Backstage - OOC Forums
General Discussion => General Non-RP EVE Discussion => Topic started by: Shaalira on 17 Jan 2012, 12:08
-
Available here (http://www.eveonline.com/council/transcripts/2011/CSM_CCP_Mettings_7-9_12_2011.pdf).
-
"CSM followed up with the question of whether or not to extend FW to all of lowsec which would turn pirates into proper pirates that are disrupting one faction's space things and activities in another faction's spaces"
Coincedental with your FW idea... (http://backstage.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?topic=3031.msg45172#msg45172)
-
I hope they also keep in mind that will not solve the "pirate issue" in lowsec : if pirates gain all the advantages by joining a militia and become privateers, then real actual pirates will disappear out of the game. Which would be sad, I think.
-
Does anyone on the CSM have experience with FW?
Also, electable/elected leaders is a great idea. :roll:
Some members of the STPRO tried to setup a "governing structure" back in 2008. End result? A decent number of l33t pvpers said "fuck you" and some went as far to say "if you keep trying to provide wider organization and direction we are going to wardec you." This was despite those trying to do the organizing and such saying "it is only suggestions" and "you are welcome to take part in the organizing."
I think CCP should consider putting a person or two in charge of the FW story and operate the wars as on-going dynamic events. Consider a person for each front who updates the Militia News feeds with orders to attack here or defend this constellation and have events each month that are kill/defend this NPC Admiral or that NPC forward base.
We talk about how the mechanics are broken and such, but players want one or two things out of FW. 1 - Shoot stuff, preferably other players in ships about the same size and 2 - a connection to the story, maybe.
-
Does anyone on the CSM have experience with FW?
I don't think so. If they do, it's under sekrit alts or a very, very long time ago.
Also, electable/elected leaders is a great idea. :roll:
My thoughts about this exactly. Seriously, can CCP actually listen to the FW people before throwing out updates? PLEASE?
As much as I think I know who Amarr would elect as a militia leader today, and as much as I think he actually deserves a reward for all the organization he's been doing lately, I will remain permanently suspicious of ANY method that uses popular support to determine power, especially with alliances joining.
Fortunately, even the nullsec-dominated CSM seems to realise what an utterly terrible idea this is.
I think CCP should consider putting a person or two in charge of the FW story and operate the wars as on-going dynamic events. Consider a person for each front who updates the Militia News feeds with orders to attack here or defend this constellation and have events each month that are kill/defend this NPC Admiral or that NPC forward base.
Something like the old Kourmonen campaign? (I can't remember the other factions' campaigns; was it Arzad for Minmatar?)
Anyhow, yeah, it'd be nice, but :20%:.
-
I was dissapointed this time.
The CSM commented many topics without a real background, nor having consulted the playerbase about the common place issues (wardecs, FW and NPE in particular).
their focus was clearly just null-wars
-
I was dissapointed this time.
The CSM commented many topics without a real background, nor having consulted the playerbase about the common place issues (wardecs, FW and NPE in particular).
their focus was clearly just null-wars
I got the same impression and the CSM member's answers in the AF balancing thread on the forums also suggests that Sov Nullsec is all that matters to them.
-
Not a single point about the stealth-bomber-farming of FW either.
Nullsec-lite is an idea I've championed before, but nullsec representatives (ie. CSM) doing so just makes me worried. Trying to shape the universe in the sense it's all "prologue" before nullsec.
No. I want to fight over systems that have character, history, and actual people living in them, with names and not numbers.
-
Some members of the STPRO tried to setup a "governing structure" back in 2008. End result? A decent number of l33t pvpers said "fuck you" and some went as far to say "if you keep trying to provide wider organization and direction we are going to wardec you." This was despite those trying to do the organizing and such saying "it is only suggestions" and "you are welcome to take part in the organizing."
I would actively back such a structure OOC as much as I could from my current position within the game. Also I guess you could use ANN for militia 'newsfeeds' if hosting is required.
-
Milo, the problem with that is a group of people are midly dictating how others should play, or on what they should put their focus while ingame.
Gallente militia in particular has been succesful in their bonding process because they seek fighting partners, nothing more. Each fleet fight brings people closer, and at some point the group can think of further cooperation.
I would approve if CCP assigned 1 person to a dedicated role of "pupeteer" controlling IC characters who would be grand admirals/generals/whatever that steered a sort of "campaign" goal with small in-game tokens (faction modules) in all militias. I think i've mentioned this overall scheme of long term campaigns before, just post 2-3 messages on the forum by a single NPC character and get the snowball rolling
If such model existed, with minimal maintenance, i bet some story driven content would be quite good in eve.
