open All Channels
seplocked EVE General Discussion
blankseplocked CSM chair declaring war on CCP, tells players to bring gasoline.
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9

Author Topic

N1gella Laws0n
Posted - 2011.09.05 10:24:00 - [151]
 

One wonders why mittani is among the last to actually ****ing get it...

Donald MacRury
Gallente
LankTech
Posted - 2011.09.05 11:06:00 - [152]
 

@ Sullen Skoung and Thornat.

In regard to your debate over hi sec, I would like to say a few things because I kind of agree with both of you on different points.

First thing about the risk vs reward factor in hi sec, I do agree that some things are too high like level 4 missions. In regards to stuff like mining and manufacturing, I see it as less of a risk vs reward thing as a demand thing. How much is someone willing to pay for those minerals or ships.

Now with the issue of most hi sec dwellers not wanting to goto 0.0. If you want a good example of why then look at what happened in EC-P8R recently because thats what we will probably see for most hi-sec'ers, just going straight into the meat grinder until they all quit.


Thornat
Posted - 2011.09.05 11:15:00 - [153]
 

Originally by: Donald MacRury
@ Sullen Skoung and Thornat.

In regard to your debate over hi sec, I would like to say a few things because I kind of agree with both of you on different points.

First thing about the risk vs reward factor in hi sec, I do agree that some things are too high like level 4 missions. In regards to stuff like mining and manufacturing, I see it as less of a risk vs reward thing as a demand thing. How much is someone willing to pay for those minerals or ships.

Now with the issue of most hi sec dwellers not wanting to goto 0.0. If you want a good example of why then look at what happened in EC-P8R recently because thats what we will probably see for most hi-sec'ers, just going straight into the meat grinder until they all quit.




The reason these types of things happen is because people are under the impression that 0.0 is something you do alone. Its not. 0.0 is an alliance and corp driven, group oriented gaming area. You go at it alone and ya you will probobly get smoked. But I have said this a million times and I will probobly say it a million times more. Eve is an MMO (MASSIVE MULTIPLAYER ONLINE game)... if you are doing it solo, sorry to say but you are just not getting it. If you want to play spaceships solor their are great single player games out their for you. If you want to do online spaceships with friends without PvP there are great games out there for you. Eve is a PVP MMO. So if you are trying to avoid PvP and solo, yes... you are going to be limited because while its a sandbox, its a sandbox that caters to its theme.. which again is PVP MMO.

Be ready to meet friends, be ready to form fleets and be ready to fight other players.

I agree that their is no right or wrong way to play Eve, but CCP and the CSM are catering to the vision that is Eve and as such, solo carebears are second class citizens. They are welcome to play, but if you think the game should cater to them over PvPers and Null Sec dwellers taking advantage of the games primary design your out of your ****ing mind.

Living Dead Girl
Posted - 2011.09.05 11:20:00 - [154]
 

Originally by: Elyssa MacLeod
stuff



My POV.

Yes, you are partially correct, but forget one little thing. You CAN Make more out in null jewing it up in anoms and even belt ratting in a good sec system. the part you forgot: If you have the system to yourself.

Null needs some type of buff, be it in the form of a high sec nerf, or actually making null more profitable. (increasing bounties/ect) Given the fact that CCP is trying to cut down on the amount of ISK coming into the game world, it only makes sense. And dont even get me started on low sec. I cant think of even ONE really good reason to be there.

I've done alot in this game. about the only thing I HAVEN'T put any real time into is wormholes. I've weighed the risks and rewards for each part of the game i have experience with...and where am I?


You guessed it. Carebearing it up in high sec. Something just isnt right about that. If null was put into the game so "Players can forge there own empires/ect" Whats the point if it's more profitable for the average grunt in high sec?





Oh, btw, id like to know what you are mining in high sec that pulls more ISK/hr than level 4's. Because either your running missions very, very badly, or your bs'in.

Living Dead Girl
Posted - 2011.09.05 11:24:00 - [155]
 

Originally by: Thornat


The reason these types of things happen is because people are under the impression that 0.0 is something you do alone. Its not.





I've noticed i tend to agree with you alot, but i'll disagree, at least partially, with this statement.

I've had some of the best times rolling around null solo in a stealth bomber. if you havent tried it, i suggest you give it a shot.

Cearain
Caldari
The IMPERIUM of LaZy NATION
Posted - 2011.09.05 14:15:00 - [156]
 

Originally by: N1gella Laws0n
One wonders why mittani is among the last to actually ****ing get it...


