor an idea like this you are an idiot.

      If you disagree with the previous statement read it again.

      EVE is a Sandbox. If you want to PvP you can, if you want to EvP you can. If you want to play EVE-chat, guess what, you can do that too. Don't be an idiot.

      Delete
    8. I'm always surprised about how such a great number of players are convinced that EVE = PvP. Personally, I started playing EVE because its good PVE system (yes I know sometimes it's boring, but even this way it's one of the best PVE system around). I love the way you can interact with economy, I love exploration, and I'm even starting to like mining and manifacturing. Sure, all this stuff wouldn't be the same with some risk involved by PvP, but it can't be ONLY PvP. All if you PvP guys cannot live without PvE, as much as we PvE guys wouldn't like PVE without PvP. CCP would make a big mistake by breaking this balance.

      Delete
    9. ezrvinh, I'm sorry to disagree with you here but Nuno is exactly right. Eve equals PvP. If you want to login and just hang out with friends running a few missions or doing anything else in game and just because you do not aspire to be part of a big player bloc you somehow expect to be immune to the whims of the Eve player community then you are contributing nothing to the sandbox and honestly I would just as soon see the game die rather than be populate by a bunch of people playing in their own shard. Sound harsh? It is. It's Eve. Get over it.

      The whole point of the game is the sandbox. We all play in the same sandbox. All of us interacting and building castles and kicking over castles. When people start demanding safe places they are just saying they want a single player shard for them and their small group to play Eve. You can argue all you want but when you say things like "lol griefer wars" I ask, why must there be a reason? Maybe I don't like the name of your corp. Why should you be safe simply because you want to be?

      I don't high-sec gank. I have never once done it. I have been the victim of it earlier in my Eve career and it is simply another thread. I only insist that you play the game the way CCP plays it. And for now that means, no such thing as complete safety. If that changes then both you and I will re-evaluate the game we love and continue playing or not.

      Hilmar tweeted this this morning. Watch it and embrace the chaos that is Eve. - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tu1mbsgo738

      Delete
  8. @ezrvinh I'm not sure where you're coming from with the "Particularly if you're a small corp, it becomes near-trivial for any sizeable alliance to maintain a permanent wardec on you." line of thinking. Under the pre-Inferno war dec mechanic this was true. Inferno will raise the prices of corps decing other corps and alliance decs will stay exactly as they are now in the case of the smallest imaginable target. In the case of medium/large targets the cost will skyrocket compared to the old wardec system. The 50 increment against multiple wars will still be in effect. Inmost cases costs are going up not down, and in no case will it cost anyone less.

    Small PVE corps may go on the decline, but it will be for the safety of numbers in larger alliances (which sounds kinda natural) than persecution of the little guy.

    ReplyDelete
  9. @Jester - looks like the new CSM might be somewhat overly sensitive to criticism. Poor babies... lol... :)

    Good call, though.

    I listened to the town hall meeting, too, and was utterly disappointed by the organization (or lack thereof) and the answers (or lack thereof).

    @CSM members - if you can't handle just criticism from honest folks like Jester, then it is probably better if you resign, in favor of a more mature alternate. Otherwise, grow a pair, and stop whining.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for saying this Anon, you really hit it on the head. I mean if Alekseyev Karrde can't roll with the punches he's gonna get knocked out.

      Delete
    2. No. The answer is to get rid of the CSM. Permanently.

      Delete
    3. I’m totally fine with taking criticism, obviously as one of the ones participating I’ll be the first to stand up and say that this was a learning experience, and that there’s definitely ways we can improve our townhalls in the future.

      That being said, there are some inaccuracies that should be clarified. First, Jester suggested that the CSM doesn’t care about those that live near the Pacific, despite the fact that there are not one but three CSM members that live in the Pacific Northwest. We got up early to do the show, the reality is that EVE is a 24-hour game and that no matter when you host an event, it is inconvenient for someone, somewhere, and I can’t believe Jester placed that on the CSM. We chose a date and time specifically because it was a weekend day for those living where the event would take place in the morning hours.


