open All Channels
seplocked Jita Park Speakers Corner
blankseplocked [CSM6] Re-Elect Trebor Daehdoow
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: first : previous : 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... : last (11)

Author Topic

xDaKewlGuyx
Pator Tech School
Posted - 2011.03.02 08:35:00 - [61]
 

Originally by: m3rr
I am wondering what things you have done in 0.0. From what I have heard, you are mainly a highsec and industry guy and do not have much experience with pvp. Please prove me wrong. Have you been in any major 0.0 corps or even small ones?

Also what are your plans for improving the games UI? I am really interested.


This guy here has the right question. Make sure you all quote him a lot.

Nobody on the CSM is qualified to have an opinion on PVP unless they're a PVPer or 0.0 unless they live there and have done so for an extended period of time.

Trebor Daehdoow
Gallente
Sane Industries Inc.
Posted - 2011.03.02 10:55:00 - [62]
 


Originally by: m3rr
I am wondering what things you have done in 0.0. From what I have heard, you are mainly a highsec and industry guy and do not have much experience with pvp. Please prove me wrong. Have you been in any major 0.0 corps or even small ones?

I have been a member of Sane Industries (currently part of Initiative Mercenaries) for over 2 years, and before that, LEAP, a closely associated corp, and have been mostly living in nullsec for almost all of my time in EVE. My personal preference is for small-gang PVP. My circumstances are such that it is difficult to devote a big block of time to an EVE session (particularly after getting elected to the CSM, which is a total time-blackhole), so I don't get to PVP as much as I would like; the result has been that I have gravitated towards logistics roles helping keep my corpies (who are excellent at PVP) fighting, because this can be done in short active sessions and longer semi-AFK ones while I work on RL stuff.

I also have a high-sec alt on another account that does logistics, industry, and an occasional bit of trade.

Originally by: m3rr
Also what are your plans for improving the games UI? I am really interested.

I personally would like to see a rewrite of the UI that (for example) addresses how EVE is going to handle next-generation devices, such as iPad-style tablets with touch-interfaces. As part of that, I would some form of user-written add-ons (ala WOW), to leverage the resources of the player-base, in a similar way that the API permits.

However, for that to happen will require a high-level commitment from CCP on the scale of the Incarna project. In the meantime, I am concentrating on pushing for more resources for small tweaks to the UI that make life better for large groups of players (ie: good bang-for-the-buck low-hanging-fruit), by doing things like prioritization crowdsourcing (for example, the UI "Low Hanging Fruit" proposal), and encouraging devs to engage with the players (as CCP karkur did during her menu revamp project).

While I am more than happy to inflict my opinions on anyone foolish enough to ask for them, my work on the CSM is not about getting CCP to do what I personally want, but trying to help CCP allocate their limited resources to things that provide the most benefit for the players. That's what all the crowdsourcing was about.

Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
Posted - 2011.03.02 10:58:00 - [63]
 

Originally by: xDaKewlGuyx
This guy ...

Elitist much? I would say that null citizens shouldn't be asked about anything not related to rat balance since that and forming huge fleets is all they are good for .. see how that works? Very Happy

Want PvP advice? Ask a veteran pirate. No one else even comes close to the same level of understanding of the factors involved (hint: blob/fleet combat is not PvP, it is a FC contest).

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2011.03.02 11:39:00 - [64]
 

Originally by: Rakshasa Taisab
I am conflicted; duty says I should vote Trebor but wallet demands another Tyrannis-like expansion.


History shows that these are not incompatible outcomes.

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2011.03.02 11:42:00 - [65]
 

Originally by: xDaKewlGuyx
You may be able to fool the people slobbering all over you due to your high visibility, but those of us in the know are quite aware that you are completely unqualified to act as anything as a secretary for CSM. Your knowledge of game mechanics is abysmal and this is what qualifies a CSM, not how much ass kissing, log rolling, and baby holding you've done.




Strange how all but one of the current CSM seem to completely disagree with you.

Care to back your asserion up with some ~facts~?

Harvey Warstein
Posted - 2011.03.02 12:15:00 - [66]
 

Quote:
I am the author of the first 4 games in the Wizardry series of RPG games, as well as one of the first anti-virus programs, Virex.... The Gemstone staff responded to this in a totally despicable way: they made me a GM, and I ended up creating a secret-society subgame, the Council of Light. In other words, I'm an old-school hacker (in the original, good sense of the word) -- in fact, I was the Hacking Consultant for the film "Real Genius".



