open All Channels
seplocked EVE General Discussion
blankseplocked Who knows what's important to the players? CSM or the players?
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2 3

Author Topic

Jonathan Ferguson
JC Ferguson and Son Ltd
Ferguson Alliance
Posted - 2011.07.13 09:03:00 - [1]
 

From the May Summit Minutes:

"CSM expressed a desire to see Little Things/Thousand Papercuts continue as an ongoing institution, as well as to see more regular communication with the playerbase about the status of the Little Things projects. CSM also emphasized the importance of access to the Little Things backlogs, not just the ‘CSM issues’ backlog. Zulu said CSM could have a selection of the Little Things backlog, and Soundwave wants the CSM to give him a ‘top 10’ list drawn from it – i.e. to have the CSM prioritize the items so BFF can get a better feel for what is important to players. The CSM suggested that a backlog review/top 10 list becomes a continuous CSM/CCP cycle, rather than a one-time event."

This CSM isn't looking out for 'the players,' doesn't know what's important to 'the players' and doesn't represent 'the players.' So why is Soundwave not asking for input from his customers, 'the players,' when he's trying to get a feel for what's important to players?

Do you feel this CSM represents you and what's your top ten list? How hard would it be to find out what players want if CCP really wanted to know?

Khamelean
Posted - 2011.07.13 09:06:00 - [2]
 

Originally by: Jonathan Ferguson
How hard would it be to find out what players want if CCP really wanted to know?


Very.

Randomize All
Posted - 2011.07.13 09:11:00 - [3]
 

Originally by: Khamelean
Originally by: Jonathan Ferguson
How hard would it be to find out what players want if CCP really wanted to know?


Very.

Morning Zinfandel.

Also, CCP shouldn't be aiming to give the players what they want, they should be aiming to give the players things they don't even know they want.

Also players is a collective noun for idiots with a bit of disposable income, not a noun for a coherent group of identical people.
When you see somebody say "This will kill Eve", they mean "This will make Eve less attractive to me personally". The calculation is, if you make a change that gets rid of 5000 whining veterans, do they get replaced with 15000 Farmville Veterans with free and easy access to mammy's credit card?

Prince Kobol
Posted - 2011.07.13 09:12:00 - [4]
 

Yes I feel the CSM represents me because the people I voted for were elected.

If you feel that none of the members represent your views then why don't you stop filling up the forums with crap, stop the complaining and stand for election.

You know when CCP said they will pay more attention to what there players do rather then say.. as in Actions Speak Louder then Words, that also holds true to you.

Wreckar
Posted - 2011.07.13 09:28:00 - [5]
 

Considering the protestors couldn't even agree what they were protesting about...

I want MT but no P2W
I don't want any MT
I want more content
I want less content more bugfixes
CQ is too graphic intensive, it's melting my computer
CQ is too ugly, needs more detail
I dont want CQ
I want WiS

Yeah good luck with that.

Cashcow Golden Goose
Posted - 2011.07.13 09:33:00 - [6]
 

Originally by: Wreckar
Considering the protestors couldn't even agree what they were protesting about...

I want MT but no P2W
I don't want any MT
I want more content
I want less content more bugfixes
CQ is too graphic intensive, it's melting my computer
CQ is too ugly, needs more detail
I dont want CQ
I want WiS

Yeah good luck with that.



Yes, it was quite the achievement by CCP to absolutely annoy such a diverse group of people with a handful of decisions and years of work.

Asta Ddu
Minmatar
Posted - 2011.07.13 09:36:00 - [7]
 

Originally by: Wreckar
Considering the protestors couldn't even agree what they were protesting about...

I want MT but no P2W
I don't want any MT
I want more content
I want less content more bugfixes
CQ is too graphic intensive, it's melting my computer
CQ is too ugly, needs more detail
I dont want CQ
I want WiS

Yeah good luck with that.