      As for the format change, the bottom line is that in switching from a live format (which as Jester pointed out, was itself chaotic) to a mail-in format, we didn’t want to then intercede and censor out what Jester refers to as “badly-worded” or “unreasonable” questions. CSM members receive “interesting” questions all the time via email and we don’t just blow off all of those we don’t take seriously, and it wouldn’t speak well to our commitment to transparency to do the same at a townhall. I asked questions as fast as they rolled in, the only filtering I did was to skip questions that we’d already answered. Townhalls are about player interaction, cherry picking the questions WE wanted to answer would have turned it into a soapbox for issues CSM wants to speak on. So we left it raw. I’m open to suggestions for improvement, however, as long as players have unfettered rights to ask about whatever is on their mind.

      Lastly, about Darius III. I’m simply amazed Jester fell for this one. Let me put this as kindly and respectfully as possible – Darius is a non-participatory troll. He has been silent more or less the last month, although he still has full access to Skype and receives all the same emails as the rest of the CSM. The idea he wasn’t invited was a joke, and I deliberately read his question on the air so that the public can see that he chose not to participate, once again, in an important CSM event.

      Players asked for transparency from CSM7 – we intend to deliver it. Sometimes that means having raw dialogue with the public – where no question is off limits, even if the result sounds less than professional. Sometimes that means exposing a bit about what goes on inside the CSM (or isn’t going on, in some cases). It may not always be pretty and polished. But it was real, and I make no apologies for that. We’ll do better next time, send us some ideas if you guys have them and we’ll do our best to make the next townhall more productive.

      Delete
    4. Hi Hans,

      First, thanks for taking the time to reply!

      I appreciate that some members of the CSM got up early to participate in this. I didn't get up early, and I suspect nobody else that isn't on the CSM that lives within 500 miles of the Pacific got up early or stayed up late, either. Hopefully, future town halls will be convenient to other time zones.

      If Darius III is a non-participatory troll, why give him the floor as a question-asker? Oh, that's right. Because you wanted to leave it "raw". I have another name for "raw": anarchy. Or more to the point: amateurish. You might see "come one, come all, everyone gets the floor" as a virtue. I see it as wasting the time of players such as myself that want the process taken seriously. That was how CSM7 failed here. You're not contractually required to give every single person the floor for every single brain wave they have. You're allowed, and even expected to filter. Keep the discussion positive, constructive, and relevant.

      You didn't do that, and to my mind, that makes this first town hall a failure.

      The players didn't ask for total transparency from the CSM, and even if they did, you CAN'T deliver it. What the players asked for was more open communication from the CSM. You can do that without being "raw". Hell, you can technically do that without lengthy Q&As. If the first 20-25 minutes of the town hall wasn't the CSM talking about what they've been up to since their election, that counts as a second failure of this town hall.

      I have no political axe to grind here. I didn't run for CSM7, and there's about a 95% chance that I won't be running for CSM8, either. I want you guys to succeed. You don't have to take my word for CSM7's failure here. Read the other comments on this post and you can hear it from a variety of commenters.

      Speaking as an outside observer, my feeling is that CSM7 blew it on this. I hope future town halls will be handled better. Thanks again for taking the time to comment!

      Delete
    5. @Hans - First thing you gotta learn, no one wants to hear excuses or explanations for things which didn't work. Period.

      "First time doing this" and "learning experience" - no, absolutely not. Go learn on your own time, not on the players' time. Supposedly, you ran and won a seat on CSM because you had claimed to have some experience already. If not, then turn the job (of moderator, at least) over to someone else.

      And, never try to justify mistakes - just apologize, say you'll do a better job next time, and then make damn sure that you actually do a better job next time.

      Delete
  10. "If it isn't clear enough, the members of CSM7 are not impressing me so far."

    Maybe you should have run, silly billy

    ReplyDelete
  11. "You can please all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you cannot please all of the people all of the time."
    It's a paraphrase, sure, but it's very, VERY, _VERY_ apt.

    There are games that please _most_ of the people all of the time. Why can't there be a game that pleases _some_ of the people all of the time?

