open All Channels
seplocked EVE Information Portal
blankseplocked New Dev Blog: Letter from the CSM
 
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

Havlentia Castigatrix
Gallente
The Avalon Foundation
Posted - 2011.04.11 19:52:00 - [91]
 

Originally by: The Mittani
Originally by: LordElfa

I'm not sure why you even bother responding to these miscreants, its painfully obvious they've already made up their minds concerning anything CSM6 plans to do. You could **** gold for them and physically transport them from their mother's basements to the Universe of EVE and they would still ***** because their eyes are shut and their minds are closed. They've deemed you the devil and anything you do will be looked upon with suspicion, envy and hatred.

You guys have better stuff to do and bigger problems to solve than dealing with capsule trash.

Carry on CSM and bring the problems of the people to the tyrannical heads of state.


Narrative control is one of the tools we do have available to us, so we're using it. It's also important to ram home the difference between 'scrum dev stakeholder' and 'corporate stakeholder' as part of expectation management; people like that idiot think we can offer the moon and stars partially because the actual powers and capabilities of the CSM have been so poorly communicated, both by CCP and by past CSMs.

To be fair to past CSMs, the actual CSM itself has evolved a lot and what CSM1 was is very different to CSM4 or CSM5 in terms of purpose, function and aims.

Basically he's a tool and I agree, but I want folks to know the difference between 'scrum stakeholder' and 'corporate stakeholder'.


Feet, meet fire.

Hopefully this is the kinda representation that we've been looking for since the CSM was set up and soft-soaped liberally with swag and free trips to Iceland until we had the wonderful experience of seeing that one developmental schedule that pushed everyone over the edge.

Or you could leave it a smoking crater, but at this point it would be an improvement either way.


Arakkis Melanogaster
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.04.11 19:53:00 - [92]
 

Everything a CEO says is true - Kenneth Lay, 2001

El'Niaga
Minmatar
Republic Military School
Posted - 2011.04.11 19:54:00 - [93]
 

Originally by: Widemouth Deepthroat
Also I would like to see force projection issues resolved with jump/titan bridge nerfs and perhaps cap jump range nerfs along with that cyno spool up idea the dev was talking about before we see anything like this which gives blobs even more advantage.


Nerfing jump bridges and titans will not solve Power Projections. Nerfing jump distances will not solve power projection. Such projection existed before hand and will exist afterwards. It would cut down on combat not increase it (after all if it takes 2 hours to get to the fight, that's less time to fight).

The answer does not lay in nerfing, it never works because no matter what you nerf something is always left in an alpha position. That's what's wrong in todays world folks think there should be balance in all things, but there shouldn't be, it goes to the opposite of the natural order.

What you need are tools that can be built in empire that can help nullify the supercarriers. Like I suggested earlier. Without that you can't move from empire to 0.0 without the support of one of the existing blocks because they'll grind you to dust. They put the time into it, so why shouldn't they be able to?


Zeran Vyst
Posted - 2011.04.11 19:56:00 - [94]
 

Originally by: Widemouth Deepthroat
You really want me to click a goobswarm link? I hope that isn't going to steal my characters and upload child **** to my pc.


Are you worried we're going to download the child **** that's already there Mr. Deepthroat?

Alemana Hockeystick
Posted - 2011.04.11 19:58:00 - [95]
 

Originally by: The Mittani

Primary target is fleet lag. Guys, put your DPS on primary.




Grunts: but I want that pod KM!

LOL

Mitchello
B O R G
Posted - 2011.04.11 19:59:00 - [96]
 

Interesting method on inserting confusion on the difference between stakeholder and corporate stakeholder, by attempting to present it as the same thing.

But you are right, it is not the same thing. CSM is not a corporate stakeholder. Maybe it will become one some day, who knows, Hilmar once said that the power and definition of the CSM is in the hands of the CSM and how it and the customers get to work with that. We will see, that is perhaps for a future.

But CSM is a stakeholder, within the development process. Sure, CCP applied the status without fully considering what this would mean, but that is fine. After all CSM started out as an experiment, so this is a path of mutual exploration for both the road and the horizon.

But relax, people do understand that this is in many respects a political CSM, that is fine, no need to dig another trench. Really. People deal with that, and to a degree embrace it, so tis all good.