Why should that be surprising? have you read his "Defense of Incarna" where he regurgitates every bad pro-incarna argument you can find on the eve-o boards?

http://www.tentonhammer.com/eve/spymaster/61

Evil Afoot
Lunar Tech
Posted - 2011.09.05 15:02:00 - [157]
 


Mittens scapegoat, best scapegoat!

luv CCP.

Grot Bags
Posted - 2011.09.05 15:11:00 - [158]
 

Make the upper CCP "suits" salaries dependent on the performance of Eve so when their **** poor decisions a la non spaceship orientated mean Eve subs / average users online take a dip like a fresh turd floating down a water chute so do their salaries.

Elyssa MacLeod
Posted - 2011.09.05 17:48:00 - [159]
 

Originally by: Living Dead Girl

You guessed it. Carebearing it up in high sec. Something just isnt right about that. If null was put into the game so "Players can forge there own empires/ect"



Main problem with that is the fact that every bit of 0.0 is owned by massive corps and if you (even with your corp) go out an "stake your claim" you are going to be ruthlessly murdered.
Unless youre a pet/meat shield/cannon fodder/renter of said alliance.
I think THAT is the biggest deterrent to getting ppl into 0.0 and unless you figure out a way to fix THAT then all the high sec nerfs in the world arent going to make people move out there

Puppet Mas'ter
Posted - 2011.09.05 17:59:00 - [160]
 

Edited by: Puppet Mas''ter on 05/09/2011 18:01:57
Quote:
It is not yet time to start a fire, but get your gasoline ready.


Given that someone was recently banned for telling a dev to diaf, shouldnt mittens be belf responsible for ppl being suggested to get their gasoline ready here?

Best part is if you read the thread noone even pays attention to his rant

Elyssa MacLeod
Posted - 2011.09.05 19:07:00 - [161]
 

Originally by: Living Dead Girl

Oh, btw, id like to know what you are mining in high sec that pulls more ISK/hr than level 4's. Because either your running missions very, very badly, or your bs'in.


I mine veld and pyrox and I pull 5 mil per Itty 5 in a non hub system. Missioning, Ill pull like 2 mil every 5 or so missions. I could be wrong that Im making more mining over missioning, but it looks like it in my wallet. Plus, I dont remember ever mentioning isk/hour, I just said I make more.

daisy cutta
Posted - 2011.09.05 19:17:00 - [162]
 



IF this Csm wants to really wage a war on CCP and truly cause a storm

Then all he has to do is what has already been suggested

Release the original summit notes

General Windypops
The Littlest Hobos
En Garde
Posted - 2011.09.05 19:18:00 - [163]
 

Hate to say 'I told you so' but when I ran my half-arsed campaign for the CSM it was precisely because I feared exactly this would happen.

When Mittens and his cronies moved en-masse to take over the CSM this was always going to happen, and it was bound to be used as a mechanism to try to compel CCP to make the game as Goony as possible.

The good news for smug armchair Generals like me is that I now get to watch Mittens' increasingly desperate attempts to blackmail CCP, and ride rough shod over empire players and those who don't see 0.0 territorial warfare as the be-all-and-end-all.

It's a shame that people like Trebor have been emasculated and steamrolled so quickly.

One thing that puzzles me, though, is that the Goons have attempted to smear, DDOS and threadnought for every single decision that didn't go their way already, so they don't really have any original approaches left. Maybe if they hadn't thrown their toys out of the pram countless times already we might have a CSM with some teeth.

Abrazzar
Posted - 2011.09.05 19:19:00 - [164]
 

Originally by: daisy cutta


IF this Csm wants to really wage a war on CCP and truly cause a storm

Then all he has to do is what has already been suggested

Release the original summit notes

We'd only get Mittens Modified Meeting Minutes I.

The Mittani
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.09.05 19:24:00 - [165]
 

There are two dimensions to CSMing, two levels of interaction with CCP.

At the most useful level you discuss upcoming gameplay with the game designers, chill folks like Soundwave who have their head on right and understand EVE. At this level the CSM has a lot of influence, and there's been no reason for us to "declare war" or "stick it to CCP" because these guys don't make the kind of decisions that result in team allocations; they do things that impact the players in FiS (they nerf supercaps, they Fix Lag, they create farms and fields).

They also already broadly agree with the CSM (which is not divided, but actually has pretty much a consensus of views about FiS) so it's not a very contentious relationship.

At the higher level, in dealing with upper management, things get ugly. Here there is little consensus. Here the calls are made to allocate teams to projects, and the CSM is not happy with what we see. However, our functional level of influence over business processes (as opposed to 'mere' FiS gameplay priorities) is an open question. FiS needs more resources allocated to it or EVE will stagnate, then reach a tipping point. The question is if the management will realize this before that tipping point is reached.