    I think CCP does need to "sell out"... but to someone who actually gives a shit about the IP, the universe, the story, and the relative handful of players who would enjoy it... not just some Wall Street types looking to cash in on it as the "next big thing". It's not. Hasn't been, and after 9 yrs, probably isn't ever going to be. Hopefully, never _will be_, anyways.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Go play what? We always hear WOW. Let's say CCP creates a World of Eve on a different server. This game is identical to EVE except there is no pvp except for war in this game's highsec. No way to take from cans or gank. Attacking other players can only be done in lower security space and there are no wars unless they are mutual. This game would probably require bigger isk sinks or lower payouts. Just for sake of argument how many people would make or transfer accounts in this new game? This is mute anyway as it could be done in Eve now. Frankly, how many people would quit playing Eve if it was changed this way? I think it would be interesting to find out. There are always the HTFU comments. Tons of them but, there are comments on the other side. Couldn't it also be said if you like (non consensual)pvp you need to go somewhere else? Where? Wouldn't think it would be too hard to patch in and then remove if it 'really' made a difference. Crime Watch is being rewrote this seems like a simple switch that could be flipped without much change at all. This is the situation so many have been afraid of. Orly? Go back to your nullsec blue fest and stay out of high. =)~

    ReplyDelete
  13. So, I asked a question, but real life did not allow me to listen to the broadcast. Was it recorded? Can I listen to it somewhere else?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yup, go to http://www.eve-radio.com/csmtownhall and you can download it. (Jester, please add that link to your post!)

      Delete
  14. Jester I like your blog a great deal.

    "At that point, I shut down EVE Radio and left to do something productive."

    At any point that I hear people talking about the CSM in any way, shape or form.... I leave to do something more productive. Her involvement with the CSM sapped Mynxee of whatever desire she may have had left to continue playing EVE.

    The CSM is nothing more than a CCP Public Relations tool. It is a cancer within the EVE universe that needs to be removed.

    ReplyDelete
  15. CSM is representing only a small group of players whose opinion about anyone who is not them is "go play WoW!" But did anyone stopped the "others" from voting?

    I guess if there would be a vote on the question "Shall we permaban Mittani and disband the Goonswarm?", the outcome would be like 200K for, 15K against. Where are the same 200K votes in the CSM?

    The people never get politicians they want. They get politicians they DESERVE. They usually get them by inaction, letting a loud minority have the control.

    Stop bitching over the incompetence of CSM. Whatever they are it's your fault. And mine of course.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Any game where the advice to a new player is "don't log in for a week" should be ashamed of itself - and for the CSM to be doing the same is just terrible.

    Yes I understand their perspective that if those players aren't willing to participate in PvP then they aren't 'up to the grade' for EVE - surely the answer isn't culling the weak its teaching them how to be strong.

    At the end of the day EVE needs players. CCP needs the subscribers and the more players we get in the game the more fun we can all have. High sec wars are probably the single handedly been the cause for massive amounts of new players unsubscribing due to forcing them into a war they don't want to be a part of - either because they lack the skills, or the income to partipate in one. I'm sure they'd quite happily jump in if they felt like they could make a contribution or at least have their losses covered.

    If we simply throw away all those players who could really enjoy the PvP side of EVE then we miss out on all the potential that those players could bring.

    You don't kill off a baby because it doesn't know how to speak; you teach it. But I guess that brings into the question that potentially each new player could equally be a threat and its easier to kill them off when they cannot defend themselves.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Any game where the advice to a new player is "don't log in for a week" should be ashamed of itself - and for the CSM to be doing the same is just terrible.

      This. In fact, not just to the new player, but to any player.

      If the alternative is "join an NPC corp", i.e. "drop out of the group of players in the MMO that you've found you like to play with and go back to a big anonymous solo group", it's just as bad.

      I agree with those who say that EVE is the sandbox, and the sandbox means that you're never totally safe. But if you're somebody who likes industry and hauling, or running incursions, a wardec makes it impossible to do a lot of what you're doing. (With care, missioning can be done. With scouting, even hauling. With incursions... no dice. Incursion runners, if they're smart, don't let people with wardecs into their fleets.)