CSM does not need a status as a corporate stakeholder to be the focused voice and representation of CCP's customers - to a degree regardless of whether they vote or not. Once elections are over, and people get to work, it is a very different ballgame. Suddenly big pictures take over, which is only natural. Myriads of small issues, can pollute the waters, which is where crowdsourcing comes in - if CSM wants to do any work. It is also where special interests and attempts at social engineering fail, because of those bigger pictures, regardless of who has who's back or how far back they go. Too much tinfoil in politics and this universe alike. As long as there is transparancy, open and consistant discussion along every axis, it'll be fine.

CSM as a stakeholder, functions just fine. What you might be missing, is some concern among people about missing in its entirety the presence of concepts in the letter which they have seen to be effective during the course of CSM 4 and 5. Yes, things change and evolve, perhaps, but I am sure you understand the concern of people for reinventing the wheel. After all they have kinda seen that from CCP quite a few times in different manners, and that hasn't been a comforting thing, so to speak.

So yes, as a stakeholder, part of the job is indeed to hold CCP accountable. That is not a bad thing, really. The same works the other way around. Think about it, CCP holds CSM accountable, it expects a professional approach, and an argumentative approach. There were days were folks would slam a fist on a table, or engage in emo, but those days ended when CSM became a stakeholder. It is a knife which cuts in more ways than one, and the choice exists whether to use the knife to stab, or to eat with. I'm sure you catch my drift here.

This accountability, is a very simple thing. But when people have seen demonstrable use, and suddenly see or perceive an absence of it, you cannot be surprised that they suddenly look up and wonder.



Originally by: The Mittani
The CSM doesn't have status as a corporate stakeholder. Outside of the Scrum cycle - where we have our company-appointed advocate, who sits in on the cycle and offers our views - we can influence, message, and use the ability to get our narrative in front of the playerbase to attempt to accomplish ends.

Also, a lot of whining about how we aren't discussing the forums screwup - which was hilarious and awful - in this letter. The letter was written before the forums imploded, it takes CCP a few days to approve and upload dev blogs through their formal channels.[/quote

Cyaxares II
Posted - 2011.04.11 20:00:00 - [97]
 

Edited by: Cyaxares II on 11/04/2011 20:24:54
Originally by: Widemouth Deepthroat
Also I would like to see force projection issues resolved with jump/titan bridge nerfs and perhaps cap jump range nerfs along with that cyno spool up idea the dev was talking about before we see anything like this which gives blobs even more advantage.

You are supposed to think about time dilation, not about force projection.


edit: the customer-base is always a corporate stakeholder even if this might not be reflected in the formal organization of the corporation.

Examples for corporate stakeholders are the owners of the business, the customers, the employees, the management, the suppliers, the creditors, the society/community the company operates in, ...

"stakeholders" is just a collective term used to describe everyone who has a direct interest in the company itself, its processes and/or its products.

In other words: a stakeholder is everyone who is butthurt when the company has messed up (in his own, subjective opinion).

Recently companies have realized that it makes sense to give its most important stakeholders some formal representation within the company structure (to avoid unnecessary conflicts, bad publicity, diverging expectations, ...).
Some stakeholders are more important to the company, some are less important; some stakeholders hold more direct influence, some hold less direct influence - terms like "key stakeholders", "primary stakeholders", "secondary stakeholders" exist to reflect these distinctions.

The CSM represents one group of (corporate) stakeholders of CCP.

Not sure which definition of "corporate stakeholder" The Mittani likes to use but it certainly does not seem to be one that is commonly used in a business administrations context.


LordElfa
Gallente
Golden Lyon Warriors
Posted - 2011.04.11 20:04:00 - [98]
 

Originally by: The Mittani


Narrative control is one of the tools we do have available to us, so we're using it. It's also important to ram home the difference between 'scrum dev stakeholder' and 'corporate stakeholder' as part of expectation management; people like that idiot think we can offer the moon and stars partially because the actual powers and capabilities of the CSM have been so poorly communicated, both by CCP and by past CSMs.

To be fair to past CSMs, the actual CSM itself has evolved a lot and what CSM1 was is very different to CSM4 or CSM5 in terms of purpose, function and aims.

Basically he's a tool and I agree, but I want folks to know the difference between 'scrum stakeholder' and 'corporate stakeholder'.


I find it reassuring that even in the face of such negativity, you remain firm in your commitment to communicate with the base at large. Its about time a CSM treated the office they hold with respect instead of just the ability to go "Look how cool I am, I'm on the CSM!"

Kudos to you and your council. Stay strong, the road ahead is long and filled with the treachery of haterz and political saboteurs.

