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, November 26, 2012

QOTW: Active members of the CSM

Quote of the Week honors this week goes to CSM delegate Alekseyev Karrde.  I haven't been blogging about the CSM lately because, quite frankly, they haven't had a lot to say other than Aleks on his pod-cast and a few forum posts here and there.  In short, there wasn't much to write about.  So I have to admit to being a little bit amused when four CSM members -- Aleks, Hans Jagerblitzen, Trebor Daehdoow, and Two step -- produced a document on the CSM's opinion of where CCP should focus their development efforts in the new year.  Needless to say, if planning for the spring expansion hasn't started yet, it will very soon, so the timing of the doc is good.

The document itself deserves its own blog post which I'll publish later today, but the forum post announcing the availability of that document to the EVE public featured this amusing line:
It was unanimously endorsed by all active members of the CSM.
I'm trying not to laugh at that.  I really, really am.  How many of those are there now besides the four authors?  Three maybe?

This is kind of highlighted by the fact that very few of the CSM members have actually posted in this thread with their specific thoughts on the document.  As I said, I'll publish my own thoughts on it later today.  Go read it if you have a moment.  It's not very long.

By the way, the date for the December summit is out, too.  It's two weeks from Wednesday, 12-14 December.  Watch for CSM members to suddenly become more active, for a few weeks at least...

16 comments:

  1. We are reticent to share our own personal opinions because we are modest people, which is fortunate because some would say we have much to be modest about.

    BTW, there is another discussion of the document in EVE General: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=174788&find=unread

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is a measure of pedantry in saying that one is modest.

      It also says a bit about organisation, internal concert and peer respect that a certain someone opens a new thread to discuss a document that has been posted by someone else actually before him.

      Just a couple of thoughts.

      Delete
  2. I like a lot of the ideas they proposed, but I see a serious issue with the attitude towards devaluing high sec in favor of forcing people into null.

    Even after two years of having characters subscribed I still don't understand why some people think everyone should have to go to null sec in order have an effective income stream.

    I have no problems with null sec being more valuable and in fact I think the best way to attract subscribers into null is to ensure it stays the richest segment of the game. The CSM mention risk vs. reward but how much risk is truly in null sec for the huge alliances? You can't sit there and tell me someone who's 10 systems deep has to worry about getting ganked or attacked.

    Rather than continue with pushing people out of high sec, which will more than likely just push them out of the game, the CSM should instead work on ways to get more population overall. Make PVE more fun and interesting. Make high sec safer for people that prefer PVE instead of PVP. At the same time make null sec more appealing to small alliances and new groups trying to carve out a niche.

    The biggest detractor keeping me out of null sec is the fact I don't want to join a zerg force of thousands and be another mindless, buzzing drone following the queens orders. I want to be in a small group where I can make a difference.

    I think the solution has something to do with making some systems in null incredibly difficult to attack, some which offer good rewards for those willing to fight for them, and some that are just used for large scale fights. Having some kind of home system which a small alliance can defend, resource systems with high returns but easy to attack, and having travel routes linking them all together would be a good way to go. Travel routes for skirmishes, resource systems for constant fighting, home systems which are pretty much immune as long as there are defenders to protect.

    That puts some real risk vs. reward into null sec while still making Eve appealing to the people who prefer PVE.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. An easy solution to getting more people into null sec would be to expand the number of systems in null sec by a factor of 4 or greater.

      The current alliances/coalitions would not be able to instantly conquer that much new space - even if they wanted to, it would take years.

      In the meantime, new alliances would have a chance to form and build up, esp. if the new null sec systems were connected to high sec via new low sec systems, rather than just extended to the old null sec (ie. so you don't force the new alliances to have to travel through space dominated by the existing null sec alliances).

      An even simpler method might be just creating new routes from high/low sec, directly into the less populated areas of null sec - ie. running routes behind the lines of the dominating alliances. At the very least, this would shake up null sec and force the alliances to redeploy forces along a broader front.

      Delete
    2. Come to the Providence region. It makes a fairly great playground to get your feet wet without having to zerg around the place.

      Delete
    3. Agreed on some points - many of us work for large corporations in real life and don't find it fun at all to be forced into one during our play time.

      So as long as nullsec is just held mainly in the hands a few mega-alliances there is no point trying to force us there we would just leave the game.

      Give us a new interesting area to explore or fight where the rules are rigged against the big alliances instead of for them.

      We need some diversity of thought to represent the diversity of players.

      The best healthiest thing for the game CCP could do is the exact opposite of just about everything recommended by CSM here as mostly all given through the heavy bias of what is good for dullsec virtual monopolies. Please give us something new instead of something stale.

      And yes I could absolutely care less they gave us new destroyers other than for my RvB alt. A new area to explore would have still been much more welcome.

      Delete
    4. "You can't sit there and tell me someone who's 10 systems deep has to worry about getting ganked or attacked."

      Sorry for being a little late to this discussion... but tell that to this guy: http://rvbganked.co.uk/kills/index.php/kill_detail/8544/

      He was deep, deep in CFC-controlled space...

      Delete
  3. Seleene had this to say about my post on the CSM activity on one of his reddit posts about this document:

    "Maaaaaate... the free trip to Iceland meme is played out. It might have been true in a couple cases, but for the most part we all have jobs and real lives. In past CSMs, it was easier to just skate along and only show up for the 'free trip'. These days though, with the near 24/7 lines of communication open with CCP, if you don't participate it becomes very obvious very fast. Your opinions are marginalized and no one pays attention to you."

    http://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/13f097/eve_online_development_strategy_csm_public/

    The last part of him saying my opinion is marginally important and no one pays attention to me kinda stung me like he doesnt care about the people who voted for him to do what they thought he would.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think CSM activity spiking around summits has less to do with the free trip to Iceland (which is limited to half their number anyway) and more with the realization that player acknowledgement that there IS such a thing as a CSM spikes at that time. Therefore, there's a perceived need to look busy since the boss might glance into your cubicle.

      Remind yourself of how many Town Halls there have been since May and I think you'll agree. Only the very deluded among the CSM would try to say there was no reason to have a Town Hall during this entire period.

      Delete
    2. @Anon:

      "The last part of him saying my opinion is marginally important and no one pays attention to me kinda stung me like he doesnt care about the people who voted for him to do what they thought he would."

      Wait, what? He said no such thing. He said that if a CSM doesn't participate, that CSM's opinions are marginalized.

      Delete
    3. I agree with Gern. Selene's last line wasn't referring to you, Anon, but to a CSM who does not participate. Your sting is self-inflicted.

      Delete
  4. Perhaps CCP could establish a protocol that requires all CSM members to participate in at least 50% of the CSM activities. CCP could keep track of who received the second most votes for each position. If a member fails to participate then the active CSM board members could vote to have that member removed from the board and the 2nd place member seated. Just an idea...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The CSM was supposed to be assisting CCP Xhagen in writing a new White Paper, which was to include a process for bumping an inactive CSM member. So far as I can see, no progress has been made on that.

      There's also been no progress on a new CSM voting mechanic since Trebor was dog-piled so effectively a couple of months ago.

      Delete
  5. It's clear that prior CSM's were driven by people like Carol and the Mittani, without those personalities that are interested not only in the work but communicating it the CSM really looks dull.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree that the most successful CSMs have had activist leaders.

      Delete
  6. I think it is clear that the CSM has failed to deliver, when they start spending more time being defensive and making excuses as to why they have failed to deliver.

    I don't buy into making excuses. If you have time to make excuses, then you have time to do the actual work.

    ReplyDelete