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...

Wednesday, August 15, 2012

Corner

What a difference six months and a new CSM Chairman makes.

I've now read the May Summit Minutes cover-to-cover for a second time, and I was again so struck by some of what was in it that I was driven to the December 2011 Summit Minutes to read those from cover-to-cover again.  And it really makes me wonder what would have happened had the little Fanfest incident not happened, or had those infamous 10058 votes been given to another candidate.  The results are clear enough, though: even though much of CSM6 moved straight into CSM7, the entire frame under which this CSM views EVE Online seems to be completely different.

In December, there's nearly two entire pages in the minutes devoted to how to re-balance (read: nerf) super-caps.

In May, there's this:  (page 85)
[Greene Lee] raised the issue of remote reps on super carriers as one factor making super-cap combat "not fun. You have 50 super carriers, and you can do nothing."
Elise Randolph: "You bring titans and you volley through them. It doesn’t matter how many reps you have if you have titans."
Greene Lee: "You need how many titans?"
Seleene/Elise: "16, 16-17 to go through an Aeon. Not a lot."
Emphasis mine.  Only once are super-caps mentioned as a problem by the CSM, and that's in the context of the fact that Faction Warfare alliances don't use them for fear of being hot-dropped by PL. (page 112)

In December, other than adjusting incursions, there's a lot of discussion and concern about where individual player ISK is going to come from.  Mining will be getting buffed, it's said.  New players will be given a lot of ISK as soon as possible.  Holding sov will directly benefit player income more and alliance income less.  Incursions will be adjusted to be harder but in general are meeting their goals in terms of player income.

In May, the CSM points out that... well, let's use direct quotes: Seleene says "everyone is so filthy rich that losses really don’t matter." (page 47)  Elise Randolph can take a 100 billion ISK fleet and "at the drop of a hat just throw it around." (page 112)  Seleene adds: "Currently things are like a bunch of fat people fighting over who gets to eat first at the ‘all you can eat’ buffet, no one will starve, it is just the question of who is first in the line." (page 48)

In December, both CCP and the CSM were apparently highly critical of the technetium situation and both sides regarded it as a very high-priority item to correct as soon as possible.  The focus was on making alliances have to live in their space to make ISK in their space.

In May, CCP says that a major technetium fix is off the table for 2012 and nobody so much as raises an eyebrow.  Instead, the CSM feels that alliance members are making too much ISK in their space, carrier ratting has become a scourge, and Two step "believes the many faucets this is coming from should be cut back across the board." (page 85)  And indeed, this one's clearly becoming an issue because CCP points out the top ISK earners are all carrier pilots running anomalies.  And yet, "The massive drop off of Vanguard sites was praised [by the CSM] since they were relatively risk-free ISK." (page 87)  You know, the incursion-runners that aren't the top ISK earners.

In December, it was the CSM defending the ability of the players to make ISK and shouting that the game's massive alliances needed their incomes reduced.  That CSM was massively anti-capital ship and anti-super-capital ship and was pounding on the table asking CCP what they intended to do about it.(1)

In May, we have the CSM arguing that players are rich enough and incomes need to be reduced across the board, while "Soundwave pointed out that people do die in incursions at rates higher than some other kinds of PvE content" (page 87) and "Dr.EyjoG expressed his awareness of concerns about inflation, and that it might price T1 ships and components out of the reach of younger players". (page 160) 

Somewhere along the way, we've turned a corner.  Or maybe it's just the CSM that has done so.  The implication seems to be that anyone that wants a super already has one, therefore CCP no longer need worry about them, therefore doing anything about them is superfluous because they can be volleyed by the 16 or 17 Titans that apparently anyone can field.  Remember, the two summits were less than six months apart.

tl;dr: In December, it felt like CCP was defending "how things are" while the CSM was attacking it on the basis of what they felt the players wanted.  In May, with a few exceptions, it feels like the opposite.

We live in a New Eden where our player representatives feel like player income is a bigger issue for the game than tech and super-caps.  Meanwhile, it's CCP that has to remind them that not everyone has been playing this game for seven years, not everyone is in a massive null-sec super-alliance, and not every player is space-rich.

Or am I seeing something that isn't there?  I hope I am, because this is really bugging me.  Discuss.


(1) The irony of this is certainly not lost on me.

85 comments:

  1. My initial knee-jerk response is "Mittens for CSM8!" and I'm too busy slaving away at my space-prole job for spacebux to consider the question any more deeply. So this is how populism works.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Elise and Seleene I think are considerably far off from the reality of Eve Online players.. and it is very disappointing. As you correctly pointed out, the major issues with Eve that throw people off such as the over-abundance of supercaps, aren't even addressed.. aren't even realized by the CSM despite many of these actually AGREEING with that premise back with CSM6.

    The strange point about all this is that the kniving, backstabbing, immoral leader of Goonswarm was doing a better job defending the little guy than those claiming to be normal every day players.

    Personally, I hope to see blogs by Two Step, Elise, and Seleene correcting their own views. If not, I certainly wouldn't want them to continue this path into CSM8.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, that's why I said the irony of the leader of the Goons looking out for the little guy wasn't lost on me.

      Delete
    2. I mean its not that ironic, ever since mittans went CSM and political hes been doing it. He was a staunch opponent of supercaps since day one, I'm pretty sure I could wrap some quotes around 'I hate titans' and attribute it to him and I wouldn't be incorrect, even though I've never read it or heard him say it myself. If you look at the people who defend noobs in EVE on the csm, its usually the Goons and the Uni delegates. You have to have read Sins of a Solar Spymaster, right Jester?

