The initial honeymoon in attracting FTP new players is over and those figures are heading south too:
Friday, 27 January 2017
The initial honeymoon in attracting FTP new players is over and those figures are heading south too:
Sunday, 1 May 2016
Wednesday, 9 March 2016
I'll try and get the motivation for doing this out the way quite quickly because that is straight forward. I have come to loathe the CSM and haven't been shy about saying it. It should be torched for the reasons I laid out in Crossing Zebras back in January. It is only my opinion and I hadn't told people to vote or not vote or indeed shove a list of endorsements down anyone's throat for them to blindly follow. If turkeys want to vote for Christmas that is entirely their choice and one I respect. I'll just enjoy the "I told you so" meal later was my thinking. However it didn't work out that way.
Of all the Eve fora, Twitter is probably the most light hearted as well as being informative. It is the one I engage in most. When the CSM election started, there was naturally a lot of noise and even some excitement about it. But the tone quickly changed to one of calling people dumb and negative for not voting. Even CCP got in on the act. To be fair, much of it was tongue in cheek but the case for not voting is genuine and most people won't vote. Calling the majority of the playerbase dumb, is well just dumb. It was a voice that needed to be heard and I arrogantly decided to try and convey it.
If the CSM monster could change things, CCP wouldn't let us vote. This is why CCP NDA gag it. #dontvote #tweetfleet pic.twitter.com/eiR3wmmMgd— Syndicalist Kong (@LuoboteKong) March 8, 2016
Mobilize to defeat the ruling classes & their cruel jump clone taxes. Deny them your vote. Reject the CSM delusion. #rejectCSM #tweetfleet— Syndicalist Kong (@LuoboteKong) March 4, 2016
Play your game. Do not submit to the will of the bourgeois Eve elites. Deny them the oxygen of your vote #rejectCSM #tweetfleet— Syndicalist Kong (@LuoboteKong) March 3, 2016
You get the picture. Not exactly Marx's dialectic but he didn't have to contend with a limit of 142 characters. What then happened was interesting. What started as a grumpy guy sperging turned into more of a social observation. Most people ignored me initially for it was the utterings of a madman and hoping I would go away eventually. I expected this and I also expected to lose followers. But the opposite happened and I gained some. Nothing spectacular but more people were switched on than were switched off.
As I ploughed on people started to challenge me both seriously and in fun. But they were almost entirely from a very select group - CSM candidates and non aligned ones at that. Now they obviously have a vested interest. They are struggling to pick up scraps of non block votes. But the only counter argument they could put of any merit was that a non vote was vote for the blocks. But STV guarantees the Imperium and PL are going to get seats regardless so point is moot. But interestingly it was a popular view yet no one is campaigning in the manner I briefly did to appeal to the anti block vote. In fact most of the candidates seem to be talking to each other in the #CSM slack channel rather than campaigning to the electorate. I am really not sure where this complacency comes from. At no point did anyone defend the CSM as an institution or address the contrived points I was making. So most people just don't care (and will likely not vote) or they agree (and will likely not vote). No one is selling the CSM.
Step in CCP...
Hmm.. so why didn't they do that this year? CCP Guard comes to the rescue!EVE players: Ignore chatter to the contrary. An engaged CSM makes the game better for everyone. Vote here for #CSM11 https://t.co/ctvI81KAdE— Mark W / CCP Darwin (@mark_wilkins) March 4, 2016
So much for putting the case for the CSM as an institution then. There was nothing for it then but to do CCP's and the CSM candidates job for them. I went for the jugular.
You will notice that CCP Fozzie deleted the message I retweeted. That particular tweet had been an extremely provocative message that directly undermined the role, work and purpose of the current CSM. The CSM complained bitterly about it yet it remained. Up until yesterday that is, when my stupid little campaign allowed him the opportunity him to reflect and delete it to replace it with this:CCP declares its devotion to the masses and guides us on the true path#dontvote #rejectCSM #tweetfleet https://t.co/Q8SoxT658L— Syndicalist Kong (@LuoboteKong) March 8, 2016
At little victory and my work is now done. The CSM has hope if attitudes change. But the onus is on you candidates. If I can achieve something - (a little something but something the CSM never achieved) with just 4 days ranting why can't you? Stop talking to each other get out the and make a fuss. Fight for your game and win the respect of your peers.@LuoboteKong Everyone should absolutely vote for the CSM. They're not the only feedback path but they're an important one.— CCP Fozzie (@CCP_Fozzie) March 8, 2016
Finally, a shoutout to Nosy Gamer who was almost the only person to tackle me full on and do it with humour. Vive La Revolution!
Sunday, 28 February 2016
Tuesday, 16 February 2016
Declaration of interest
- As an occasional writer on Crossing Zebras, I work with the particular CSM member involved. However,
- It is no secret I am no supporter of the CSM institution. Yes, there are good people who work on the CSM. However, this event underlines precisely why the circus should be closed down.
Monday, 1 February 2016
Monday, 21 December 2015
Sunday, 1 November 2015
"The Council of Stellar Management (CSM) is a player-elected council who represent the views of the members of the EVE Online community to CCP. To quote part of the CSM white paper summary:
The purpose of the CSM is to represent society interests to CCP. This requires active engagement with the player community to master EVE issue awareness, understanding, and evaluation in the context of the greatest good for the greater player base."