      What's odd is that the "EVE is PVP" crowd can't see that there *is* a problem here. I am not sure what the answer is; making it possible for everybody to be completely safe any time they choose without having to make any sacrifices violates the sandbox. Jester has pointed out before that with regard to mining, it's basically impossible to do it safely, even if you have defence fleets around. You can have a defence fleet to fight off attackers-- but the attackers can always pop the hulk before they get popped. Indeed, it's easiest there when there's no war and they're suicide ganking, because the defence fleet can't aggress first. In a war, the defence fleet might have a hope, but it's a faint hope if the attackers know what they're doing.

      Griefing should be possible. Right now, however, griefing is too easy. And, agreed that sometimes it's a fine line between legitimate gameplay and griefing. (The exact same actions may be one or the other based on intent, in fact.) The only real defence for many players against a wardec IS to not log in for a week and wait for the wardeccers to get bored. And that's just pathetic.

      Perhaps the merc options in Inferno will change this landscape. If so, then I will be very happy. It'll all depend on how expensive mercs are.

      Delete
  17. I agree with Jester that the show was badly moderated -- and probably just all in all badly prepared ( aside from the technical setup, which did the trick ).

    The quote of the week I think is all around positive. We were wardec'ed once in a while in our time as high-sec/WH carebear corp and it added the spice to our game. We hid mostly, yes, but you cannot enjoy summer without a proper winter.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Glad to see I wasn't the only one perceiving the performance of the CSM during that meeting as rather unprofessional.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I've always loved the answer from the "hardcore" to HTFU or GTFO. That kind of attitude is amazingly short sighted and is the best way to get the game cancelled.

    There are three dividing sectors in Eve; HS, LS and NS. Why is it so difficult to accept both PVE centric and PVP centric play styles within these three areas.

    HS- Mutual combat only, no ganking, and wars limited in duration and ability to be decced within certain length of times. Something like two week maximum war dec during a three month period. Doesn't matter if a different group wants to dec you, there's only two weeks available unless you agree to make accept additional decs. Lowest yield on mining, missions, incursions, and sites.

    LS- No supers, with no bubbles, increased rewards for all sites, missions, mining, and incursions compared to current. I'd even like to see the ability for Alliances to take control of select areas with a two system limit on influence. There'd still be lots of NPC space but use some of the pockets and out of the way areas practice for null sec.

    NS- Anything goes, highest payouts for everything.


    This type of setup would allow for a gradual increase in risk with compensatory rewards. Smaller groups could pick the area they want to operate in, PVP would have shallow end to get new players interested, and players can pick just how hardcore they want to be.

    Mercs and pirates will still have a place to fight, they'll just have to actually man up and take on some risk as well. For some reason a lot of players think it's sac-religious to expect the bullies to HTFU or GTFO instead of expecting the new subscribers to play into the hands of the stronger vets.

    Sure it's a sandbox but how many playgrounds have you seen where the older, bigger kids get to beat up on the younger, smaller kids without parents stepping in?

    Imagine how many carebears would still be playing the game, learning the in's and out's of PVP, and moving on to null sec if the game was designed to encourage PVP instead of beating you over the head until you accept PVP or leave.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Imagine how many carebears would still be playing the game, learning the in's and out's of PVP..."

      ... for the 50 billion-jillionth time: real carebears don't care for, nor want, nor will they ever _accept_ PvP in the game. To accept the "sandbox, open-world, PvP can happen anywhere even if you don't want it to" nature of EVE means you are _not_ a carebear -- EVEN if you don't actively participate in PvP yourself.

      Fuck.
      /bangingheadonwall

      Delete
    2. What a well thought out reply. Real carebears won't PVP.

      Where do PVP people come from then? They all joined Eve without ever desiring to try any type of PVE?

      Perhaps you are under the assumption that saying someone is a carebear means they will never try out PVP. Should that be the case then what would you call people that prefer PVE but are willing to try PVP if they feel they had a decent chance of not getting completely overmatched?

      Maybe carebear is the wrong word, but I don't know what else to call someone who prefers PVE but is willing to participate in PVP as long as they have a fighting chance.