-
The CSM... /o\
-
It’s (the CSM part of the minutes) basically a manifesto from 0.0 aristocrats wanting their cake and eating it too:
1. cloak detection ships (“wah we are terrified by AFK cloakers in our ratting systems”)
2. Dockable Super-carriers (“we want to play docking game with them”)
3. Shootable NPC station services (“we want to trump pvp with numbers - as usual)”
4. No targets for small gangs (“it would be terrible if playing skill actually mattered”)
5. FW as a test bed for 0.0 Sov (“we want them to grind structures too”)
6. “Spool-up” on jump timer (“we hate getting ganked by smaller groups”)
7. Infipoints on supercarriers (“we hate using subcaps because they are killable”)
8. Vs Supercapital systems on EAS (“because the non 0.0 blob game is irrelevant”)
9. “There is huge opposition to removing local chat” (“it’ll stop our bot scripts working”)
10. “nobody cares about corp logos” (we don’t so therefore nobody else does”)
11. “People would gladly fork out a (MT) fee for alliance logos” (“I tax my plebs for plexes”)
Now into this comes the outpost destruction proposal (which I like of course) but it’s being suggested partially to leverage ability to mess with NPC stations I think. *shrugs* ah well, let the damn things burn – I don’t mind the firesale contract idea or the relocation to npc station idea – but it would probably be best to let them be a smoking wreck where the original owners could access their hangers from space.
On FW/Lowsec the CSM is clueless really. What Lowsec needs is more interesting mechanics for pirates and pirate hunters and ideally an expansion of FW that makes it more interesting to a wider range of people. Being able to declare “against” a faction or being able to support specific pirate factions against empires would enrich the universe immensely (maybe subdivide all of lowsec into particular conflict zones). Unique resource and capabilities for lowsec? True impact of FW occupation all good. New options equipment/ships built around piracy and anti piracy and lowsec professions. Yes please.
Bah to be honest.
What’s positive about the minutes is that CCP seemed genuinely positive and open to new ideas and they were also coming up with good suggestions.
What’s bad about the minutes is how obvious the CSM has become a vehicle for specific narrow interest groups who know nothing about large parts of the game and care less.
What it shows is that any fringe mentalist voting bloc is an unhealthy thing to dominate a political forum. Eve Online needs a CSM with more balanced opinions and a wider knowledge of the game as a whole.
I think voting reform needs to go up the agenda and we need to find a way to ensure that 0.0 alliance bloc voting is never allowed to dominate the message as much as it has on this CSM in the future.
-
It is obvious, to CCP as well, that the CSM is leaning heavily towards participants and opinions from the 0.0 part of the game. The voting mechanic alone makes it easier for the rather monolithic big entities to collect votes, than hoping to catch a similar number over 'regular' campaigning 'on the streets'.
-
With what you said, Jade.
Thinking of going Fanfest try to confront CCP on the open mic to say the CSM does not represent the players, but represents nullsec players, and all that jazz about FWers wanting nothing to do with nullsec.
-
With what you said, Jade.
Thinking of going Fanfest try to confront CCP on the open mic to say the CSM does not represent the players, but represents nullsec players, and all that jazz about FWers wanting nothing to do with nullsec.
If you manage that, you won't hear it, but somewhere across the globe I'll be applauding.
-
Hasn't Hilmar said that in an interview?
Eurogamer: The Council of Stellar Management [CSM] has been increasingly vocal and rebellious in recent months. What's your relationship with them like at the moment - your personal feelings and those of the company as a whole?
Hilmar Pétursson: The CSM has been under constant evolution based on what's going on in the current environment, what's going on with CCP and Eve, who's on the Council and all that. The CSM has helped greatly through the years in getting feedback for aspects of the game.
But some of my concerns right now relate to whether the CSM is maybe focused on a particular aspect of the game and I'm starting to get feedback from players that they worry the CSM is too pre-occupied by a certain playstyle. That might mean we may need to change the structure, but definitely the CSM has worked as a feedback tool greatly throughout the years. We will have them over at the end of the year, after everything that's gone on, and we will have a chance to talk about that. We'll just see where we are and take it from there.
-
Milo, the problem with that is a group of people are midly dictating how others should play, or on what they should put their focus while ingame.
Gallente militia in particular has been succesful in their bonding process because they seek fighting partners, nothing more. Each fleet fight brings people closer, and at some point the group can think of further cooperation.
I would approve if CCP assigned 1 person to a dedicated role of "pupeteer" controlling IC characters who would be grand admirals/generals/whatever that steered a sort of "campaign" goal with small in-game tokens (faction modules) in all militias. I think i've mentioned this overall scheme of long term campaigns before, just post 2-3 messages on the forum by a single NPC character and get the snowball rolling
If such model existed, with minimal maintenance, i bet some story driven content would be quite good in eve.
