open All Channels
seplocked Assembly Hall
blankseplocked [Issue] CSM actually SHOULD focus on small specific issues
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Author Topic

Ulstan
Posted - 2008.06.18 14:36:00 - [1]
 

Edited by: Ulstan on 18/06/2008 14:40:30
I noticed a couple very disquieting quotes from the most recent CSM meeting, indicating that the CSM is in danger of heading off into even further irrelevancy.

Quote:
[ 2008.06.15 18:15:43 ] Inanna Zuni > I'ev already written about how I view this CSM should consider ship issues (linked from my forum sig, in fact) and in general I don't want to get caught up in this "ship a needs love, ship b needs nerf"



Quote:
[ 2008.06.15 18:23:01 ] Darius JOHNSON > I've always said, and given the amount of support this topic has gotten I'm sticking to it.. That the council shouldn't be involved in discuss the minutiae of every individual shiptype
[ 2008.06.15 18:23:23 ] Darius JOHNSON > High level issues or concerns that are so pressing that they receive overwhelming popular support


This is exactly the wrong direction to take chaps. Small specific issues are the ones that have the best chance of being implemented. They have the best chance of obtaining a consensus as to what exactly should be done. They have the best chance of not being misunderstood by CCP and being implemented in a way the community doesn't like. And of course, it's the 'small' issues that often have the most impact on a players enjoyment of the game.

I'm extremely disappointed to see the CSM just writing off small issues as 'not worth their time'. You will have much more of an impact submitting small concrete changes that don't have sweeping game wide implications than suggesting major over-arching changes to the underlying game design. If you say things like "Hey we all think the sov system needs re-work" or "Hey exploration kinda sucks" then CCP will cheerfully nod and say "Great feedback guys, we'll put it on our plate of stuff to think about for possibly changing much later when we have more time to make enormous big changes" and absolutely nothing will have been accomplished. CCP already knows all these things 'need work' the CSM telling them they need work isn't providing new information, nor will it move the process along. It will essentially have been a waste of your time.

The CSM simply isn't going to be able to get CCP to focus massive amounts of manpower and resources on game redesigns that CCP hasn't already decided need looking at and made a priority of.

What the CSM *can* do is submit idea for changes that have popular support and are very narrow in scope and not very difficult in implementation. Fixing obvious flaws in certain ships or modules that irk the playerbase would, in my opinion, be a terrific use of CSM time. (And you don't need to get into the 'nerfing' game, their are plenty of things that just need buffing or don't make sense'.

For example: Assault Frigates sucking. This would be a great CSM issue. The Hawk and Harpy having their skins switched. Easy fix. All those threads detailing why certain Amarr ships failed hard? Yep, that would all have been good CSM material as well. Suggesting a new niche profession ship? Great idea for the CSM to push. Specific tweaks and fixes to the UI? Solid gold for the CSM to pursue.

These are the kind of things you have a chance of actually seeing implemented. Vauge head in the clouds 'well we'd kind of like the whole game to work differently' subjects, while diverting, are simply not going to be very actionable . CCP will 'think about' them and by and large nothing will get done that CCP was going to do any way. All the CSM can do is ask them to 'consider' changes, which CCP is no doubt doing just fine on their own.

I bring this up because I notice from the threads in the Assembly Hall that huge portions of the playerbase *are* expecting the CSM to discuss the small minutae of the game and not just dismiss it as being 'beneath them'. It's great to some discuss big issues (Bane's capships online f.ex) and reinforce in CCP's mind that these things they are looking at *are* important, but I think it's wrong to just have a standing policy of shutting down small suggestions

Lia Gaeren
Caldari
Pole Dancing Vixens
Posted - 2008.06.18 16:02:00 - [2]
 

The above may be true, but it is definitely possible to go too far in the other direction. For example, CCP may have wavered back and forward on a 'major change' topic before finally giving it the heave-ho - if the CSM can demonstrate that the player base feels very strongly that this change would be welcomed and is a good idea, then CCP might actually change their minds and stick it in the next expansion.

Also shouldn't be blinkered that a small change is more likely to be implemented - this might be true on some issue, but a relatively small change on a specific craft could unbalance its role and make it ... well, unbalanced. I'm sure there have been many frighteningly long meetings at CCP HQ about whether a specific ship would be better balanced with 4 med and 3 low, or 3 med and 4 low...

I think the CSM tackle *all* issues, both big and small. If nothing else, a definitive "No" from the devs allows everyone to drop it and move on. Although how topics which have been addressed and have answers will be communicated on this (very broken) message board system for issues remains to be seen.

Ceylana Zari
Amarr
SPORADIC MOVEMENT
Posted - 2008.06.18 16:29:00 - [3]
 

/support

Tesseract d'Urberville
Tadakastu-Obata Corporation
The Honda Accord
Posted - 2008.06.18 16:54:00 - [4]
 

Edited by: Tesseract d''Urberville on 18/06/2008 16:54:20
Agreed, there's nothing wrong with discussing the little things too. In fact, there aren't as many new "big" topics being posted to this forum, since so many of the obvious hot-button ones have been raised already.

Yes, some of the narrow issues being suggested now could be unbalancing, depending on potential implementations. Needless to say, though, after all is said on the forum, and after all is said in the CSM meetings, if CCP feels that a particular recommendation would be unbalancing, they can say so and not implement it.

That's not to say that the CSM shouldn't be taking on the big sweeping proposals, too, though. By all means talk about the big issues, even if they're less immediately actionable.

Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange
Nabaal Syndicate
Posted - 2008.06.18 17:29:00 - [5]
 

They're still in the first batch of submissions. There are some real high-level problems with this game, and those getting addressed up front is a good thing. Most of what they've done so far has been either high-level game design or low-level fixes of stupid annoyances. Give them more time, and they might stick their heads into balance issues at a smaller scale.

Ulstan
Posted - 2008.06.19 15:14:00 - [6]
 

Quote:
I think the CSM tackle *all* issues, both big and small. If nothing else, a definitive "No" from the devs allows everyone to drop it and move on. Although how topics which have been addressed and have answers will be communicated on this (very broken) message board system for issues remains to be seen.


Oh, absolutely. I'm not saying they should ignore big issues. They could even mostly focus on those if they wanted. I'm just decrying the apparent decision to stay away from small issues.

Yorda
Battlestars
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2008.06.19 15:17:00 - [7]
 

Agreed, I don't see how an entire race's capitals being terrible is a "small issue".

Especially when they are already going to the CSM about large autocannons.


 

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