Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Shaalira]

Available here.

[Seriphyn]

"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...

[Lyn Farel]

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.

[orange]

Does anyone on the CSM have experience with FW?

Also, electable/elected leaders is a great idea. 

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.

[Esna Pitoojee]

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. 

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%:.

[Alain Colcer]

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

[Valdezi]

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.

[Seriphyn]

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.

[Milo Caman]

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.

[Alain Colcer]

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.

[Lyn Farel]

The CSM... /o\

[Jade Constantine]

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.

[Desiderya]

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'.

[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.

[Senn Typhos]

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.