Is there any proof for any of this? Searching "Real Genius" I can't find any proof of that, and wiki articles wont count as proof for... well... anything. (encyclopedia anybody can edit and all that).

Quote:
The Sudoku Susser


How is this done - from a mathematical standpoint? (just curious Very Happy)

Quote:
The Billions for Ballots Bonanza Lottery


I'm not quite sure that I like the imagery here. This seriously smacks of an old school roman politician getting people's votes by handing out their winnings from the most recent conquest. Why are you running a lottery in your CSM post? Because it's the new thing to do?

The botting issue that has been brought up, and your solution to it (Every account has a "Resource Extraction License"...) is what other games (EQ2 comes to mind; vitality) have been doing to try to smooth the difference between hardcore and casual players. It may work, it may not. I think it would, personally, but this isn't about me Laughing


Quote:
Nullsec: Move away from timer-based HP-bashing sov-war, perhaps to an occupancy/activity system (as many have suggested); organic blob limitation, so after a certain point, while you can bring extra guys to a fight, they don't help that much; adjustments to force-projection and logistics (which are not the same thing, and which have sub-flavors); improvements in manufacturing infrastructure (to reduce the dependence on the Jita tit). Note that most of these are inter-related and need to be addressed as a coherent whole.


Since this is the flavor of the month, let's address this. I would like for you to expand on:

A) How an activity system would work. I have activity in system X so I keep sov in it? How is that any more "fair" than the current system, where If I've got the activity to defend it, I keep it?

B) Organic Blob Limitation? I understand the idea (diversify, have tank/dps/healers) but how is that going to work, and why should an entity be forced to, essentially, turn people away from fleets? And what stops an entity from having, say, 2 or 3 or 10 fleets in the system to avoid penalties? While we're at it, we should drop the cap on people in an alliance/corp...

C) adjustments to force-projection and logistics (which are not the same thing, and which have sub-flavors)

D) improvements in manufacturing infrastructure (to reduce the dependence on the Jita tit)

C and D are intertwined - How do you have a lack of force-projection (which is a bad thing, I guess) and still have the logistics that would allow an improvement in manufacturing infrastructure in nullsec?

I'm sorry if this comes off a bit harsh, but EVE is a game I'm passionate about and I'd hate to elect someone that I'm not 100% sure about.

Helen Highwater
GoonWaffe
Posted - 2011.03.02 12:34:00 - [67]
 

Edited by: Helen Highwater on 02/03/2011 12:36:34
Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: xDaKewlGuyx
You may be able to fool the people slobbering all over you due to your high visibility, but those of us in the know are quite aware that you are completely unqualified to act as anything as a secretary for CSM. Your knowledge of game mechanics is abysmal and this is what qualifies a CSM, not how much ass kissing, log rolling, and baby holding you've done.




Strange how all but one of the current CSM seem to completely disagree with you.

Care to back your asserion up with some ~facts~?


Read the minutes if you want to know what Trebor knows about this game. it should be obvious to anyone paying attention.

OhThis GuyAgain
Posted - 2011.03.02 12:43:00 - [68]
 

Originally by: Helen Highwater
Read the minutes if you want to know what Trebor knows about this game. it should be obvious to anyone paying attention.

As an average voter, I can't be bothered with sifting through large amount of text on my own. Can somebody highlight the relevant parts?

Dizztar
Posted - 2011.03.02 13:03:00 - [69]
 

Quote:
[20:00:56] Trebor Daehdoow > I personally would like to see a sov redesign that paid special attention to spreading out the fights, which would help fight lag.
[20:01:01] Trebor Daehdoow > Less structure bashing, more strategy, tactics and maneuver.
[20:01:07] Trebor Daehdoow > This is certainly an issue that will be discussed in December, it is a major priority. [end]

Would you really see CCP scrap all the work put into Dominion for another sov expansion from scratch? Bearing in mind that they completely failed in their objective the first time to break up large fleets and structure bashing from the original sov system and instead made the issue worse?

Quote:
[21:13:43] Trebor Daehdoow > Currently, as others have mentioned, smaller tweaks seem to be the most likely things to get implemented.


Seeing as how a sov rewrite is highly unlikely... What are your suggestions on adjusting the existing sov system (structures and all) to better prevent lag and huge fights?

Clasina
Posted - 2011.03.02 15:07:00 - [70]
 

So what exactly is the 'problem' with logistics and what is your 'fix'?