      That's the biggest problem with Eve, the all or nothing attitude. There has to be a middle ground to allow PVE personalities the chance to play in peace when they want as well as provide plenty of opportunity for PVP to happen. Sectioning off the different areas to allow an actual safe haven, a middle ground and a deep end would cater to the desires of a lot more subscribers. More subscribers means more people that will be out there to try PVP. More PVP means more fights for those that prefer that style. It's pretty much win/win.

      Even gankers can still get their rocks off, they just have to accept the additional risk of being in low sec instead of safe and secure in HS until they open fire. Sorta like telling them to HTFU, don't ya think?

      Delete
    3. ^ This. I don't go out looking for fights. But if I decide to do some asteroid-based fundraising, I've got D-scan up and (if not distracted by Mini-Me) I'm ready to rocket out if something looks fishy. I have no expectation of safety.

      It's the freakin' Wild West in Space, folks. Hope for the best, but be prepared for the worst.

      Delete
    4. Ruar,

      You seem so focused on "yield", "payouts" and "rewards". Those are things that I expect from a job, not a leisurely diversion.

      This is one of the things that finally turned me off from WoW - everyone was so worried about the loot, what was in it for THEM, and demanded that the loot pinata was easier and easier to bust.

      Just... /sigh

      Delete
    5. At no point did I mention yield, payouts, and I'm pretty sure I didn't write rewards either.

      I don't focus on loot or payouts. I just want to have fun and relax. Sometimes that's doing stuff in high sec, sometimes it's going on roams through low, sometimes it's working the market.

      The problem I see with Eve, and the problem that I feel turns away most people that stay subbed for three months or less, is the fact that there is no time you can truly relax in Eve if you undock.

      When you look at most MMO's there is a high preponderance of PVE servers and a few PVP servers. When you look at the population balance of Eve you'll find most players stay in high sec.

      To me this screams that a large chunk of the gaming population, to include those that have tried and left Eve, want to play in a safe area with the OPTION of PVP. The requirement to be ready for PVP at the whim of someone else, someone who's more than likely got every advantage over you at that time, drives away subscribers.

      Which directly relates to the quote of the week being deal with it or play another game.

      The best way to deal with it is for CCP to step in and provide a safe area for players that want that type of playstyle while still encouraging and focusing on PVP content which is the mainstay of the game.

      Why is it such a bad thing to accommodate people that want relax sometimes and go PVP when they feel like it. In the end the player pool would be bigger and part of that larger pool would try and enjoy PVP.

      I'm not even getting into the boost to the Eve economy by an influx of PVE oriented players dependent on low/null/wh for raw materials, components, and shiny upgrades.

      It just takes an open mind to see past the folly of "Eve is only about PVP" and realize there's plenty of room in this universe for both PVE and PVP players.

      Delete
    6. Sigh... so I did say yeild, payouts and rewards.. once each. However the loot aspect was in no way the focus of the post. Oh well, I guess people will read/hear what they want sometimes.

      Delete
  20. Aelk's quote seems harsh, but EvE has always been a do-what-you-want game where bad and mean things happen because they can.

    The new system for wardecs will, as Alek pointed out above, cost people more money to declare war. Next, the new system allows people to easily call for help, should they need it. This increases interaction between groups of players, which is a good thing all around. The new system has some faults, which are not worth discussing here, but once tweaked to fix those faults will make it easier for people who are being attacked to seek help so they can fight back appropriately. This position assumes that those who have been dec'd cannot fight back competently, which is not often the case.

    Personally, I've been a merc in Noir. for more than 3.5 years, we've been called in for some very interesting wars. In some cases, one group of carebears wants the other's operations disrupted. They need/want someone who is good at PvP to do work that they can't. Not being able to do this would be a big loss for EvE in general, because it takes away from the sandbox.

    No-one is safe in EvE, this is a fundamental tenet of the game, it has always been that way, and is unlikely to change. If you disagree with a fundamental principle of a group or activity, you need to seriously consider your participation in that group or activity. I love EvE because there is so much to do, and so many ways to do the same thing, and I think most people playing the game agree. There is a problem when you want to change things you don't like, just because it disrupts what you do like.