I want








Cake
or
Cookies
or
Pie

Wangston Hughes
Posted - 2011.07.13 09:47:00 - [8]
 

CSM. The typical EVE player is a mouth-breathing drama-***** ****** and should mostly be ignored, as made evident by countless threads like this.

edith prickley
Posted - 2011.07.13 10:19:00 - [9]
 

Originally by: Wreckar
Considering the protestors couldn't even agree what they were protesting about...

I want MT but no P2W
I don't want any MT
I want more content
I want less content more bugfixes
CQ is too graphic intensive, it's melting my computer
CQ is too ugly, needs more detail
I dont want CQ
I want WiS

Yeah good luck with that.


If there was an indication of solid progress any one of these directions, the player base would be more understanding, even if their own particular agenda wasn't being catered to. Other game companies deal with equally diverse communities, and somehow manage not to alienate them.

For my part, I'm strongly against MT of any sort ... but if they came up with a strong, compelling implementation which showed some promising direction and innovation, I'd be open minded enough to let it slide.

With Incarna, it's difficult even for people who are keen on the new features to stand behind them, because the implementation has been shoddy and/or broken. There is a diversity of complaints, because there's a lot to complain about and people have to take their pick.

I'd also note that some of those contradictory protests result from mis-managed expectations. If you asked last year, there would be a strong consensus against MT and they would never have started down this road. Apparently CQ both melts computers while looking like crap, so understandably people who were told to expect something different are both disappointed.

Vice Admiral Spreadsheet
Caldari
Posted - 2011.07.13 10:22:00 - [10]
 

I'd trust the CSM more than a vocal minority on the forums.

Valei Khurelem
Posted - 2011.07.13 10:22:00 - [11]
 

Originally by: Wangston Hughes
CSM. The typical EVE player is a mouth-breathing drama-***** ****** and should mostly be ignored, as made evident by countless threads like this.


And likewise we should ignore any morons like this who simply intend to stir **** up by trying to backslap players with perfectly legitimate concerns.

Khamelean
Posted - 2011.07.13 10:25:00 - [12]
 

Originally by: edith prickley

If there was an indication of solid progress any one of these directions, the player base would be more understanding, even if their own particular agenda wasn't being catered to. Other game companies deal with equally diverse communities, and somehow manage not to alienate them.

For my part, I'm strongly against MT of any sort ... but if they came up with a strong, compelling implementation which showed some promising direction and innovation, I'd be open minded enough to let it slide.

With Incarna, it's difficult even for people who are keen on the new features to stand behind them, because the implementation has been shoddy and/or broken. There is a diversity of complaints, because there's a lot to complain about and people have to take their pick.

I'd also note that some of those contradictory protests result from mis-managed expectations. If you asked last year, there would be a strong consensus against MT and they would never have started down this road. Apparently CQ both melts computers while looking like crap, so understandably people who were told to expect something different are both disappointed.


If your against MT of any sort, why are still playing a game that has supported MT for years?

edith prickley
Posted - 2011.07.13 10:32:00 - [13]
 

Originally by: Khamelean
Originally by: edith prickley

If there was an indication of solid progress any one of these directions, the player base would be more understanding, even if their own particular agenda wasn't being catered to. Other game companies deal with equally diverse communities, and somehow manage not to alienate them.

For my part, I'm strongly against MT of any sort ... but if they came up with a strong, compelling implementation which showed some promising direction and innovation, I'd be open minded enough to let it slide.

With Incarna, it's difficult even for people who are keen on the new features to stand behind them, because the implementation has been shoddy and/or broken. There is a diversity of complaints, because there's a lot to complain about and people have to take their pick.

I'd also note that some of those contradictory protests result from mis-managed expectations. If you asked last year, there would be a strong consensus against MT and they would never have started down this road. Apparently CQ both melts computers while looking like crap, so understandably people who were told to expect something different are both disappointed.


If your against MT of any sort, why are still playing a game that has supported MT for years?