Trebor Daehdoow
Gallente
Sane Industries Inc.
Posted - 2011.03.02 16:42:00 - [71]
 

Originally by: Dro Nee
Would you be so kind as to explain the metrics and methodologies you employ in evaluating what mechanics, designs, etc are in need of revamping? I am not so much interested, at the moment, in "how to fix XYZ" answers but more interested in how you determine something is a "problem".

Well, a big part of being a CSM is bringing player concerns to CCP, so the starting point for individual issues is usually the forums (though players also contact me directly). Typically, I'm looking for issues that are generating significant support, that are interesting to me, and look like they've got a shot at getting done (big bang-for-buck helps). A good example of that kind of thing would be the learning skills proposal.

However, that just gets an issue into the CSM backlog, "where good ideas go to die," as some might say. So the next step is organizing the backlog by crowdsourcing prioritizations, and this is something I've spearheaded in CSM5.

The prioritizations give our advocates at CCP (CCP Xhagen and CCP Diagoras) some useful metrics to point at when they argue for CSM issues to be added to the expansion release schedules, and I think there is significant evidence that they have been useful. For example, the November Prioritization got a lot of support from CCP (login banners, news items) and 3,458 players participated. And during the December summit, CCP took some of the top player-ranked items and ran a prioritization game with CSM, where they added to the mix their estimates of how much development time each item would take. Some of that feedback helped Team BFF when they were choosing what "potholes" they were going to try and fix during the next expansion development cycle.

If I'm re-elected to CSM, I'll make sure the crowdsourcing and prioritization keeps getting done.

M Foucault
Dromedaworks inc
Test Alliance Please Ignore
Posted - 2011.03.02 17:27:00 - [72]
 

What are you going to do about nullsec jump-bridges? More than last year I hope.

Dro Nee
Posted - 2011.03.02 17:48:00 - [73]
 

Originally by: Trebor Daehdoow
Typically, I'm looking for issues that are generating significant support, that are interesting to me, and look like they've got a shot at getting done


Thanks for the reply. If I may, I would like to ask a follow up question.

Can I infer from your statement regarding "likes" on forum raised issues, and the crowd-sourcing initiative that you undertook, that your main metric for analyzing issues (and therefore pushing/raising with CCP) is based on populist desire? In other words, change supported by the masses is always a necessary change (obviously assuming that it is even in the realm of possibility)?

Hope that is clear, I have not had my morning coffee yet ugh

Cheers

Trebor Daehdoow
Gallente
Sane Industries Inc.
Posted - 2011.03.02 20:10:00 - [74]
 

Originally by: Dizztar
Would you really see CCP scrap all the work put into Dominion for another sov expansion from scratch? Bearing in mind that they completely failed in their objective the first time to break up large fleets and structure bashing from the original sov system and instead made the issue worse?

Obviously, I would tend towards the minimal set of changes that would reasonably be expected to achieve the desired goal. Seleene would be the person to ask as to whether the complete Dominion sov plan (as opposed to what actually made it into the game) would achieve that.

My opinion regarding activity-based sov systems is hardly unique; the problem with structure bashing is that it tends to concentrate large numbers of people into a small area at a single point in time, which is of course a recipe for blobs -- and thus, lag.

On a more global level, lag will never be tamed until sov and combat mechanics are altered so that the fleet-size/fleet-power curve starts to flatten out when you reach a certain fleet size... so that yeah, you can have your huge blob, but the best use of your resources is to divide your forces.

But the bottom line is, the CCP game design staff gets paid to come up with the best solutions to these problems. As a CSM, I have consistently argued that no matter what they come up with, they should make their plans public when they are still just on paper, so that player experts can tiger-team the proposals and point out potential pitfalls. I have also pointed out that CSM may be ideally suited to the task of organizing player-expert focus groups to provide this kind of feedback.

Trebor Daehdoow
Gallente
Sane Industries Inc.
Posted - 2011.03.02 21:59:00 - [75]
 

Originally by: M Foucault
What are you going to do about nullsec jump-bridges? More than last year I hope.

Originally by: Clasina
So what exactly is the 'problem' with logistics and what is your 'fix'?

I believe that both of these questions stem from the null-sec discussion during the December summit, which has been often quoted out of context.

The context of that discussion was mainly the issue of force projection -- the ability to project force across the map and be back home in time for tea. Any particular change was discussed in the context of a package of changes.