      Delete
    3. There isn't much irony. The Mittani has always been looking for a Bottom Up way to fund an alliance. That is why GSF taxes on ratting and PI are 15%. Refining taxes are 3%. He long called for Tech nerfs and the only way he could bring one about without being on the CSM was creating a Tech cartel and creating a painful situation. He got it nerfed without even having to be on the CSM.

      The Mittani is extremely crafty and resourceful.

      Delete
    4. i suspect the dramatic exit mittens took cast a shadow over the CSM that couldn't be shaken. I think CCP is to blame for hyping "burn jita" that month, yes? Kind of hard to project authority when CCP is acting like a murder of crows around something shiny

      Delete
    5. I don't think it's irony that Mittens was one of the major supporters for new player issues, I think a lot of it is simply that he has a lot more exposure to them than the other CSM members. Think about it; unlike so many Null alliances, GSF takes rookies straight out of their noobships and regularly recruits new players to EVE from the SA Forums. He's got a much more direct line to players, for example, starting the game, getting screwed over by veterans and quitting and wearing the CSM Chair hat I think he felt some responsibility to address that.

      There's also the point that culturally Goons started out as the low sp newbies getting preyed upon by the high sp vets and the Goons and Mittens in particular make kind of a big deal about that bit of history; it's not much surprise that he'd continue to be sympathetic to those low sp players.

      Delete
    6. @Hivemind. yeah, i respect Goons for that and how they had all those tutorials out for noobs even as eve university was just taking off (or even before, iirc)...however, i love to hate goons on principle. Fun to have enemies...makes life...exciting. not too exciting. lol

      "better a boring day in paradise than an exciting day in hell"

      Delete
  3. it's a game for alliances, if you choose to remain independent then you choose to be a poor outsider.
    PL sits on years of EVE tradition fat on the tax of past accomplishments defending their status quo and yet they say highsec is eve on easy mode. think again. like RL, it's the new start-ups that struggle to make a profit, not the establishment.

    ReplyDelete
  4. There is definitely a Wall Street metaphor looking to be set free here. Who is looking out for the space middle-class?

    ReplyDelete
  5. A large percentage of the CSM, especially on the top seven, are alliance leaders and/or part of wealthy alliances. They may not have dealt with 'grunt problems' or 'hiseccer problems' for quite a while and thus are not in tune with how much the income balance affects the game-play of the majority of the playerbase.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This.

      The biggest CSM problem which needs to be addressed is the voting procedure. Until the alliance voting blocks are effectively nullified, there is never going to be a change in the misrepresentation of player base.

      Here is a suggestion for a new voting system:

      Four of the CSM seats should be assigned to specific "spaces" in the game. For example, one seat should be delegated to high-sec, one to low-sec, one to null-sec, and one to WH space.

      The remaining three seats should be delegated based on the major issues in the next upcoming release, per CCP. For example, for Inferno, one seat could have been delegated to high-sec wardecs, one seat delegated to mining changes, and one seat delegated to ship balancing.

      Each candidate can only run for one seat, in one specific category.

      Each player can vote "for" candidates, in up to three seats/categories, depending on what issues are most important to the player.

      Each player can also vote "against" a single candidate, in any seat/category. This will allow the unfocused player majority to mitigate the effectiveness of the concentrated alliance voting blocks.

      Delete
    2. Anon0606 has hit it on the head. If the voting system remains as is, we'll be making the same complaints again next year, and the year after, and so on.

      How about an article on changing the way that CSM voting is done, Jester?

      Delete
    3. I love the idea but I'm not sure about how the execution would work - how do you ensure that candidates for a given seat actually represent that seat once elected?

      Case in point, Seleene ran for CSM7 on a platform of distancing himself from his alliance and promoting reform for industry, a major hisec issue that probably would have a permanent seat. Now he's elected that seems to have flown out the window in favour of keeping supercaps broken and nerfing player income because "I'm rich and all my buddies who I've been playing for years are rich too, clearly there's too much ISK in the game".

      Delete
    4. "...how do you ensure that candidates for a given seat actually represent that seat once elected?"

      You can't, ofc - no more than in RL.

      However, by providing players with the ability to vote "against" any one candidate, you can make it much less likely that a single alliance will be able to game the election to put their own people in every CSM seat.

      Using your example, Seleene might not be able to win an industry-specific CSM seat, under the election system proposed above. The high-sec industrialists can use their "against" vote to dilute Seleene's alliance backing, and make it possible for a non-alliance candidate to win the seat. Knowing this, it is also more likely that Seleene would not even attempt to run for that particular seat.

      In any case, the proposed system is no worse than the one which is already in place.

      Delete
  6. Jester, you should not be surprised at all. Just like real life politicians have no frame of reference with the common man; Internet Spaceship Politicians have no frame of reference with the common player. What I find amusing is the fact that CSM members must think the player base is a stupefyingly clueless bunch, that don't know how to read, extrapolate and interpret data on their own. Common sense is clearly lost on this CSM.

    ReplyDelete
  7. So, basically what you're saying, is that you miss the Mittani already?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Is it that, or does it go beyond that? After all, many of these same people were on CSM6. They were AT the December summit. Now they're saying completely different things.

      Delete
    2. Mittani has something that the other members of the CSM don't, the ability to get into other peoples heads. Strangely, the ability to empathise.

      This is also partially why goons are so successful.

      After reading this post I thought (referring to the CSM): Opinions are like arseholes, everybody has one.