Anyway, my post was to GSF on goonfleet.com. We repost those on Kugu because they leak anyway. This is my first public statement on the matter.

Cipher Jones
Minmatar
Posted - 2011.09.05 19:28:00 - [166]
 

Originally by: The Mittani
There are two dimensions to CSMing, two levels of interaction with CCP.

At the most useful level you discuss upcoming gameplay with the game designers, chill folks like Soundwave who have their head on right and understand EVE. At this level the CSM has a lot of influence, and there's been no reason for us to "declare war" or "stick it to CCP" because these guys don't make the kind of decisions that result in team allocations; they do things that impact the players in FiS (they nerf supercaps, they Fix Lag, they create farms and fields).

They also already broadly agree with the CSM (which is not divided, but actually has pretty much a consensus of views about FiS) so it's not a very contentious relationship.

At the higher level, in dealing with upper management, things get ugly. Here there is little consensus. Here the calls are made to allocate teams to projects, and the CSM is not happy with what we see. However, our functional level of influence over business processes (as opposed to 'mere' FiS gameplay priorities) is an open question. FiS needs more resources allocated to it or EVE will stagnate, then reach a tipping point. The question is if the management will realize this before that tipping point is reached.

Anyway, my post was to GSF on goonfleet.com. We repost those on Kugu because they leak anyway. This is my first public statement on the matter.


What are the CSM's qualifications of making upper level management decisions?

I will just go ahead and answer you with "none". If you manage to illustrate to the community something other than that, I will gladly retract my statement and instead ask CCP why they don't listen.

I am asking in all seriousness, although admittedly with little hope of an answer.

Thanks in advance.

General Windypops
The Littlest Hobos
En Garde
Posted - 2011.09.05 19:28:00 - [167]
 

Originally by: The Mittani
There are two dimensions to CSMing, two levels of interaction with CCP.

At the most useful level you discuss upcoming gameplay with the game designers, chill folks like Soundwave who have their head on right and understand EVE. At this level the CSM has a lot of influence, and there's been no reason for us to "declare war" or "stick it to CCP" because these guys don't make the kind of decisions that result in team allocations; they do things that impact the players in FiS (they nerf supercaps, they Fix Lag, they create farms and fields).

They also already broadly agree with the CSM (which is not divided, but actually has pretty much a consensus of views about FiS) so it's not a very contentious relationship.

At the higher level, in dealing with upper management, things get ugly. Here there is little consensus. Here the calls are made to allocate teams to projects, and the CSM is not happy with what we see. However, our functional level of influence over business processes (as opposed to 'mere' FiS gameplay priorities) is an open question. FiS needs more resources allocated to it or EVE will stagnate, then reach a tipping point. The question is if the management will realize this before that tipping point is reached.

Anyway, my post was to GSF on goonfleet.com. We repost those on Kugu because they leak anyway. This is my first public statement on the matter.


Where's the dimension of CSMing where you liten to the playerbase rather than simply trying to force your personal idea of 'fun' and political agenda on the rest of us?

Sullen Skoung
Posted - 2011.09.05 19:30:00 - [168]
 

I just think its funny Helicity got banned (and later supposedly unbanned) for telling a Dev to "diaf" an using his/her real name yet you talk about starting fires and get the gasoline ready, and use an alternate name for one of the CCPs (Im not buddy buddy, Im not gonna use it, I dont wanna get banned), and its all good. Then again, Im tinfoiling in that I think Helicity was unbanned to keep them from having to enforce that here lol

General Windypops
The Littlest Hobos
En Garde
Posted - 2011.09.05 19:33:00 - [169]
 

If you don't see the CSM role simply as an extension of your Goon leadership agenda then why did you choose to make your initial views known only to your colleagues on your alliance forum, rather than via the formal CSM channels?

It's not surprising, but it's disgusting none the less to see you being so overtly partial.

Feligast
Minmatar
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.09.05 19:34:00 - [170]
 

Originally by: General Windypops
Where's the dimension of CSMing where you liten to the playerbase rather than simply trying to force your personal idea of 'fun' and political agenda on the rest of us?


Show me where the "playerbase" in any way is united on what is fun.

Meissa Anunthiel
Redshift Industrial
Rooks and Kings
Posted - 2011.09.05 19:35:00 - [171]
 

Originally by: Cipher Jones
Originally by: The Mittani
There are two dimensions to CSMing, two levels of interaction with CCP.

At the most useful level you discuss upcoming gameplay with the game designers, chill folks like Soundwave who have their head on right and understand EVE. At this level the CSM has a lot of influence, and there's been no reason for us to "declare war" or "stick it to CCP" because these guys don't make the kind of decisions that result in team allocations; they do things that impact the players in FiS (they nerf supercaps, they Fix Lag, they create farms and fields).