So if CCP told me that all that they were going to do was nerf the hell out of jump-bridges, I'd object strenuously. On the other hand, if they presented a package of changes, one of which was a jump-bridge nerf, I might consider it reasonable. But as mentioned in an earlier post, I'd strongly urge them to let the players tiger-team the proposal, because "no game design survives contact with the players". CCP often forgets how players take every quirk in the game and drive it to the bleeding edge of insanity, and it's far easier to do the first iteration on the madness when it's still on paper.

With respect to logistics, similar concerns apply. For example, if CCP decided that hauling stuff from Jita to nullsec needed to be made more difficult, an obvious question I would ask might be "what compensating changes are going to be made to make local manufacturing easier?"

TheBear421
Global Economy Experts
Stellar Economy Experts
Posted - 2011.03.03 06:07:00 - [76]
 

Based on your campaign message, you are one of my top five favorite candidates. Congratulations! =p

Recently, Iíve focused heavily on trading and processing PI commodities in and around Jita. This has been very lucrative for me, increasing my net worth from 100m to 1100m in just two months. It is a very complex and financially risky way of making money, and I have a massive Excel spreadsheet dedicated to it, but I am beginning to master the art of Jita trade.

Coming from World of Warcraft, I absolutely love EVEís free market system and intuitive market interface, but there is a key element of my moneymaking that I find absolutely horrible: the Planetary Interaction interface itself.

CCP made a couple important improvements with Incursion, but almost nothing to aid people like myself who overlook harvesting completely and focus on processing what others have harvested and have put on the market. With 123 advanced industry facilities and 24 launchpads on my six planets in Sobaseki, switching schematics and routes to account for shifts in the market can take upwards of 3000 clicks, when it could feasibly be programmed to take a tenth of that (excluding any clicks outside of the PI interface). On top of that, I have to wait ten seconds each time I wish to import or export from each of my launchpads (a feature intended to prevent lag, I assume), which may only make it take about seven minutes longer than it should, but is still a headache. There are other, less important grievances I have with PI (canít view the contents of planetary customs offices without being in the same system, etc.), but I feel like Iíve ranted long enough.

And so my question to you is this: Do you share my feelings about further PI reform being absolutely critical to the economic and industrial aspects of the game, and, if elected, will you lobby CCP on behalf of me and all the other planetary industrialists in New Eden?

Trebor Daehdoow
Gallente
Sane Industries Inc.
Posted - 2011.03.03 11:38:00 - [77]
 

Originally by: Dro Nee
Can I infer from your statement regarding "likes" on forum raised issues, and the crowd-sourcing initiative that you undertook, that your main metric for analyzing issues (and therefore pushing/raising with CCP) is based on populist desire?

No, just that popular support is one factor in the filtering process that eventually results in something getting added to the CSM backlog. And let's be honest, a backlog item without significant support from players is just going to lie there and rot -- especially now that the Prioritization Crowdsourcing is giving CCP some metrics on what changes the players want the most.

Also, CSMs are elected to represent the players, so we should be responsive to player concerns. We can't very well complain about CCP not engaging with CSM if we're not willing to drink our own kool-aid, and in my case, that means a lot of time monitoring threads, occasional posts in them asking questions or making suggestions, helping players format proposals, and so on.

Trebor Daehdoow
Gallente
Sane Industries Inc.
Posted - 2011.03.03 15:39:00 - [78]
 



Originally by: TheBear421
And so my question to you is this: Do you share my feelings about further PI reform being absolutely critical to the economic and industrial aspects of the game, and, if elected, will you lobby CCP on behalf of me and all the other planetary industrialists in New Eden?

I have been toying with PI since its introduction, so I share your concerns. In fact, one of the significant proposals I raised during CSM5 was the Planetary Interaction Omnibus Proposal, which was aimed at giving CCP some feedback to help them with the iteration of PI.

I see no reason why another proposal can't be put together, and even improved by a little prioritization (in other words, a PI version of the UI Low Hanging Fruit proposal). And there's no need to wait until CSM6 takes office, btw.

With respect to the rerouting clickfest, I think it would not be hard to generate significant player support for some sort of "autoroute" feature, where you can specify what kind of products (P0,P1,etc) a storage pin provides and accepts. Then reconfiguring your production would be a matter of just changing the schematics, filling up the source storage pins, and telling the installation to rebuild its routes.

As for the import/export delays, it can't hurt to ask CCP if these can be relaxed. Now that they have more experience with PI load factors, it may be something that can be revisited.