      Although the relationship between opinions and arseholes doesn't really end there.

      Delete
    3. Mittens is a lawyer, Ender.

      He doesn't "empathise" - he just knows what to tell you, in order to get you to agree with him. This is his profession.

      Delete
  8. Jester,

    Please please please run at the next election.

    The little man would like someone capable of opening their eyes to vote for

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I can guarrenty strong Incursion support for your election. That is if we're still around after the NEGLECT & cheering on our communities decimation by this CSM
      ~DarthNefarius

      Delete
    2. Jester has MORE influence here than on the CSM....
      He was refrenced more than some of the CSM members and we know CCP reads this.

      He is also growing his set of contacts...

      Delete
    3. oh crap, you mean soundwave saw me call him a douchebag? *runs from the banhammer*

      Delete
  9. Ripard, Jester, whatever your name is, RUN FOR CSM CHAIR dammit!!! and don't stop until you get it.

    EVE needs a "The Buck Stops HERE!" guy...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. no...i like reading blogs. i miss Mynxee's blog. I figure one of the reasons she quit was being a CSM. lol

      Delete
    2. Yeah, CSM duty seems to be a great way of burning out.

      Delete
  10. I always viewed the CSM as being CCP's form of damage control and when it was shown that Incursions where broken they just cheered it on because it did not affect thier indevidual alliances. This CSM is out for itself.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I don't know, but maybe they are correct.
    Just look at your own fits of the week. Officer mod here, faction mod there, when it is a frigatte its realy an exception.
    People now feel entitled to fly battleships, T2 ships and T3 ships. If you suggest that someone should maybe ship down to a T1 cruiser (don't fly what you can't afford to lose) you get flamed to death. IMHO people HAVE to much ISK on average, myself included.
    And it gets much worse at the big alliance level, they are much too rich for the good of the game. Loss doesn't mean anything, wars are lost because of boredom. Has been like that for some years now, and I don't think it's good for the game.
    Of course, nobody that has a lot of ISK wants it taken away. Especially the super rich like our CSM members.
    But would you?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To be fair, while the Proteus was expensive, the last few months of FOTWs have been relatively inexpensive stuff with few/no faction mods. I did a pair of Merlins last month, too.

      Delete
    2. @Jester Right, you've done some inexpensive ships, but consider the cost of those ships to a year old character's income opportunities? As you've pointed out before, one might be able to grind L4s for 20M ISK/hr (no second account, just a non-faction battleship). Those Merlin fits are ~12M. How quickly can I lose those learning to PvP in RvB? How useful are those T1 frigates in low/null/w-space? You'll quickly end up moving to 50M+ T2 frigates and 75M+ T1 BCs, nevermind 700M+ strategic cruisers. As a new player, it seems I'd have to spend a fair amount of time grinding ISK just to "play" the game.

      Delete
    3. lolz @ Thad. seriously? Yes, i'd agree with you in the past many years ago when tritanium was 2.0 isk...i'd even grudgingly agree with you that Jester's "it's reallly worth it to get that deadspace AB" might not take into account the oft quoted "don't fly what you can't afford to lose" mantra.

      on the other hand, meta 4 prices have plummeted. Skill info is just awesome to help n00bs figure out what they can get. Item info is tremendous with it's "compare" option. there's just so much more available to help and supply n00bs with more ships and isk than they know what to do with it.

      And now? mining is just fantastic. it's where most n00bs get their "risk free" sources of isk...and once mining frigates become a reality, it'll be free of the "ore thief" scourge.

      I'll grant you that the average n00b stumbles about in this incredibly complex and massive learning curve blind as bats making isk at ridiculously low efficiency rates...except, if that n00b is reading Jester's blog...well...go figure

      Delete
    4. To an extent this is a problem with eve.

      Otherwise just use cheaper equivalent fittings and most importantly, he also describes HOW the fit should be used and why certain fitting decisions are made.

      If you can't afford the exact fit or have the skills to fit it, then use the description as a guideline.

      Swap meta 4s for meta 3s, buy only the t2 modules that you need, etc.

      Or if you are in RvB then suicide a few t1 fit ships until you feel you are doing things mostly right. :) It's the thoughts that count.

      Delete
    5. THIS!

      I only have a 3 month old pilot, so I use Jester's fittings as a guide and downgrade to what I can use, which is T1s most of the time.

      Delete
  12. I had the same reaction when reading this. 'Is that ALL that was said about supers? That you ONLY need 16-17 titans to counter them?'

    It boggles the mind to think people think needing close to a trillion isk in ships is a sensible counter to something, and not much of an expense at that. I'd be very interested for CCP to release the average player's wallet and income, and what proportion the spacerich actually represent.

    Let's face it, supers and titans are just as much an issue as they were 6 months ago, and for some reason they've suddenly become 'balanced' according to the CSM. I remember the clamouring for a tech 2 BS to counter supers, or for ECM immunity to be removed. Now, silence.

    I hate to say this, but I agree, we're missing the Mittani. Otherwise we're on our way to a game with an empty universe aside from a few angry rich bittervets.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I disagree. Mittens happens to be one of the game's most "angry rich bittervets", particularly when things don't go entirely his way.

      He is also responsible for much of the current mess we have with the CSM. How quickly many fools forget that he is the one who first "gamed" the elections, to put control of the CSM into the hands of the null-sec alliances.

      The best thing Mittens ever did was to get himself kicked off the CSM. Now, if only the same thing would happen with the rest of those losers, starting with Alekseyev Karrde.