The Mittani
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.04.11 20:12:00 - [99]
 

Messaging is what nullsec does. We organize tens of thousands of players in wars; we can organize tens of thousands in an election, and we can organize tens of thousands to focus on a particular, critical issue to provide the political capital to get it actually implemented, we hope.

I suspect that our next spotlight will come after the Summit. Odds are good that it will be something less 'nullsec', such as an iterative ship balance team or staffer. In the meantime, please hammer on and support the necessity of Time Dilation.

Largo Coronet
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.04.11 20:12:00 - [100]
 

Originally by: Evelgrivion
Hilmar wants CCP's employees to listen to the CSM.

Originally by: Arakkis Melanogaster
GUYS GUYS THE CEO OF A COMPANY SAID SOMETHING IT MUST BE 100% TRUE

dibblebill
Danneskjold Heavy Industries
Posted - 2011.04.11 20:12:00 - [101]
 

I never thought I'd see the day when I said I found respect for Mittani or Goonswarm, but you have it, sir.

For once, I'm actually INTERESTED in the CSM beyond a group of airheads in a room somewhere.

Zastrow
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.04.11 20:15:00 - [102]
 

It's easy for CCP to ignore players on the forums and over the internet. It's a lot harder to ignore people that are sitting in the same room with you. It would take them like an hour or 2 at least.

Say what you want about the "power" of the CSM, but CCP isn't sitting them down with scrubs, they got Torfi, Noah, and other big guns sitting down with the CSM at the summits. These are important ears to have. If the CSM can persuade (persuade, not demand) the right people to come around, the direction of EVE will change as a result.

khalleth
Amarr
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.04.11 20:21:00 - [103]
 

Originally by: Mitchello
:words:


You do not understand what Mittani means by SCRUM Stakeholder.

In software development nowadays, the 'in' thing, and proper management buzzword, is 'agile development'. Basically, this boils down to the ability of the development team to react to changing requirements, while still delivering working, robust code.

There are many agile processes (manuals; ways of being agile) such as Xtreme Programming (XP), SCRUM, DSDM, etc.

SCRUM is a way of developing computer software that has its own set of 'buzzwords' that people who use it throw around; for example, there is a ScrumMaster, and daily scrum meetings, etc.

I'm not going to reproduce the entire wikipedia page here, but the relevant portion is this:

Originally by: "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scrum_(development)"

Ancillary Scrum roles
The ancillary roles in Scrum teams are those with no formal role and infrequent involvement in the Scrum process—and must nonetheless be taken into account.
Stakeholders (customers, vendors)
These are the people who enable the project and for whom the project will produce the agreed-upon benefit[s], which justify its production. They are only directly involved in the process during the sprint reviews.



I've underlined the relevant part of this sentence. They are only involved in sprint reviews!

In essence, this means a 'stakeholder', as CCP define it but refuse to clarify it to you as customers, only does this:

Originally by: "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scrum_(development)"

Sprint Review Meeting
Review the work that was completed and not completed
Present the completed work to the stakeholders (a.k.a. “the demo”)
Incomplete work cannot be demonstrated
Four hour time limit



This means, BY CCP'S OWN DEFINITION all they have to do is tell the CSM what they've done and show it to them. They may do more than that, but that's all they are obliged to do. That is pretty much all they have done in the past apart from "Thanks for these 100 things, they'll be tickets #25100-#25200 in our development tracker, tagged 'when-we-have-time-no-really-no' and against an Unscheduled milestone.

This is the only role the CSM have in the development process currently. The big fanfare over the CSM being a stakeholder IS NOT AS POWERFUL as you are being led to believe.

CCP have, to paraphrase Mittani, been lying to you.

The Mittani
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.04.11 20:22:00 - [104]
 

Edited by: The Mittani on 11/04/2011 20:23:00
^^^^ woah a goodpost by khalleth, who'd have thunk it. go read that again, he knows the score

Beer and tabledancing in gay bars both figure heavily in my persuasion strategies.

Ender Black
Lone Star Exploration
Posted - 2011.04.11 20:27:00 - [105]
 

I was one who was originally put off from Mittens' message during the election campaign, but after reading the drivel from the mouth-breathing neckbeards in this topic I can completely understand why he treated some like a plague infesting his sack. For the spergers whining about the 0.0 aspect of the first main CSM focus consider this: Epic fleet fights, the treasonous nature of 0.0 politics, the thievery is what gives this game attention outside of EVE Online news outlets. It's what brings in new players. If 0.0 is broken, then the whole game is broken.