Finally, it was suggested to me by another player that I create a thread for gathering Science & Industry micro-tweak ideas, similar to the one I've been running in Missions & Complexes for the last few weeks. I've done that, and you should consider posting the import/export delays change there, as it would seem to fit right in.

Camios
Minmatar
Sebiestor Tribe
Posted - 2011.03.03 17:21:00 - [79]
 


As far as I know, this man has the biggest credit for making the CSM believable, and deserves a place in CSM6.
Probably, as far as public perception is concerned, Trebor could be thought of one of the founding father of the CSM, and his name will shine along other stars in the history of online gaming (I can continue, Trebor, but this will cost you some isk. Otherwise you can take this as a "captatio benevolentiae").


I get to the point: have you ever considered a different approach about the nullsec problem?

You can't defend yourself if you don't put up a blob.


What's the problem? The blob or the fact that you can't defend yourself otherwise?

Usually we think that the blob is the problem, and the natural solution would involve some measures to nerf the ability to form blobs.

But if I were able to defend my structures otherwise, I would not need to put up a blob. Potentially, I would even be able to say "screw you" to my blues far far away, because I would not need them.
The central point is, anyway, achieving security of my stuff in space in a non conventional way. Semi - invisibility based on chance would be one, there could be others. If I am reasonably sure that my structures can run for at least 4 days, giving me a net profit even if they are destroyed afterwards, I will use them.



I have a dream: a nullsec map covered by the colors of alliances that control sovereignty stuff, outposts, POSes and moon goo, and a guerrilla/smuggling parallel underworld living on small semi-invisible installations, whose survivability is bound to invisibility and chance. Some possible consequences:
  • Nullsec life would be less empire-like, but at the same time population would increase;
  • Regular sov holders alliances will fight their internal enemy on a daily basis, while their sovereignty, Poses and outposts are safe;
  • Smugglers and small entities would be able to survive, even if with some difficulties;

Of course there are some things that should change (possibly local chat, to reduce visibility to the smugglers/guerrillas, possibly PI should be allowed for everybody), others must be created (PI warfare, new semi-invisible installations) while other things will remain the same (JBs, outposts, moon mining substantially should remain sov holders prerogatives).


Here I exposed you my most up to date toughts on nullsec. What do you think?

Trebor Daehdoow
Gallente
Sane Industries Inc.
Posted - 2011.03.03 23:36:00 - [80]
 

Originally by: Camios
(I can continue, Trebor, but this will cost you some isk. Otherwise you can take this as a "captatio benevolentiae").

Having put most of my net worth into the lottery, I can offer only a meagre 1 isk per word; but 2 isk/word if it's good latin.

With respect to your nullsec ideas, I think that, as with any plan that involves big changes, it will have to attract significant support in the community and survive a lot of hard debate before it even has a chance of attracting any attention from the devs, particularly in light of the "players don't do game design" philosophy of some at CCP.

Avaaloniaa
Posted - 2011.03.04 10:30:00 - [81]
 

Could you please confirm what your stand is on the scalable GUI and in game fonts being too small for the modern big display screens?

I am asking knowing that there have been numerous threads in the EVE forums about this, but none of them seem to have been addressed by game developers. The game graphics become more and more sophisticated and beautiful but high resolutions that allow us to experience the game fully (like 1920x1080, 1920x1200 or more) make most of in-game text unreadable and GUI buttons extremely difficult to hit.

Looking forward to your comment.

Dirk Decibel
Posted - 2011.03.04 11:43:00 - [82]
 

Prolly voting Trebor cuz of lack of suitable carebear candidate Laughing

Camios
Minmatar
Sebiestor Tribe
Posted - 2011.03.04 12:15:00 - [83]
 

Originally by: Trebor Daehdoow
Originally by: Camios
(I can continue, Trebor, but this will cost you some isk. Otherwise you can take this as a "captatio benevolentiae").

Having put most of my net worth into the lottery, I can offer only a meagre 1 isk per word; but 2 isk/word if it's good latin.

With respect to your nullsec ideas, I think that, as with any plan that involves big changes, it will have to attract significant support in the community and survive a lot of hard debate before it even has a chance of attracting any attention from the devs, particularly in light of the "players don't do game design" philosophy of some at CCP.