I'm not.

And PLEX was an interesting innovative experiment of the sort that I mentioned, so I did stick around.

How's the weather in Iceland today?

Dante Marcellus
Minmatar
Belligerent Underpayed Tactical Team
Posted - 2011.07.13 10:34:00 - [14]
 

Originally by: Khamelean


If your against MT of any sort, why are still playing a game that has supported MT for years?


And the plot thickens.

Makko Gray
Pheno-Tech Industries
Crimson Wings.
Posted - 2011.07.13 10:37:00 - [15]
 

Originally by: Jonathan Ferguson
...snip...


I feel that the CSM know better what 'the players' want than you do, how's that for an answer?

Dante Marcellus
Minmatar
Belligerent Underpayed Tactical Team
Posted - 2011.07.13 10:39:00 - [16]
 

Also, yeah, I voted for one of the people holding a chair on the CSM. So, I feel that they most likely have their heads on a bit more straight than the average GD foot stamper.

Wangston Hughes
Posted - 2011.07.13 10:44:00 - [17]
 

Originally by: Valei Khurelem
Originally by: Wangston Hughes
CSM. The typical EVE player is a mouth-breathing drama-***** ****** and should mostly be ignored, as made evident by countless threads like this.


And likewise we should ignore any morons like this who simply intend to stir **** up by trying to backslap players with perfectly legitimate concerns.


Why do you think the OP posted this thread? It certainly wasn't to start a sincere discussion. Most of you dip****s are just desperate for attention and parroting whatever's fed to you.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2011.07.13 10:48:00 - [18]
 

Originally by: Jonathan Ferguson
This CSM isn't looking out for 'the players,' doesn't know what's important to 'the players' and doesn't represent 'the players.'

Should have voted for candidates you would have liked more in the damned election and got your friends to vote of them too, shouldn't you ?
Oh, wait, you're NOT interested in ACTUALLY doing anything in a pre-emptive fashion and merely react to something when it's way past "late".
Twisted Evil

Quote:
Do you feel this CSM represents you and what's your top ten list? How hard would it be to find out what players want if CCP really wanted to know?

The CSM is certainly far more realistic in what can actually be done and what should be done than the entitled whiny reality-divorced bunch of people filling the forums with threads similar to this one.

ChromeStriker
Posted - 2011.07.13 10:57:00 - [19]
 

Originally by: Asta Ddu
Originally by: Wreckar
Considering the protestors couldn't even agree what they were protesting about...

I want MT but no P2W
I don't want any MT
I want more content
I want less content more bugfixes
CQ is too graphic intensive, it's melting my computer
CQ is too ugly, needs more detail
I dont want CQ
I want WiS

Yeah good luck with that.



I want








Cake
or
Cookies
or
Pie




BACON!!

ChromeStriker
Posted - 2011.07.13 11:01:00 - [20]
 

The CSM is allot more informed than the rest of us, they know things we dont, surprise surprise if they make decision that seem odd to us.
Also they were ELECTED by a majority if one person doesnt like something tell them and if it happens your not the only one then things might change.

Signal11th
Posted - 2011.07.13 11:04:00 - [21]
 

Edited by: Signal11th on 13/07/2011 11:05:40
Originally by: Prince Kobol
Yes I feel the CSM represents me because the people I voted for were elected.

If you feel that none of the members represent your views then why don't you stop filling up the forums with crap, stop the complaining and stand for election.

You know when CCP said they will pay more attention to what there players do rather then say.. as in Actions Speak Louder then Words, that also holds true to you.


Because some people don't have access to 1000+ alliance votes

edith prickley
Posted - 2011.07.13 11:08:00 - [22]
 

Originally by: ChromeStriker
The CSM is allot more informed than the rest of us, they know things we dont, surprise surprise if they make decision that seem odd to us.
Also they were ELECTED by a majority if one person doesnt like something tell them and if it happens your not the only one then things might change.