They also already broadly agree with the CSM (which is not divided, but actually has pretty much a consensus of views about FiS) so it's not a very contentious relationship.

At the higher level, in dealing with upper management, things get ugly. Here there is little consensus. Here the calls are made to allocate teams to projects, and the CSM is not happy with what we see. However, our functional level of influence over business processes (as opposed to 'mere' FiS gameplay priorities) is an open question. FiS needs more resources allocated to it or EVE will stagnate, then reach a tipping point. The question is if the management will realize this before that tipping point is reached.

Anyway, my post was to GSF on goonfleet.com. We repost those on Kugu because they leak anyway. This is my first public statement on the matter.


What are the CSM's qualifications of making upper level management decisions?

I will just go ahead and answer you with "none". If you manage to illustrate to the community something other than that, I will gladly retract my statement and instead ask CCP why they don't listen.

I am asking in all seriousness, although admittedly with little hope of an answer.

Thanks in advance.


A few of us are or have actually been upper management in different companies (trebor has his own successful company, as does Seleene I believe, I was CTO and on the board of a company, etc.) by the way, but that's not important, the important part is this:

We are qualified to make that kind of judgement not based on the impact on the bottom line (ie, financial) of CCP (though we can give our substantiated opinion), but when it comes to understanding player behaviour and reception, we are connected to a lot of people, and have shown repeatedly to be much better at providing valid understanding than CCP itself has on its own.

It's also not hard to see when management is out of line with reality by what they say. We're in the trenches, playing the game, they're not. So when it comes to judging what actually happens in game, we are better qualified than them if they don't have the correct information to go by. And that's one of our uses, provide our contacts with information that they can relay. If the quantitative aspects are not understood appropriately, then our job is to point that out too.

Meissa

General Windypops
The Littlest Hobos
En Garde
Posted - 2011.09.05 19:36:00 - [172]
 

Originally by: Feligast
Originally by: General Windypops
Where's the dimension of CSMing where you liten to the playerbase rather than simply trying to force your personal idea of 'fun' and political agenda on the rest of us?


Show me where the "playerbase" in any way is united on what is fun.


Precisely why I feel passionately that the CSM should have been balanced rather than representing a single-interest cartel.

Zirise
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
Posted - 2011.09.05 19:38:00 - [173]
 

Originally by: Cipher Jones
Originally by: The Mittani
There are two dimensions to CSMing, two levels of interaction with CCP.

At the most useful level you discuss upcoming gameplay with the game designers, chill folks like Soundwave who have their head on right and understand EVE. At this level the CSM has a lot of influence, and there's been no reason for us to "declare war" or "stick it to CCP" because these guys don't make the kind of decisions that result in team allocations; they do things that impact the players in FiS (they nerf supercaps, they Fix Lag, they create farms and fields).

They also already broadly agree with the CSM (which is not divided, but actually has pretty much a consensus of views about FiS) so it's not a very contentious relationship.

At the higher level, in dealing with upper management, things get ugly. Here there is little consensus. Here the calls are made to allocate teams to projects, and the CSM is not happy with what we see. However, our functional level of influence over business processes (as opposed to 'mere' FiS gameplay priorities) is an open question. FiS needs more resources allocated to it or EVE will stagnate, then reach a tipping point. The question is if the management will realize this before that tipping point is reached.

Anyway, my post was to GSF on goonfleet.com. We repost those on Kugu because they leak anyway. This is my first public statement on the matter.


What are the CSM's qualifications of making upper level management decisions?

I will just go ahead and answer you with "none". If you manage to illustrate to the community something other than that, I will gladly retract my statement and instead ask CCP why they don't listen.

I am asking in all seriousness, although admittedly with little hope of an answer.

Thanks in advance.


When did asking CCP to devote more resources to FiS require being business savvy? That's all that was implied.

But continue trolling if it makes you feel better.

Simetraz
Posted - 2011.09.05 19:42:00 - [174]
 

Edited by: Simetraz on 05/09/2011 19:42:15
Originally by: The Mittani

Anyway, my post was to GSF on goonfleet.com.


You are not helping your case here at all.
You are in the CSM not GSF.







Feligast
Minmatar
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.09.05 19:43:00 - [175]
 

Originally by: General Windypops
Originally by: Feligast
Originally by: General Windypops
Where's the dimension of CSMing where you liten to the playerbase rather than simply trying to force your personal idea of 'fun' and political agenda on the rest of us?


Show me where the "playerbase" in any way is united on what is fun.