      Delete
    2. Once again, you're thinking about Mittens the Goon leader, not Mittens the CSM chair. The two really are very separate entities. As Jester points out there are multiple instances where he led the push for the more modest eve player. This is in extreme contrast to that of Seleene and Elise, who are CLEARLY in it for their null perspective (100 bil throwaway fleets, 16-17 titans being nothing) and completely detached from the average player.

      Delete
    3. There is no difference between Mitten the Goon leader and Mittens the CSM chair.

      In fact, there is very little difference between Mittens the in-game character and **** the RL person, as his drunken actions at Fanfest adequately proved.

      Mittens is a lawyer. He makes a living spinning falsehoods into truths and distorting the facts to his client's benefit. Lawyers are not capable of wearing multiple hats - they have to truly believe in their own BS to be successful. So, don't be fooled - any agenda that he pushed, which was supposedly intended to benefit the players at large, was nothing but a cover for his own agenda.

      Delete
    4. Sure, because no lawyer has ever appeared representing the defendant in an "obviously guilty" case purely to uphold the defendant's legal rights, or because there have been cases historically where "obviously guilty" defendants were later found to be innocent when their cases were reviewed or forensic techniques improved.

      The job of a defense lawyer is to make sure that the prosecution is doing their job and has actually collected the evidence needed to provide reasonable certainty of guilt, so that defendants are not wrongfully convicted in the court of public opinion without actual proof and so that those who enforce the law cannot abuse their power to convict the innocent.

      There certainly are some lawyers who are the kind of moral vacuums you describe, who go far from making sure the law is upheld and into the realm of twisting it purely to serve their clients, and that is a sad fact. There are also lawyers who have exposed tampering in cases or otherwise swayed juries and caused the charges to be dropped even when the accused probably was guilty, and again that's a sad fact. On the other hand it is that self-same challenging of the law and due process that prevents police from fabricating evidence against you just because they think it probably was you and want to ensure a conviction, or that simply being found in suspicious circumstances isn't enough for you to be imprisoned for life.

      You say that Mittens' true character shone through at fanfest and that we should all judge him based on his actions when he was heavily inebriated and his judgement was thoroughly compromised. What about his actions later on when he was sober and found out what he'd done and, this time in his right mind, gave the victim all his ISK, publicly apologised and offered to step down from the CSM? Those were made with sound mind and faculties, why write those off in favour of going only by a single event when they were definitely unsound?

      Delete
    5. Choosing to be heavily inebriated in public is a personal judgement call, which speaks to your true character. And, it doesn't speak well.

      Mittens' actions after the fact were entirely self-motivated, not based on any sort of guilt or responsibility to the victim. He was attempting to avoid getting kicked off the CSM and to avoid getting slapped with a perma-ban. The ISK was a nice touch, esp. since Mittens knew he could easily replace it via the Goons' multi-trillion coffers.

      Typical lawyer spin control. Not worthy of any respect, whatsoever.

      Delete
  13. This also shows how there is a failure from senior management at CCP. The way items get brought up and then forgotten shows there is nobody taken responsibility for the big picture of eve

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I really think they're planning on turning ultimate responsibility for that over to new owners before long. Witness the emphasis lately on Rookie ships, T1 frigates and mining barges. Not to mention yet another iteration on the NPE and tutorials. They continue to clamp down on hisec griefing (to a degree, not completely) and the upcoming Crimewatch system will further put a damper on can-flipping.

      I wouldn't be surprised to find out that CCP has a super-secret team of devs working on Barbies In Space that greatly outnumbers the ones working on Flying In Space. The reason we don't hear about it is their desire to prevent premature player outrage. They want to milk that cow for as long as possible until they're ready to pull the NGE trigger.

      When that day finally arrives, they won't care if 100,000 angry bittervets unsub for once and for all because the kinder, gentler EVE will be ready to attract 300,000 new players to replace them.

      OK, so maybe my tinfoil hat is on a little tight this evening.

      Delete
    2. There is no "super-secret team of devs" working on WiS. It is all pretty much in the open.

      FiS is a dead-end product. New sub numbers have been non-existent for the past year, and projections for the popularity of a FiS game have not been favorable for several years now. The current goal of FiS development is obviously simply to retain the existing subs, with a minimal amount of effort and resources.

      WiS is what the game-playing public, and potential investors, want to see. Human avatars, not spaceship avatars. You are living in the past - this is the future of MMO gaming.

      Incarna was a stumble - when CCP finally gets WiS launched, you might see 10,000 angry bittervets unsub, just to be angry, but the numbers will never reach 100,000 and those unsubs are more than likely to resub shortly thereafter.

      Delete
    3. "take responsibility for the 'big picture' of eve"

      okay, what's the big picture? i mean, what's CCP's original vision for their sci-fi MMOG, besides a quarterly statement?

      They had none. they continue to have zero interest in formulating a vision. and to even think of the possibility they might actually have a big picture in the future is 'irresponsible'

      The game is ten years old (including beta) and devs still continue to be clueless about basic stuff like "oh, if you mine something until your cargo is full the excess is LOST" .... ...
      ...
      ...
      ..
      .
      HAHAHAHAHA

      Delete
  14. that situation is normal after all ;

    people on nullsec can make more money while farming, and if they are on a good alliance, pvp don't cost them much, so they should have more money than the average player.

    concerning Mittens... well you know that Goons like [blue] newbies

    and for being far from reality... it would be pretty hard for someone to have both the knowledge, and this sense, cause if you do have the knowledge, you know how to make money, and/or how to be good at pvp, and/or you are now on top of a big structure... so you're far from the average player.

    btw jester, i heard more and more people saying you're also beginning to be far from this, being too space famous now ;)

    ReplyDelete
  15. Two things: the first is that you don't need to be 8 years old to have titans. I am 6 months old and have enough cash to buy a titan. I make 40-50B a month, so when I'll be as old as most of you here, I could multibox that 16 titans. It's damn easy to do it if you make some effort instead of roaming around to get killmails.