A majority means >50%. It looks like this time around, the most popular candidate polled 5,365 votes. I think even with a very pessimistic estimate of the Eve subscriber count, it would be hard to call this a strong mandate, and far from a majority in any case.

Prince Kobol
Posted - 2011.07.13 11:18:00 - [23]
 

Originally by: Signal11th
Edited by: Signal11th on 13/07/2011 11:05:40
Originally by: Prince Kobol
Yes I feel the CSM represents me because the people I voted for were elected.

If you feel that none of the members represent your views then why don't you stop filling up the forums with crap, stop the complaining and stand for election.

You know when CCP said they will pay more attention to what there players do rather then say.. as in Actions Speak Louder then Words, that also holds true to you.


Because some people don't have access to 1000+ alliance votes


Your point?

If your arguments are good enough, you are able to run a good campaign and gain the interests of the tens of thousand of players who do not vote and have nothing to do with those alliances then you can win :)

Its just a **** poor excuse.

Habaticus
Gallente
Posted - 2011.07.13 11:22:00 - [24]
 

Edited by: Habaticus on 16/07/2011 01:57:14
Face the facts - the large majority of the CSM want to make 0.0 a better playgound. They will suck up to and coddle the Devs (who are getting off on the hugs) to accomplish that goal. Read the CSM minutes carefully and you'll realize they want to nerf the economy and ruin Hi-sec industry for their gain. The wanting to remove ABC ores from wormholes was especially telling.

Tobias Sjodin
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2011.07.13 11:26:00 - [25]
 

You assume that players are of the same opinions.

They aren't. And even if 51% or more of the players wanted purple ****ing ponies in the game, guess what? It wouldn't be in the game. Regardless of how many invisible windmills you fought in the attempt to achieve it.


Discrodia
Gallente
Symbiosis International
Moose Alliance
Posted - 2011.07.13 11:30:00 - [26]
 

As someone who has abstained from almost every election I've voted in, on account of me not liking any of the candidates, I can definitely say that no one in CSM properly represents my interests.

Plus, you're asking a few dozen people to represent a few hundred thousand people. Not everyone is going to feel represented by them.

Chribba
Otherworld Enterprises
Otherworld Empire
Posted - 2011.07.13 11:33:00 - [27]
 

There will always be own agendas of the CSM candidates (or most likely), I mean, I'd push real hard for capital mining lasers Laughing

ChromeStriker
Posted - 2011.07.13 11:35:00 - [28]
 

Originally by: Chribba
There will always be own agendas of the CSM candidates (or most likely), I mean, I'd push real hard for capital mining lasers Laughing


+1

Kunming
Amarr
T.H.U.G L.I.F.E
Xenon-Empire
Posted - 2011.07.13 11:35:00 - [29]
 

Originally by: Khamelean
Originally by: edith prickley
...


If your against MT of any sort, why are still playing a game that has supported MT for years?


Trying to cook the frog slowly eh?

The people who were overly vocal about the MT stuff were the same faces who protested heavily against GTC/ETC/PLEX (myself included; I still do) back few years ago. CCP thinks PLEX isnt breaking their game, but infact PLEX + LVL4 Missions, broke EVE beyond repair. Why is no one mining, why is 0.0 empty (compared to empire), low sec fubar, FW broken, there is no point in mining, there is no point in anything anymore, cause if u want pvp u go buy a plex and join up folks that do the same. Everyone I know either won some sort of lottery or convert PLEX to ISK, only a few (really few like 4-5) players I know get their ISK with various passive incomes and even that is mostly cause of multiple alts financed with PLEX.

The immersion in EVE is gone, the virtual reality is disrupted by the influx of RL currency. Ppl dont fight to get rich, powerful or anything its all about the lulz, KB, e-peen.. And this is just what PLEX did to the game, now think about non-vanity MT.