Precisely why I feel passionately that the CSM should have been balanced rather than representing a single-interest cartel.


Ok then.

Sullen Skoung
Posted - 2011.09.05 19:50:00 - [176]
 

Originally by: General Windypops
Originally by: Feligast
Originally by: General Windypops
Where's the dimension of CSMing where you liten to the playerbase rather than simply trying to force your personal idea of 'fun' and political agenda on the rest of us?


Show me where the "playerbase" in any way is united on what is fun.


Precisely why I feel passionately that the CSM should have been balanced rather than representing a single-interest cartel.


which is why the election process in this game will never work. Unless you make voting mandatory upon log in, you will never get a larger group of players than the Goons voting at any one time for obvious reasons

General Windypops
The Littlest Hobos
En Garde
Posted - 2011.09.05 19:51:00 - [177]
 

Edited by: General Windypops on 05/09/2011 19:52:26
Originally by: Sullen Skoung
Originally by: General Windypops
Originally by: Feligast
Originally by: General Windypops
Where's the dimension of CSMing where you liten to the playerbase rather than simply trying to force your personal idea of 'fun' and political agenda on the rest of us?


Show me where the "playerbase" in any way is united on what is fun.


Precisely why I feel passionately that the CSM should have been balanced rather than representing a single-interest cartel.


which is why the election process in this game will never work. Unless you make voting mandatory upon log in, you will never get a larger group of players than the Goons voting at any one time for obvious reasons


Indeed. And when your only electorate is your own alliance membership then it's not surprising your own alliance forums are where you post your CSM updates.

Cipher Jones
Minmatar
Posted - 2011.09.05 19:52:00 - [178]
 

Originally by: Zirise
Originally by: Cipher Jones
Originally by: The Mittani
There are two dimensions to CSMing, two levels of interaction with CCP.

At the most useful level you discuss upcoming gameplay with the game designers, chill folks like Soundwave who have their head on right and understand EVE. At this level the CSM has a lot of influence, and there's been no reason for us to "declare war" or "stick it to CCP" because these guys don't make the kind of decisions that result in team allocations; they do things that impact the players in FiS (they nerf supercaps, they Fix Lag, they create farms and fields).

They also already broadly agree with the CSM (which is not divided, but actually has pretty much a consensus of views about FiS) so it's not a very contentious relationship.

At the higher level, in dealing with upper management, things get ugly. Here there is little consensus. Here the calls are made to allocate teams to projects, and the CSM is not happy with what we see. However, our functional level of influence over business processes (as opposed to 'mere' FiS gameplay priorities) is an open question. FiS needs more resources allocated to it or EVE will stagnate, then reach a tipping point. The question is if the management will realize this before that tipping point is reached.

Anyway, my post was to GSF on goonfleet.com. We repost those on Kugu because they leak anyway. This is my first public statement on the matter.


What are the CSM's qualifications of making upper level management decisions?

I will just go ahead and answer you with "none". If you manage to illustrate to the community something other than that, I will gladly retract my statement and instead ask CCP why they don't listen.

I am asking in all seriousness, although admittedly with little hope of an answer.

Thanks in advance.


When did asking CCP to devote more resources to FiS require being business savvy? That's all that was implied.

But continue trolling if it makes you feel better.


You would have to be a complete ****ing moron to not understand. YOU can continue trolling now. Unless of course you meet that criteria.

Herzog Wolfhammer
Gallente
Sigma Special Tactics Group
Posted - 2011.09.05 19:53:00 - [179]
 

Let this be a lesson to everybody:

Always elect indy players who support piracy (real piracy, not kill-everything-that-moves-Jan-Bradyism) and exploration and they will come up with stuff that all players will agree with.

And by the way, the biggest problem with democracy is the notion that just because someone got elected to something, they are automatically an authority. That's a load of BS. I am very thankful that EVE Online is such an unruly sandbox that this false notion about a false god fails so miserably and in such flames that ignorance burns so well no matter how wet.



Elyssa MacLeod
Posted - 2011.09.05 19:55:00 - [180]
 

Originally by: General Windypops


Indeed. And when your only electorate is your own alliance membership then it's not surprising that's where you post your CSM updates.



Yeah, the CSM doesnt need to be disbanded, they need to make voting in elections mandatory upon log in that way everyone votes and then if this crap happens everyone shares the blame equally, not the ppl with the biggest corp wins. Cause then theyre not representing the whole game, theyre representing their corp. And I really cant think of a worse corp to represent me. I dont want to destroy "your" game, I just want to play MY game and I dont care about YOUR game. Even if your game is to kill me, thats part of the game lol


Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9

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