Honestly, that the CSM Members continue to post and remain on message after page upon page of this bull**** is a credit to themselves.

Also, if you feel the CSM is an ineffective PR stunt carried on by CCP, a wholly terrible company you loath, then why are you wasting your time and our time with your post. Not that anyone really reads your post...just the time it takes to scroll down from your sperging.

Krutoj
Caldari
The xDEATHx Squadron
Legion of xXDEATHXx
Posted - 2011.04.11 20:28:00 - [106]
 

We have been found Mittani, lets jet outta here

Zen Sarum
Posted - 2011.04.11 20:29:00 - [107]
 

Edited by: Zen Sarum on 11/04/2011 20:35:31
FFS so goons run CSM...

So I assume Tech moon balance, supercaps, an unimaginative poorly designed sov system which requires blobbing, and jump bridges will never get balanced now.

So now you want to allow more blobbing for the NC with time dilation to address the symptom of a poorly designed sov system, so you can have one massive rolling NC blob ... yea that'll fix the cause .. till something else breaks to the 3000man blob.

Then again CSM doesn't have any power anyway so why am I worried. Laughing

Mitchello
B O R G
Posted - 2011.04.11 20:30:00 - [108]
 

Originally by: khalleth


blurb




Yes, that was all nicely covered in the publications by CCP, as well as CSM, and the various Summit Minutes and community sites everywhere.

You make a good attempt at trying to slip the interaction in to the restriction of the technical development, quite well done, really. Unfortunately there is the small thing of established communication between CSM as well as CCP and together on how this plays out outside of the technical scope. Perhaps you remember the discussions that took place on the backlog, for example.

Suffice to say, that even though Mittani - as you put it - claims that CCP lies, there remains the part of a stakeholder being more than just something in Agile. You might want to research topics like business development, enterprise management, CCP participated actually in several studies on the topic. All quite interesting, but it is hardly something limited to CCP =P These things have been quite commonplace in many industries.

I'm looking forward to a reply, which takes a better suited context, after all we're not dealing here with software development.
Cool

As for power, dear man, power is always an illusion. Especially among pixels.

And as for CCP and words, well, CCP advocate a message. Many people do that. In business and society alike. There is such a thing as marketing, but when people stick to their word there is something to be said for taking them by their word. Something to think about, in regards to CCP, their CEO, and their interactions at summits with various CSM's.


Sturmwolke
Posted - 2011.04.11 20:32:00 - [109]
 

Fluffy sugar puff.
This is what CSM 6 is reduced to *sigh*.



GeneralDisturbed
Posted - 2011.04.11 20:33:00 - [110]
 

I've been in fights, even in small ones, where one side was completely and totally wiped out without ever having a chance to actually fight. Simply because the other side got favored in the fight by lag. I've also seen fights where one side has simply given up and gone home, even with a superior force, because they will have to jump into a system to fight, and they know that will be their death sentence. I've spent two hours before staring at a black screen, while I listened to the few people who did load system describe how all our ships were being wiped out to the last man. Because they were on grid, but we were in no control. I've also been trapped in a system for hours after dying, staring at my burning ship flying around in a circle, lag making it impossible to warp out or self destruct. Just have to log off and come back tomorrow when the fight is over. Hell I've seen fights where capitals jumped out, warped to their staging POS, and logged off for the night. Only to log back in the next day to find their ships were dead. Since what they saw on their screens isn't what happened. And their ships were lagged back into the system with no pilots, to die.

For anyone who does, or ever plans to experience large scale PVP, one of the things that makes this game utterly unique from practically every other MMO out there, this idea is a godsend.

For the guys that never plan to leave the safe haven of highsec, and experience the rest of this game the way it was mean to be, coming in here to **** on this thread isn't going to help anything. You had your chance to vote, and so did we. And null sec, who clearly has the majority of players who care about eve, voted who we wanted onto the CSM. And this is an issue that affects -all- of us. So honestly, go take your mouthbreathing conspiracies and hatred and go back to shooting rats for a living.

Katsura Kotonoha
Caldari
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.04.11 20:35:00 - [111]
 

Originally by: Sturmwolke
Fluffy sugar puff.
This is what CSM 6 is reduced to *sigh*.




Did you see the new eve forums banner. It had a pink unicorn and bees and flowers!