    Secondly nothing stops the "little guys" to have CSM members. They just have to go vote. Which they won't do, since they are too busy crying that "CSM don't represent them"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Prove it. I'm a 6 month character as well, if I'm lucky, I make 200mil a month.

      In my newish perspective, you have two classes of eve players: those who know how to exploit the game for easy money, and those who don't. I fall into the latter category, so why don't you educate me on how I, as a 6-month-old character, can make 40-50B a month?

      Delete
    2. lol How is that 6 month old character going to fly a Titan? The only way is to go to the character bazarre and buy another character. Go check out the training time.
      The trainning queue isn't even the biggest hurdle in flying one: the biggest hurdle is acquireing one

      Delete
    3. Read his blog at http://greedygoblin.blogspot.de/

      Delete
    4. Let's see...
      First, 50bn per month means you can replace one lost titan every 2 months, and it will take you 32 months, or 2 and 2/3 years, to acquire or replace all 16 of those titans. That's not the issue here so much as the fact that the kind of people who casually talk about countering RR Supercaps with 16+ titans are also the same people who can shrug off the loss of those 16+ titans and have them replaced within 6 months.

      Second, yes hisec market trading can rake in the profits but I think you're massively underestimating how boring it is for the average EVE player who wants to have fun playing the game for escapism and spaceships and isn't motivated purely by acquisition of ISK or proving a point like you are.

      Third, the fact the "little guys" are little guys stops them having CSM members; the alliance candidates already have blocs of thousands of votes behind them before the race has even started and the rest of the opposition who have a chance at being successful are big names either EVE-wide (Trebor Daehdoow, Riverini, Jester) or in specific demographics (Two Step, Hans Jagerblitzen). There's also the problem that the kind of player who would represent the silent majority of EVE players to CCP would never be running *because* they're silent - they pay little attention to the metagame and have no interest in it, which immediately puts them at the back of the running next to all the candidates who live and breathe meta.

      Delete
  16. Love or hate Mittens, one has to admit he is an intelligent person who communicates ideas well.

    By accepting Mittani's resignation and handling things the way they did, CCP effectively threw out the will of a majority of players votes -and perhaps the best CSM member.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bullcrap. CCP was forced to make a decision because Mittens was an ass on live stream. The person responsable for making those votes null is Mittens and no one else. He even said so at first before the spin and tapdancing. So stop crying that CCP threw out your vots, MITTENS ALONE threw out your vote.

      Delete
    2. Mittens is nothing but a sad and pathetic drunk. If he ever had any brain cells, they are long lost to alcohol-enhanced delusions of role-playing greatness.

      As for his "resignation" as CSM chairman, all he did was quit before he was fired. The "resignation" was nothing but a feeble attempt to fall on his knees and beg CCP to allow him to stay on the CSM in some capacity, after he made a fool out of himself in public.

      As Deth stated, Mittens did it to himself and did it to everyone who voted for him. CCP holds no blame for removing a public embarrassment from the CSM. In fact, they were overly lenient, given that Mittens should have been perma-banned from the game, for his own sake. A player who can no longer distinguish between role playing and RL needs professional help.

      Delete
    3. I voted for TheMittani, and was looking forward to listening to him at the Fanfest panel. Man, he was totally effed up.

      CCP didn't waste my vote; TheMittani wasted my vote. I won't be making that mistake again.

      Delete
    4. *puts on tinfoil hat*
      I think it was a conspiracy to recruit bittervets into goonswarm because mittens griefed ccp and wasn't permabanned. because we all know goon is known for publically stating they love to ruin games.
      *takes off tinfoil hat*

      personally, i think if i attribute only malice in mittens intent that leaves out the possibility of stupidity. lol. Was he really drunk? I gotta watch that vid. anyone got a link? Oh wait...it's ICELAND. of course they're all drunk

      Delete
  17. It does seem scary, what the CSM talk about. But you forget the flow of the game.

    Last year they nerfed sec status for anomalies and jump bridges, and incursions. Which hurt making money or at least no big alliances or small people.

    But in return, we got the loggofski nerf, as well as moms not carrying smaller drones. As well as a EHP nerf to supers.

    So you see, the small guy gets nerfed, but then afterwords the Big guy gets nerfed as well. It is a funny way of restoring balance.

    So I say, that if they do reduce the isk flow from non tech that normal players use. Then most likely a supers nerf will be around the corner.

    Of course those nerfs are hard on the small players, so who does know if another supers nerf will come.

    ReplyDelete
  18. i got the feeling reading the minutes that the CSM had their agenda and weren't really interested in representing anyone but their own constituents...instead of bringing to the table expertise that could have helped shape CCP's understanding

    on the other hand, CCP soundwave sounds like a complete douche

    ReplyDelete
  19. Most of the people in each of the CSM just follow the lead. If you have a strong leader then you get a solid message i.e. supercaps bad, tech bad; if you have a much weaker leader(s) then the message gets diluted and you end up with 200+ pages detailing people burping and CCP doing exactly what it wants to without any resistance.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I read the minutes and there is a touch of 'Qu'ils mangent de la brioche' in there. I've been playing eve for just under 18 months, the idea that isk is flowing from every pore of the game is something only older players who've been able to build up an isk bank can say.