Trying to create some ridiculous "central command" for Caldari FW would be disastrous, as any such structure would find itself thoroughly infiltrated with spies and function as little more than a platter serving up fleets of nimrods for ambush.
-
That's what they said about the FDU's MDP pact as well. Didn't happen.
-
FW Commands: Bad idea.
That's basically trying to turn them into Alliances.
Amarr and Gallente seem to have our shit together as it is.
-
Oh well... :psyccp:
-
I'm actually finding CCP's responses to this promising.
Question: What would we want to see in the next CSM? Getting people aware of the politics and motivated to vote seems to matter. (Who'd have thought. ;) ) Before we suggest throwing out the current system, or even modifying it, what could we do within that system to get a more balanced representation next time?
(I already have a default candidate--maybe two--in mind for my votes next time, by the way. Might want to start dialogues with the good ones to expand their awareness even more.)
-
Trying to create some ridiculous "central command" for Caldari FW would be disastrous, as any such structure would find itself thoroughly infiltrated with spies and function as little more than a platter serving up fleets of nimrods for ambush.
Slight misunderstanding there, as i might have expressed myself incorrectly, the "guy" representing central command (say caldari navy grand admiral), is a CCP employee in the content deparment.
Said employee uses an NPC char to post (just like Sansha plot just before incursions) and therefore gets the snowball rolling, there is no central command corp or channel per se, just general goals and aims in the FW militia of each empire given by the content department (go and attack X constellation this week).
On the other topic, the MDP worked well, but we knew it was full of spais (sometimes the spies were too blatantly obvious), like any alliance chat, people just continue to use to do simple fleet organization but not for critical intel. Thats why the galmil is currently called a "rapid response group" in FW.
-
Slight misunderstanding there, as i might have expressed myself incorrectly, the "guy" representing central command (say caldari navy grand admiral), is a CCP employee in the content deparment.
Said employee uses an NPC char to post (just like Sansha plot just before incursions) and therefore gets the snowball rolling, there is no central command corp or channel per se, just general goals and aims in the FW militia of each empire given by the content department (go and attack X constellation this week).
Maybe I'm weird, but having been conditioned to play in the sandbox I now find the idea of having the gamemakers tell me what to do in that sandbox to be really unappealing. Does that mean we're just spear-carriers in some railroaded story? What if they suggest something dumb: do we go along with it because it has GM immunity? What does that do to our storytelling if we end up following or second-guessing the gamemakers?
That said, the idea of enough of us getting together to have A Plan that I can contribute to and see the results of appeals. Important work; people to do it with; visible progress with enough variability that the conditioning sticks...
-
my my, you sure are a hard bunch....
Ok, ill try to explain myself a bit more:
1) FW is inconsecuential in terms of storytelling, plot advancement and repercusions.
2) FW is just people in a perma-war fighting for e-peen and fun, nothing wrong
Let's try to tackle that together in a nice mix, throw in "campaign" mode:
Campaign mode is by definition vapor, it is not a mechanic ingame, it does not change wars, landscape, nor provide rewards (except if the task is epic perhaps?).
a) The conditions of the sandbox are not changed, people can do and will be able to do as they please, completely ignoring campaign mode.
b) Should i choose to try and follow campaign mode, actions ust need to moderately follow the goals proposed by the NPC actor from CCP content team.
c) NPC goals are specific and measurable, yet not set on rules on how to complete them.
d) Depending on the result, newsfeeds and very minor story telling happens.
End Result?: Players play for the e-peen of having accomplished something that reflects "lightly" ingame......has plot advancement, provides feedback content (content started by CCP and carried on by players) and gives additional reasons to fight for.
I for one, would welcome such an addition.
The above could well apply to pirate factions, making the concept of FW for the minor factions much more interesting and not bound to "beacons", victory points or whatever other ingame limited mechanic a game designer can come up with.
-
Campaign mode people can still be hunted down and blown up to cause failure in their campaigns, yes? If so, whatever, sure, don't waste too much time developing it but sure.
-
Campaign mode people can still be hunted down and blown up to cause failure in their campaigns, yes? If so, whatever, sure, don't waste too much time developing it but sure.
As much as you anyone could shoot at those taking part in the Pre-Incursion Sansha events or FW plexes (so some restrictions based on plex size) - so yes.
As for development time, it is another use of existing tools (used for the already story events) and a similar number of developers. IE all the code development is complete, it is just story that needs direction/work.
Bruno and I are talking about the same idea. FW has the potential to be a CCP-controlled, player influenced story dynamic. Null-sec should be all about player conflict/story and is to a large extent, I think.
Another option is for CCP to utilize the Incursion mechanics to also focus the warzones a bit; providing 3-4 constellations of conflict for the militia's to fight over. Instead of shifting randomly when defeated, it opens up the adjacent enemy constellations to conquest. Have owned constellations provide members bonuses to ratting, exploration, mining, etc to the owning faction. Just ideas....