Widemouth Deepthroat
Posted - 2011.04.11 20:35:00 - [112]
 

Originally by: Zen Sarum
FFS so goons run CSM...

So I assume Tech moon balance, supercaps, a sov system which requires out blobbing but not out fighting, and jump bridges will never get balanced now.

Then again CSM doesn't have any power anyway so why am I worried.


yep...anomaly nerf and hopefully jump bridge nerf coming soon. CCP just keep doing what your doing and Mittens can keep tickling his dog's privates with that little goatie beard.

BlitZ Kotare
Posted - 2011.04.11 20:36:00 - [113]
 

Originally by: dibblebill

For once, I'm actually INTERESTED in the CSM beyond a group of airheads in a room somewhere.


Not emptyquoting Cool.

Meissa Anunthiel
Redshift Industrial
Rooks and Kings
Posted - 2011.04.11 20:37:00 - [114]
 

Originally by: Sturmwolke
Fluffy sugar puff.
This is what CSM 6 is reduced to *sigh*.



CSM 6 took office one week ago, hit the ground running, coordinated, talked, exchanged points of views and information, reached consensus about what the first issue to spotlight would be (and the fact that we'd be doing this), figured out our stance on the subject, got a message written out, did 2 rounds of revision on that message so everyone could agree, incorporated those revisions, sent it to CCP for release and got CCP to release it.

It's safe to say CSM 6 is starting really well in terms of efforts...

Now, in terms of other individual issues and getting results, it's a bit early for that wouldn't you think?

Fuujin
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.04.11 20:37:00 - [115]
 

Originally by: The Mittani

Beer and tabledancing in gay bars both figure heavily in my persuasion strategies.


I thought you retired?



As for time dilation: Right now, system capacity is determined by 2 things: code and hardware. The code is, well, done by the same guys who gave you boot.ini, but they try to streamline it as much as is possible. Significant changes are few and far between. The hardware is refreshed periodically but is relatively static.

The best case scenario is that your system is placed on its own node. Until the day comes when they can stretch a system across multiple cores/nodes, dilation that kicks in when the processor queue reaches a certain limit is the only thing that can allow eve to scale without the familiar node-melting effects that strike randomly and cause pointless losses for people. Those that argue the boredom factor should remember that we already spend a lot of time watching a black screen, nebula background waiting for the grid to load, sudden loss of shields and armor, ship ghost outlines when you may or may not have jumped, etc. This is nothing new, and the knowledge that "yes, my modules will react" will actually be a BETTER situation than the present one.

The CSM getting this fast-tracked and prioritized can only be a good thing. To say otherwise is just exposing yourself as a petty-minded individual desperately trolling for attention and a platform to spout your pithy responses.



Diomedes Calypso
Aetolian Armada
Posted - 2011.04.11 20:37:00 - [116]
 

100% agree on the time dilation and have from week 2 in the game, when moving to 0.0 was only a hope and dream that wouldn't be fufilled til 9 months later after i had gained sp and general game experience with ship and pvp knowledge

Beyond this game, the general social concept of Sporting Ideals was at risk and being compromised by forcing players to be accustomed to Nihlistic thinking that competition was more about luck than skill, and that adjusting rules and behavior was an unacheivable aim.. that the world was too dirty and selfish place for that to happen.

The push for time dilation is more than just a possible improvement to eve play desirablity; it is a statement that humans have ideals about behaviour and interaction that they will work to implement when that can be achieved .

Computer gaming deserves to evolve like other sports from swimming to volleyball to running... its a never ending battle in all sports to handle issues like athlete doping etc yet without the efforts competition would falter that much more.

Cheers to putting the ideals competition at a high priorty.

khalleth
Amarr
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.04.11 20:39:00 - [117]
 

Originally by: Mitchello

Yes, that was all nicely covered in the publications by CCP, as well as CSM, and the various Summit Minutes and community sites everywhere.



I haven't seen it, but if it is, OK. Doesn't change what I'm saying though.

Originally by: Mitchello

You make a good attempt at trying to slip the interaction in to the restriction of the technical development, quite well done, really.



But that is what the restriction is! The CSM are only a SCRUM stakeholder; they're not considered any other sort of stakeholder, they're not the product champion, they don't have a 'veto' or a direct line to the development tracker/trac/redmine/bugzilla/whatever! They can't prioritise things!

Originally by: Mitchello

Unfortunately there is the small thing of established communication between CSM as well as CCP and together on how this plays out outside of the technical scope. Perhaps you remember the discussions that took place on the backlog, for example.