    Noir. has been wardec'd by various groups over the years for various reasons, and it could interfere with our work if they did it right. That is the danger of EvE. People are allowed to try and disrupt your life.

    As a plug for our services, Noir. does consulting work, so if you want PvP training or advice, you should hit us up. We are friendly people who don't hold grudges - many targets become employers - and we don't hate our targets, we just get paid by other EvE players/groups to destroy them and disrupt their EvE lives.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "As a plug for our services, Noir..."

      If Alekseyev Karrde is representative of the current members of Noir, then I'd never consider recommending your services to anyone, esp. any high sec noob PVPers.

      Why the hell would anyone want to pay someone, whose only advice would be HTFU or GTFO?

      Delete
    2. The other option "Deal with it..."
      I see a lot of you guys missed this part. If you don't want to deal with problems that come your way in EVE, then go play WoW.

      Delete
    3. You said that "No-one is safe in EvE, this is a fundamental tenet of the game" but I have to wonder if that's really holding true in this case. Where's the lack-of-safety for you, the aggressors in all this? I mean you've said yourself you're a 3.5+ year highsec PvP veteran and those carebear corps you frequently "destroy and disrupt" are mostly going to be made of players less than 1 year old with little to no PvP experience to fall back on.

      Sure, theoretically they can kill you, but realistically they have nowhere near the coordination or the fleet composition to pose a threat to you - you've spent years learning how to fit and fly a ship for PvP, they've spent months learning how to fit and fly ships for PvE.

      Delete
    4. Hmm... have to agree with the first Anon poster. Noir really has gone down the toilet, if "Deal with it... or go play WoW" is the best advice their members can offer.

      Probably better off playing WoW than hiring these losers to fail for you.

      Delete
  21. Try as I might, I cannot muster any interest in this CSM. I listened into eve radio and apart from people attempting to be funny and doing a very poor job of it I'm not sure what it achieved?

    The last CSM had a theme and an agenda, this one seems to be an odd mix of competent people and those who've watched too much West Wing.

    ReplyDelete
  22. One amazing thing about Jester is his knack in baiting the true idiots of Eve to step forward publicly and demonstrate to everyone exactly how stupid they really are.

    Now, is there any way we can get a recall vote to boot Alekseyev Karrde off of the CSM?

    ReplyDelete
  23. I'm really tired of the hurf blurf that amounts to nothing more than "EVE equals PvP. Conform or GTFO." No. This is incorrect. If you actually feel this way (and aren't just a troll), then I seriously hope you reconsider because as others have said, this attitude damages EVE as a whole.

    You cannot demand that anyone who plays EVE must only PvP, just like you cannot demand that everyone playing in the sandbox at a public park must only build square sand castles. You can hate their round sand castles all you want, and you can knock them over and stomp on them (ganking, griefing, etc.) but you cannot stop them from building them in the first place. On the flip side, those round sand castle builders cannot mark off a section of the sandbox where their round sand castles will be 100% safe from the steel-toed boots of those that wish to kick them over. This is how EVE operates, and I hope it continues to operate this way forever. Far too many players, null-seccers and high-seccers, PvPers and PvEers alike, applaud the idea of the sandbox on paper, but they only want a sandbox that rewards and encourages THEIR way of playing. When changes are made to EVE that threaten how they play the game, they whine and bitch and throw tantrums that most five-year-olds can't even aspire to.

    Believe it or not, there are a lot of people who
    a.) value PvE and would like to see CCP create more and better PvE content, and
    b.) also believe that nowhere in the game should ever be 100% safe and that ganking, wardecking, etc. should be allowed just as they are today.

    I think only a small minority of highsec players actually want to see highsec transformed into some place that is 100% safe 100% of the time. Most highseccers DO NOT feel that way.

    Similarly, I think only a small minority of nullsec believe that all of highsec should unsub and GTFO. At the very least, I hope most of them are smart enough to realize that they wouldn't have a game left to play if that actually happened.

    Non-consensual PvP is an important part of the game. It should stay that way. PvE is an important part of the game. It should also stay that way. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.