The CSM In Practice
What to do
Wednesday, 30 September 2015
Whatever your opinion, you cannot deny CCP have delivered a lot of game defining changes already this year. There is more to come that we know about - structures for example, and more that we don't - capital roles for example. I wouldn't be surprised if here is even more completely off the radar. This is not trivial stuff and it is what the next CSM is going to have to work with, refine and build on.
It seems to be the habit of the Everati to come up with a preferred list of candidates. I might do that but not some time and besides, who cares what I think. But it worth exploring what the CSM role actually is compared to what candidates and the voting appear to think it is. So lets start with CCP.
CCP does care about the CSM. It devotes time and resources to it. A business does burn money on something like that if there is no value proposition. They will continue to support it so long as the benefits outweigh the costs. The main benefit is a straightforward one. The job of a CSM member is to be the canary in the coal mine. To constructively identify flaws and suggest improvements to future features and changes CCP plan to introduce. It is user assurance. Assurance done by users chosen by the users so it should be good right? Well maybe.
The thing is we are talking about humans here. CCP, like all the organisations I have encountered of a similar size will be dysfunctional. It is just the nature of the beast. Crossed lines of communication, conflicting roles, responsibilities and priorities, etc will all conspire to confuse the poor CSM member. Getting things done will always seem harder than they ought to. Some CCP teams will use the CSM, while others might not even be aware of its purpose and usefulness. Assuming CCP do make use of the CSM's talents - and they do, then the member is going to be bombarded daily with several hours of work. CSM is a job. Even more so with the current release cadence.
An CSM's relationship with both CCP and other CSM members will determine the extent to which you get listened to. Crying or sulking on social media every time they want something or undermining other CSM members they don't like will just result in them being frozen out of the debate because they offer CCP or indeed their voters no value. Constructive, productive and preferably evidence based discussion is what a developer usually wants to hear.
That in essence is the CSM job. If a prospective candidate feels they can just turn up and 'fix' EVE with a shopping list of demands they are going to be very disappointed. That is NOT the job. CCP have a plan. A plan they outlined in April and CCP Seagull reaffirmed on the o7 Show a few weeks ago. If the candidate's ideas coincide with CCP's plan for 2016-2017 then their voice might get heard. If it is an easy fix then it might get scheduled. Otherwise they won't get any priority or will be dismissed out of hand.
So while I don't want to dampen the enthusiasm, I will be cautious of any candidate promising to drive changes. Sure they will be part of the change process, and that can be rewarding and interesting in itself. But they won't be driving it. That is down to CCP as it should be. It is their jobs on the line after all.
Friday, 18 September 2015
Tuesday, 15 September 2015
Thursday, 13 August 2015
Tuesday, 28 July 2015
Friday, 10 July 2015
So consider this statement from CCP Fozzie on is Dev Blog:
"One final set of changes that we are implementing in Aegis is a set of tweaks to Nullsec wormhole spawning and Quantum Flux Generator upgrades. Some members of the CSM (I’ll let them identify themselves if they wish) approached us in recent weeks with balance concerns about wormhole travel for Nullsec entities. We took a look at their concerns and decided to make some tweaks to help ease them."
Now try and read behind the lines. My interpretation is this: The change was proposed by the CSMX. It was not a unanimous decision but it was a majority decision. CCP are not wildly enthusiastic about the change. It is not a big deal to make the change and they will collude with it on the basis that the fingers of blame don't point at them.
Now I might be wrong but how do you explain such a week and unprofessional endorsement of what is obviously a controversial change by CCP? What is clear is CCP has little respect for CSMX otherwise why would you deliberately undermine them in this way?
The fallout amongst the CSM on Reddit and Twitter has been spectacular as the blame game has kicked off. This was probably inevitable given CCP's provocative statement. The only interesting thing to come out from what has been an infantile exchange is that not one CSMX member has put their hand up said they proposed the change, although plenty have grudgingly provided rather suboptimal reasons to justify why they supported the change. That doesn't bode well for the rest of the CSMX term or the Summer of Sov. Trust will be an issue between the CSM and CCP now and you have to wonder how coherent CSMX can now be collectively. So excellent foot marksmanship all round.
And let us not ignore the change itself. Again, this is another nullsec protectionst measure and as such will only harm the people it was meant to help. Nullsec will continue down the road of atrophy. Limiting access to it will just make it even more of an empty sideshow with Citadels. But so long as the cronyism within the CSM continues, CCP will always have a plausible get out clause. Fortunately for the rest of us there are plenty of things to do in Eve. Did you read that interesting post on Reddit (it happens sometimes!) on Planetary Bombardment?
Wednesday, 24 June 2015
Thursday, 28 May 2015
It is long and a host of subjects were comprehensively covered. From what I heard there were not too many answers but there were plenty of clarifications. It was a very mature dialogue which is refreshing. If you want insight into what wormholers get up to and why wormholes are not like null this isn't a bad place to start. I certainly learned a lot. Well done to those who got this organised and took part. Hopefully CCP are in a better position to reflect on some of the concerns raised.