Oh well while I'm quite fond of my ideas (but I have many, and very different from one another)I was just trying to expose a vision and get your opinion on it.
There are many creative minds around, and many ideas; and even if players can't do game design I do think that players can give some good ideas to CCP, because after all some of us has a lot of experience. It's up to them to evaluate our ideas and theirs.
Any big change in the game will have a lot of opposition amongst the players, because we managed (and even worked hard) to succeed in the game as it is now: changing rules will always worsen the game for someone.

Christos Hendez
Warhamsters
Against ALL Authorities
Posted - 2011.03.04 13:18:00 - [84]
 

Trebor:

http://img6.imagebanana.com/img/f6s5uo8h/ccpvote4csmrockets.jpg

Trebor Daehdoow
Gallente
Sane Industries Inc.
Posted - 2011.03.04 18:18:00 - [85]
 

Originally by: Avaaloniaa
Could you please confirm what your stand is on the scalable GUI and in game fonts being too small for the modern big display screens?

As an older player, who peers at his 24" LCD through reading-glasses, and whose palsied hands shake as they attempt to right-click on things, I'm all in favor of a scalable (and user-extendable) UI.

At the summit back in June, CCP said they were making progress on an update to the EVE font, and hopefully more information about that and other global UI improvements will be forthcoming soon. I've made a request in the CSM Internal forum for a status update, and I will pass on what I learn as soon as possible.

Cearain
Caldari
The IMPERIUM of LaZy NATION
Posted - 2011.03.04 22:24:00 - [86]
 

Trebor thank you for your prior work on the cswm and offering to do it again.

In your prioritization you did not start to give any special weight to the proposals until the person voted for over 20 of them. I think that is quite high. Would you be in favor of allowing the prioritization vote to be entirely weighted?

So if you have 20 points you could put them all to one issue or maybe 15 toward one proposal and 5 against another proposal etc.

Taross
Caldari
Laurentson INC
Posted - 2011.03.04 23:45:00 - [87]
 

Thanks for all your hard work in CSM5. I hope you can continue it in CSM6. the small thing I can do, my votes, are gonna be there.

Trebor Daehdoow
Gallente
Sane Industries Inc.
Posted - 2011.03.05 00:07:00 - [88]
 

Originally by: Camios
Any big change in the game will have a lot of opposition amongst the players, because we managed (and even worked hard) to succeed in the game as it is now: changing rules will always worsen the game for someone.

I completely agree, which is why I'm a big advocate of major changes like this being disclosed to the players before they are implemented, so that player-experts can debate them and point out issues for the devs to consider.

I believe that most serious EVE players are willing to look past their short-term interests and consider the longer-term health of the game. But, just as in real life, nobody likes a solution -- even a decent one -- imposed on them without consultation. The CSM itself is a step in the right direction; the interesting question is whether CCP is fearless enough to take another step.

Personally, I think it's just good business to do so -- it catches problems earlier and cheaper, and it builds an even stronger, more positive and engaged community -- a community that will tend to keep on playing longer and pay for more accounts.

TheBear421
Global Economy Experts
Stellar Economy Experts
Posted - 2011.03.05 04:51:00 - [89]
 

Well, after reading a bit more, Trebor Daehdoow has got my vote and my full support! Definitely seems like the best candidate by quite a wide margin.

Trebor Daehdoow
Gallente
Sane Industries Inc.
Posted - 2011.03.05 14:55:00 - [90]
 

Originally by: Cearain
Trebor thank you for your prior work on the cswm and offering to do it again.

Yes, apparently I have not yet plumbed the depths of my own masochism...

Originally by: Cearain
In your prioritization you did not start to give any special weight to the proposals until the person voted for over 20 of them. I think that is quite high. Would you be in favor of allowing the prioritization vote to be entirely weighted?

So if you have 20 points you could put them all to one issue or maybe 15 toward one proposal and 5 against another proposal etc.

In the prioritizations I have done, I simply gave each voter 20 points to allocate as they saw fit; if they chose more than 20 items, each item got less than a point of credit, if they chose less, then their votes were stronger (up to a maximum of 3 points).

However, this choice was entirely arbitrary, and in fact is a tunable parameter of the software I wrote to count the votes. So if you make a decent argument that different limits -- or even none -- would generate better results, I'll strongly consider giving it a try.

One player suggestion that I will definitely be implementing in the next crowdsourcing I do (assuming, nudge nudge, I get re-elected) will be the option to vote against items you don't like. That can be implemented fairly trivially, and without making the current voting process more complicated (a big concern; I want it to be as easy and quick as possible).


Pages: first : previous : 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... : last (11)

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only