    I play in NPC null sec, I lose ships weekly and have to spend a long time getting those ships back. PVP is expensive for me, my alliance doesn't have an tech empire to fund a ship generous replacement program. What they have is a hugely fun culture. The CSM appear to have forgotten that eve isn’t really that easy and unless you’re in a rich alliance blob it’s pretty expensive and you have to work for those ships. Reducing players incomes is simply going to drive more players into the endless sea of blue.

    If they want to get more players into null and low sec they need to find a balance between a lost having an impact and how long it takes to recover. I’m not sure CSM members who are plexing all their accounts with in game isk are in a position to comment on normal players incomes.

    Two last points. I am I the only one who gets the feeling that the current CSM views all the other players as plebs? I’m sure the CSM thought they were being awfully clever by publishing a transcript as minutes. I can imagine them giggling to each other as the word count got higher and higher. However; they’ve painted themselves into a corner because if they don’t publish a transcript going forward people will ask why?

    Lastly as much as I like shooting Goons let’s be honest, they are the most noob friendly null sec group in the game. Whatever you say about Mittens he understood players with less than 48 months in the game. With talk about how easy it is to get a capital, billions of isk and supermodel girlfriends I’m not sure the current CSM do.

    Lucky for us CCP has all this data to hand, let’s hope they ignore the CSM – odd position to be in where you hope the developer ignores the player advocacy group.

    ReplyDelete
  21. CSM speaks for the alliances. They want to retain their power. Cripple their player's earnings -> they must suck at the Tech teat and their owner's dick.
    Cripple hisec earnings -> no options for those who don't toe the line.
    They do not give a shit about risk, its just pvp talk for the cretins that go lololol and gf gf gf and think it matters.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Uh, supers already got nerfed. From what I hear, they are being used a lot less in nullsec (the big fight yesterday was the first major super loss in a *long* time).

    I think the minutes didn't capture our desire for tech to be nerfed properly. It came up several times, and as you can see, CCP did manage to get to it well before the winter...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sigh. Very slowly, then: the problem with supers isn't whether they get used or whether they don't get used. The problem with them is that they're freakin' impossible to blow up unless you have 16 or 17 Titans. Hint: that is a problem.

      More succinctly: THE PROBLEM WITH SUPERS IS THAT THEY GET PRODUCED IN LARGE NUMBERS BUT DIE IN TINY NUMBERS. And since only a small fraction of the EVE player base can afford the freakin' things, those players amass great personal fleets of them. This needs to get fixed, and the CSM needs to help CCP find the fix.

      In a game that needs more conflict drivers, describing alchemy as a "nerf" for tech is rather ridiculous. It's worse than a nerf: it's the equivalent of a NASCAR yellow flag, making tech moons not really worth fighting for. In the meantime, everyone keeps driving but nobody passes. The incredible bank of these things just keeps going to the same dudes.

      Again, very slowly: Tech at 100k per unit is THE EXACT PRICE TECH WAS AT PRIOR TO OTEC... you know, when tech was just ridiculously overpriced and over-needed instead of hilariously, ludicrously, incredibly overpriced and over-needed. Guess what: a Hulk is still 70% tech, even with alchemy.

      Why the CSM can't see these things is a mystery to me.

      I also find it difficult to believe that the CSM's need to see tech nerfed wasn't captured in 165 pages and only the gods know how many back-and-forth updates.

      Delete
    2. I personally would love to see something to make supers easier to kill, but it is actually a really tough balancing act. If you make them to easy to kill, you just won't have people interested in flying them at all, and all the large nullsec alliances will be mad about the ISK they wasted on supers.

      I don't know the hard numbers, but I suspect the super build numbers are down somewhat now versus where they were a year or so ago.

      I'm confused about your alchemy stuff. A Hulk is 70% tech by *cost*, and if the cost of tech goes down, the percentage will decrease. Certainly alchemy isn't the final solution to tech, but it is a quick, easy safety valve while we wait for CCP to really fix things (ring mining? Something else?). Remember also that if the tech price doesn't go low enough to satisfy CCP, they can always easily tweak the alchemy numbers to drop it lower.

      Delete
    3. re: tech = 70% of a Hulk by cost. Ah! You're right, of course. But even at 100k, the tech in a Hulk is still the majority of a Hulk's value: 54% instead of 70%. Put another way, the tech in a Hulk is still worth more than everything else combined.

      And I didn't say fixing supers would be easy. But it needs to be done whether it's easy or hard.

      Delete
    4. There's a big difference between "Supers need fixing but it'll be hard" and "only 16-17 Titans, not much". The problem Jester (and anyone else who actually cares about Eve as a whole, rather than just their own playstyle) has is that the latter came up in the minutes while the former didn't.

      Delete
    5. The problem isn't that supers need fixing. This has been discussed endlessly for the past two years.

      Supers should never have been introduced in the first place. Some Star Wars fanboy at CCP that it would be a cool idea to have "Death Stars" in the game, with AOE doomsday weapons, but didn't bother to think about the effect the proliferation of such ships would have on the game balance. Idiot.

      Changing their cost or time to build, or making them easier to destroy won't fix the problem. The core of the problem exists with the unrestricted supply available to uber rich alliances. It doesn't matter how much they cost to build, or how many they lose - these alliances will always be able to field them and replace them, as long as an unlimited supply exists.