-
Ok, the 'Admiral' idea is not so bad at all.
Hell, that would be somewhat like certain event arcs back in the day.
"Go deal with this area, we'll check on your progress in a few weeks. Good luck."
-
Campaign mode people can still be hunted down and blown up to cause failure in their campaigns, yes? If so, whatever, sure, don't waste too much time developing it but sure.
As much as you anyone could shoot at those taking part in the Pre-Incursion Sansha events or FW plexes (so some restrictions based on plex size) - so yes.
As for development time, it is another use of existing tools (used for the already story events) and a similar number of developers. IE all the code development is complete, it is just story that needs direction/work.
Bruno and I are talking about the same idea. FW has the potential to be a CCP-controlled, player influenced story dynamic. Null-sec should be all about player conflict/story and is to a large extent, I think.
+1
On the concept of re-using incursion mechanics, not so sure i agree, cause features that can be min/maxed go against the overall concept of a "campaign".
And frankly, Graelyn resumed the whole concept to 3 lines much better than i could have imagined :lol: :lol:
It is a very simple, low maintenance approach to give content to players that can result in storytelling, reversing the "stagnation" feeling that FW currently suffers.
-
With what you said, Jade.
Thinking of going Fanfest try to confront CCP on the open mic to say the CSM does not represent the players, but represents nullsec players, and all that jazz about FWers wanting nothing to do with nullsec.
Oh DO EEET please. >:(
The CSM needs a serious kick in the ass.
-
With what you said, Jade.
Thinking of going Fanfest try to confront CCP on the open mic to say the CSM does not represent the players, but represents nullsec players, and all that jazz about FWers wanting nothing to do with nullsec.
Oh DO EEET please. >:(
The CSM needs a serious kick in the ass.
Agreed, a good chunk of them do, starting with Mittens ofc.
-
With what you said, Jade.
Thinking of going Fanfest try to confront CCP on the open mic to say the CSM does not represent the players, but represents nullsec players, and all that jazz about FWers wanting nothing to do with nullsec.
Oh DO EEET please. >:(
The CSM needs a serious kick in the ass.
Agreed, a good chunk of them do, starting with Mittens ofc.
All hail President Seriphyn!
-
With what you said, Jade.
Thinking of going Fanfest try to confront CCP on the open mic to say the CSM does not represent the players, but represents nullsec players, and all that jazz about FWers wanting nothing to do with nullsec.
Oh DO EEET please. >:(
The CSM needs a serious kick in the ass.
I'm sure he meant sov nullsec players, right? Because as an NPC nullsec individual who could give two flying shits about sov mechanics, they don't represent me either.
-
With what you said, Jade.
Thinking of going Fanfest try to confront CCP on the open mic to say the CSM does not represent the players, but represents nullsec players, and all that jazz about FWers wanting nothing to do with nullsec.
If you manage that, you won't hear it, but somewhere across the globe I'll be applauding.
I'm already planning on asking a lot of questions at fanfest, this subject is among them.
-
I'm sure he meant sov nullsec players, right? Because as an NPC nullsec individual who could give two flying shits about sov mechanics, they don't represent me either.
How much will you be affected if NPC stations can have their services rendered inoperative by fleet damage? I think the CSM was recommending that...
-
I'm sure he meant sov nullsec players, right? Because as an NPC nullsec individual who could give two flying shits about sov mechanics, they don't represent me either.
How much will you be affected if NPC stations can have their services rendered inoperative by fleet damage? I think the CSM was recommending that...
They were saying that there should be a service added that allows capitals to dock, and THIS could be rendered inoperative. I think the CSM saw the inherent issues in just letting all services be rendered inoperative.
-
They were saying that there should be a service added that allows capitals to dock, and THIS could be rendered inoperative. I think the CSM saw the inherent issues in just letting all services be rendered inoperative.
Ah, See what happens when I don't actually read the minutes (I can't access them from work, and I never remember to access them from home...)
Thanks for explaining.
Is that related to the idea of letting supercaps dock? or are they completely unconnected?
-
I think that was a completely unrelated thing (docking supers was brought up during the general discussion of supers; a cap docking service was more brought up under the context of NPC space and Iceberg Alliances*). Needless to say if supers do become dockable, they'd be effected by such a service and I'd even wager that they wouldn't be dockable in NPC space at all - maybe it'd be an I-HUB upgrade? "Supercapital Servicing Berths" or something?
* Iceberg Alliances - like they say about Icebergs, "what you see above the water is just the tip". Refers to an alliance that holds some portion of soveriegnty but stores the vast majority of its assets and sometimes its players in blockade-resistant NPC stations.