The backlog is a technical issue. It is a development issue. The stakeholders SHOULD NOT get involved in that kind of issue in the first place!

Scrum stakeholders will all liaise with a central point of contact within a development team. It might go through a layer of abstraction - so the CSM has a liaison, so do the CCP board of directors, so do the shareholders, etc.

All the ideas put forward by the stakeholders, and the feedback given to the team from those stakeholders, goes through this point of contact. Call them a Product Champion. That product champion is but one voice on the development team, and puts forward a list of ideas. Management will then prioritise those ideas - not the stakeholders! Stakeholders, and Product Champions, do not have any say over the priority those issues get assigned to.

Also, "Business Pressures" can reassign development priorities far easier than a stakeholder can ever hope to. If the Shareholders want all CCP development resources directed against Incarna, Dust 514, and getting EvE features ready for integration with those features, a Product champion has not a hope in hell of getting any other issues marked higher priority than those.

Originally by: Mitchello

Suffice to say, that even though Mittani - as you put it - claims that CCP lies, there remains the part of a stakeholder being more than just something in Agile. You might want to research topics like business development, enterprise management, CCP participated actually in several studies on the topic. All quite interesting, but it is hardly something limited to CCP =P These things have been quite commonplace in many industries.



The problem is that we ARE talking about just something in Agile. That is how CCP defined the CSM in the first place - which, as you said above, was well explained in publications by CCP, and that is how CCP treat the CSM now - as an Agile SCRUM stakeholder, not as anything more!

Originally by: Mitchello

I'm looking forward to a reply, which takes a better suited context, after all we're not dealing here with software development.
Cool



I hope I've tried to do that.

khalleth
Amarr
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.04.11 20:42:00 - [118]
 

Sorry for doublepost - just realised I didn't respond to one of your points.
Quote:
Unfortunately there is the small thing of established communication between CSM as well as CCP and together on how this plays out outside of the technical scope.


The line of established communication, as I understand it, consists of some throwaway meetings that never change anything online, and two face to face meetings at CCP each year.

My entire point is that this does not play outside the technical scope. The CSM are called upon to review features that CCP has already implemented. Their feedback should be incorporated into a future iteration at some point somehow, but business pressures can, and do, override this.

The CSM will never play in the business scope. The CSM will never play in the marketing scope. The CSM will never play in the pre-sales scope. The CSM will never play in the purchasing scope.

The CSM is only a sounding board for reviews of already existing features.

Sturmwolke
Posted - 2011.04.11 20:43:00 - [119]
 

Originally by: Katsura Kotonoha
Originally by: Sturmwolke
Fluffy sugar puff.
This is what CSM 6 is reduced to *sigh*.




Did you see the new eve forums banner. It had a pink unicorn and bees and flowers!


Which banner? Oh that one said 1 universe, 1 epic fail?
Yes, they were quite cute, I like ponies.

Fake edit : Lol, if this is the precursor of things to come, I'd say CSM 6 has been effectively emasculated.
Large S/N ratio courtesy of the chairman.

Mynxee
Veto.
Veto Corp
Posted - 2011.04.11 20:44:00 - [120]
 

Originally by: Zastrow
It's easy for CCP to ignore players on the forums and over the internet. It's a lot harder to ignore people that are sitting in the same room with you. It would take them like an hour or 2 at least.

Say what you want about the "power" of the CSM, but CCP isn't sitting them down with scrubs, they got Torfi, Noah, and other big guns sitting down with the CSM at the summits. These are important ears to have. If the CSM can persuade (persuade, not demand) the right people to come around, the direction of EVE will change as a result.


The Summits are just one piece of the picture though, and much of what goes on there is Big Picture stuff. For CSM5, for example, what followed after with CCP folks in the form of ongoing discussion (such as with Team Gridlock) and hands-on collaborative work (such as Trebor did with the UI team) was arguably MUCH more important in terms of getting **** done.

Sure, sitting down with "important ears" is useful. But so is ongoing dialog. So what do you do afterward when all requests to engage in such dialogs are refused, however passively, by those "important ears"? Do you just roll over and say, "Oh well, we tried at the Summit. Guess that's all we get. Hope our requests and demands didn't **** you off too much. Sorry, CCP, if we ruffled your feathers or anything."

Welp. That's one way.

Or do you do what Hilmar said to do, and call bull****?



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