      The best solution for supers is to slowly phase them out. Period. Remove the BPOs from the market, and convert the existing BPOs to limited run BPCs - this will end the ability to construct them without limits. It will make them rare again, and thus push the price up astronomically - making them less used *except* in absolutely critical battles.

      Ofc, there will be complaints and whining, but the current owners of BPOs and supers will benefit, since the value of the converted BPCs will skyrocket, as will the price of existing supers - this happens with any limited item in the game.

      The only losers will be those few (relative to the player base as a whole) players currently training up super cap skills, and HTFU seems to be the usual CCP response to that whine.

      Delete
    6. That is somewhat the fault of the minutes. The 16-17 Titans quote was met with some laughter/incredulity by most folks in the room, but if you actually stop to think about it, Elise wasn't wrong. If you are expecting to kill a blob of 50 supers, do you really think you should be able to do it in 20 rifters?

      Delete
    7. @Two step - if you actually stop to think about it, the mere idea of a *blob* of 50 supers is ridiculous.

      As Anon1019 commented, it is far too easy for the big alliances to buy, build and/or replace the damn things.

      Delete
    8. I think anonymous' reply is probably the only viable solution, to force supers to exist in lower numbers (perhaps not phase them out, but only have single run BPCs spawning when the threshold drops below a certain number). This way you end up with astronomically expensive ships that only a few people can afford, that can't be fielded in large numbers, and that would have that 'omg theres a titan on field' effect, rather than 'oh geez, here come 50 titans, jump out'.

      I think it's obvious CCP never imagined that a single entity could easily field over a hundred of these in a single fight, with risk of losing them and no issue about replacing them. They should have rectified this early on, now it will be a much more difficult pill to swallow.

      Delete
    9. @Znybar - I don't think you'd ever need to worry about spawning super BPCs. There are already a lot (too many?) of supers in existence.

      And, don't forget that if such a radical change were announced, there would be a run on the NPC market for super BPOs, before the conversion to BPCs took place, increasing the available supply of supers even further. The run on BPOs would actually be a good thing, too, since it would take a ton of ISK out of the economy.

      So, even with the BPOs gone and no new BPCs being spawned, it would literally take years for all of the supers to be phased out, but the desired result of making them more valuable to risk and more difficult to replace would be in effect almost immediately.

      Delete
  23. Excepting Hans, reading the minutes reminded me of this.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fG3dfwEkGos

    ReplyDelete
  24. Some of this is pretty mind-bogggling for a new player like myself, but you see this attitude at one level or another all over the place. Even on the newbie board you’ll see vets make suggestions like buying a Noctis (80M+) or using Black Frog to move something (50M) to us new players who are still thinking in terms of missions with 100K bounties. Meanwhile it sounds like (and I know this may be wrong) the vets take two week old alts and use their pesonal connections to spin FW buttons (or whatever the broken mechanic of the month is) to get even richer.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The question is "Does CCP even want to fix the imbalance betwen old and new players?" How much money does CCP make from new players buying PLEX because there are no good non-exploitive means to make money?

      People who have already figured out how to exploit game mechanics for massive profit are funding accounts with ISK. So it seems fair to assume that the new player and the PLEX they buy fund EVE Online.

      Delete
    2. I like Jester because he's not an elitist prick. He comes up with the "lvl 1 thrasher" fit (that although he posts the best possible fit for the best price...i mean, those 1mn ABs are really inexpensive compared to the 7+ digit deadspace stuff that are useful. That 10million isk buys you 100 extra m/s. that's nothing to sneeze at.
      It's in reach both skill wise and isk wise. it's plausible and useful for the expense.

      However, i do agree there are waaaaay too many elitist pricks all too willing to kiss DEV/GM ass in order to maintain the ability to 'grief' and instill a "HTFU eve is a cold dark place" mentality that was never there. If it was, CCP would never have coded in the things they did when Mo0 was around. They didn't code it before Mo0 did their thing NOT because they intended eve to be a "dark cold" place but that CCP were effing clueless and continue to be.

      If CCP thinks that allowing sexually challenged individuals to suck on genitals and seal lips around buttocks does not make them gay, then i have an Onion article for them to read.

      Incarna riots weren't about making eve cold and dark as the griefing elitist pricks want to make CCP believe when they listen to their customers finally, in their apology.

      If CCP actually buys the elitist prick ass kissing story then yes, i agree with you that the "attitude" is "all over the place" and will get even worse as GMs and DEVs condone condescending bullshit answers in help channels to n00bs who simply politely go elsewhere and this game dies

      [/rant]

      ooops

      Delete
  25. Why not a CSM with half members "veterans" and half "new" players?

    What do actually CSM want?
    A better game to everyone or just to them?

    How is it possible to compare the vision people have from this game, from a old player perspective and a New one?

    Why does CSM even exist?
    To cover up past mistakes from part of CCP?
    To catter to the old players masses ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. From CCP's perspective, the CSM exists primarily as a PR tool.

      As with the forums, they use it to promote the idea that CCP actually responds to player feedback, whereas past experience has shown that CCP best responds to player threats and ranting about unsubs.

      Delete
    2. ^^^^^ Anon hit the nail on the head there. That's why i don't want jester to be on the CSM...he'll burn out realizing he just sold out.

      I like the idea of the CSM as a concept, and even voted for Hans (bless his cotton socks, but i'm probably the guy nobody wants on their side)

      Actually, i'm curious as to when CCP decided on creating the CSM...is Althurus Vendrius correct that it was in existence right after CCP needed to cover up a massive mistake and needed PR badly to show they "were listening"?