PLEX destroyed alot of fun and immersion in EVE but it is not gamebreaking enough, and most came to live with the fact that you cant beat your opponent and financial rivalary is non existant anymore, as its not crucial for existance at all. The players dont play for the same motives anymore as they did back 5 years ago.

Why am I still here if I dont like what CCP made out of the game? Simple, its the only MMO with spaceship theme that doesnt utterly suck... yet! This wont stay like this forever (and around 2007-8 I actually had the impression I would play this game until I die out of old age), competition is on the horizon.

Oh and about MT, if I wanted to play a game with MT, it would definetly be one that revolves around PVP ONLY and EXCLUSIVELY and has no player driven economy.. or maybe I already do.

Ranita Drell
Intaki Liberation Front
Posted - 2011.07.13 11:47:00 - [30]
 

I think CSM somewhat represents my interests. I think most members of CSM might want similar things for EVE that I do, but have different priorities. I attribute to this to the fact that the people who vote for the CSM (and the type of people who would put themselves up for CSM election) are a biased sample of the player community. Also, I'm a role-player (a minority segment of the player base to begin with) and on again/off again player -- people like me don't usually don't stick around long enough to vote in CSM elections even if we were inclined to do so.

So anyway, my top ten list. This isn't necessarily the order in which I think these things should be implemented, as the low-hanging fruit should be picked first, but this is a list of what I'd like to see in order of importance:

1. Implementation of a modern, nicer-looking, resolution-independent, more fully customizable user interface. A larger-scaling font is the most important single component of this.

2. Greater sensitivity to how changes/additions will affect immersion and how compatible they are with existing story/lore continuity, especially when it comes to features that are ostensibly all about enhancing immersion (I'm looking at you, CQ).

3. More polished PvE, like (and including) incursions, that allow small gangs of players to work together to minimize risks and maximize rewards, particularly for low and low-mid SP characters. (Solo mission running is too much of a "default" route for newish players, a reality that I believe hurts new player retention, and makes grinding somewhat more of a bore than it needs to be.)

4. A clearer, smoother (dare I say it) more hand-held route to finding combat PvP for new players, through attention paid to fixing FW, revamped tutorials, and more explicit and obvious warning dialog boxes, regarding the consequences of joining/making a corp and some advice on how to pick a good one. Continued iteration of the corp finder tool. EVE is supposed to be harsh, but having it be so harsh that people ragequit or get bored to tears before they have a chance to get their bearings is not healthy for the game in the long run, Darwinian arguments notwithstanding.

5. Adoption/reinforcement of a design philosophy on CCP's part that puts improving the game experience for subscribing players at the forefront, with MT treated as a strictly supplemental form of revenue, like the EVE Store. Reevaluation of MT pricing.

6. Bug fixes or at least bug aversion (listen to test server feedback and hold back patches until you can fix the problems). I have to spam commands to get my drones to behave and about half the time when I try to close or minimize the window, the minimize/close buttons disappear for a few seconds. I'd like to get the warp tunnel back, among other things.

7. Address balance issues. I understand that super-caps and sov warfare are a major area of concern, and any changes that allow low/mid SP characters to more readily play a role would be welcome to me. Fixing hybrids/Gallente is would be at the top of my personal list, though.

8. Visual improvements, or at least stop visual downgrades. Incursion included what should have been major improvements to the look of the game, but actually ended up downgrading the visual experience for me because CQ is useless and immersion-breaking in its implementation, and turrets are too small to notice.

I'd like to see a PIP window that zooms in on the currently selected item or currently active target (or other item specified by the user) so we can always see a spaceship without compromising our tactical view. I would like to see things like jet trails and better-looking missile explosions and crisper particle effects in general. Revamp nebula backgrounds. Focus resources on things that will actually be noticed! The main visual changes I've noticed in Incursion are downgrades (the door, turret icons).

9. Mining/industry overhaul/expansion.

10. Drone overhaul.


Pages: [1] 2 3

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