      I can't imagine anything being more DERP than incarna...but that was CSM6, right?

      Delete
    3. Supposition time, if we have a CCP that does what it wants,(because lets face it, this is there property and money earner, so they do what is best to them not us),CSM that exists to be a PR tool, we the players are actually capable of changing anything?

      Delete
    4. Althurus is correct, yes; the CSM was founded as a PR measure to help restore confidence in the wake of the T20 scandal (aka Band of Developers). Specifically, back in 2007 EVE Dev T20 was publicly revealed to have spawned several Tech 2 BPOs (this was back in the days of the T2 BPO lottery) on Tranquility for use by the Band of Brothers alliance in which he (and I believe some other devs) were players. In addition to this confirmed breach of game rules there were also rumours and accusations of devs favouring BoB with insider info - specifics about upcoming patches, exploits etc. As far as I know, the T2 BPOs were the only part that was ever proven.

      Originally the CSM was meant to provide oversight over the EVE GMs and Devs to make sure none of them were cheating like this - I have no idea how this was meant to be accomplished and by all accounts neither did CCP, but that's where the 'management' in the CSM name comes from. Somewhere around CSM 4 or so they were redesigned as a player representative body to advise CCP, which is more or less the role they fill to this day.

      I believe in CSM 4 or 5 the majority were not nullsec dwellers and some proposed changes that would make life in nullsec a lot less convenient (JB nerfs of some form) were run past the CSM and waved on because nobody who knew what consequences they'd have had a voice on the CSM; they only found out after the minutes came out. Since then the null powers have maneuvered to dominate the CSM, originally just to make sure that their playstyle was represented to CCP and now because there's a prevalent belief that the CSM can influence CCP development direction. It's probable that Mittens taking personal credit for forcing CCP to abandon any plans involving gold ammo/pay2win (to hear him tell it, the protests in Jita, the negative press and the thousands of cancelled subs had nothing to do with it) has been a cause in spreading that belief.

      Delete
  26. Balance have two sidesAugust 16, 2012 at 6:07 AM

    Here are the things you missed Ripard:

    1. Everyone is slightly colored by their own bias. Seleene or anyone else in PL have never been pro Super nerfs. It's your (our) job to keep them honest though.

    2. Supers exist in a tug of war with numbers. Those were the two sides represented on CSM6, while numbers have more of the ear from CCP (most of the things CCP have done over the past few years, even with the Supers nerfs aside, have fed numbers). At the largest scale of the game, Supers is the counter-weight to ever growing numbers. Even Carriers can be volleyed by the fleet sizes of today. Supers are the foot in the door, even if they represent problems of their own.

    3. Most people have a tendency to shift focus when something is adressed. CSM are privy to CCP information in advance. It's once again our job to keep our elected individuals honest and on the ball. Supers were already nerfed, the Tech issue has been adressed and so forth. It may not have been implemented until recently, and maybe what has been done is not enough, but the CSM knew already in may what august had in store.

    4. Once you understand balance as a tug of war between forces and ideals, and you understand bias as a tug of war between altruism and ego - as well as long term and short term - then you will see the hopelessness of complaining about isolated things when the entire balance need to be adressed. Supers and Tech isn't the problem, they are symptoms. The lack of balance and interaction between the various scales and lack of ships in space. That is the problem.

    The tug of war looking at Tech and Supers can loosely be labled "Goon" vs "PL". That's the currently problem of both the CSM and CCP. That's the only scope of the game. Those two ideals feed each other attention and you need see beyond both of them to get a broader scope of the game. Hurt numbers, create incentive beyond "mass on grid" and "volume on ifrastructure" and you will make Supers less dominant. At much smaller scales, it's way easier to kill Supers with Caps, and Caps with Subcaps - even if they are properly supported. You should know this from your own experience in Rote.

    ReplyDelete
  27. CSM delegates don't have constituents, they have friends, corp mates and their own interests. They may say the people who voted for them are their constituents but they only say that because that's what they see real politicians saying and parrot it.

    Please don't confuse real World political models with CSM delegates, if you want to compare them to anything compare them to corporate lobbyists pushing their biased agenda of choice.

    Read the CSM transcripts, pick the guy who voted for you and if they aren't in your corp and alliance ask yourself if what they say has any relation to you?

    Personally my alliance doesn't have 'only' a dozen titans or 'just' a tens of billions of isk laying around. Reading these minutes it seems that if the current CSM get their way they never will ... which is kinda sad.

    ReplyDelete
  28. I don't think CCP should do anything. The game is open to played as players wish. Having CCP manage (nerf) people who have the toys (the 1%) takes away that freedom. What if you were the ones who had all of the pretty supers? Would you be wanting changes?

    I suggest coming up with a counter strategy or play differently/elsewhere.

    For the record I have no caps nor do I belong to a large alliance.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree NERFing is a sign of lazy design quick fix kludges

      Delete
  29. One thing I just don't get. If CCP wants to increase ISK sinks and everyone seems to be concerned that the richer are getting even richer, then why doesn't CCP simply change the transaction taxes from flat rates to scaled rates? In other words, higher percentage taxes are applied to higher value transactions, and lower percentage taxes are applied to lower value transactions. That's what many governments do in RL. I would think that CCP's economic consultant would have suggested this already. It is a pretty easy fix, and one that provides CCP with a much better control over the ISK flow.

    ReplyDelete

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