Greedy Goblin

Tuesday, December 29, 2015

The written proof why the CSM needs to go

"Goons own the CSM and use it for their own purposes" is common sense in EVE. But it's one thing that "everyone thinks so" and another to have a written evidence. How did I put my hands on CSM logs? I didn't have to. The good Goons published it themselves!

Ladies and gentlemen, meet the Document of Shame, an open demand drafted by Goons and signed by various null leaders. I named it that way for openly demanding the end of fighting in Nullsec by removing scarcity of income sources. If such thing would be implemented, there would never be any reason to take any space from anyone. Whole coalitions could be stacked into regions, leaving space to anyone to take, no matter how bad he is. Such suggestion is as anti-EVE as "remove all PvP from highsec", often demanded by butthurt miners. The only difference is that butthurt miners being laughed at, while the document of shame was signed by "people in positions of power". Why? Because they can't monetize butthurt highsec miners, but can very much monetize them after recruiting the same miners into a nullsec alliance, assuming there won't be a war where they'll be tested and found to be ... highsec miners.

Now let's look at the CSM 10 initial members:
Name Affiliation Quick decision
Cagali Cagali Brave Newbies Harmless
Chance Ravinne Some small group Troll
corbexx No Holes Barred Document of Shame
corebloodbrothers Proviblock Document of Shame
Endie von Posts Goonswarm Document of Shame
Gorga Nulli Secunda Document of Shame
Jayne Fillon Spectre Fleet Document of Shame
Manfred Sideous Pandemic Legion Document of Shame
Mike Azariah Higsec corp Passed
Sion Kumitomo Goonswarm Document of Shame
Sort Dragon Darkness Document of Shame
Steve Ronuken His own corp Passed
Sugar Kyle Snuff Box Passed
Thoric Frosthammer Get of my Lawn Goon minion

8 members were signatories in the Document of Shame, showing how hard CSM pushed it (Thoric probably only didn't sign because he wasn't relevant enough back then to be asked). And to the surprise of everyone it was accepted and anomaly count was doubled.

The point is that CSM 10 wasn't unsuccessful, it was very-very effective, just not in representing the players, but the monetizers. We must boycott the next election to show that players are condemning this organization before they start campaigning for "turn off PvP aggression in Deklein". You think it's a joke? A year ago you'd laugh on the idea of "welfare anoms". Every day CSM exists, they keep influencing the devs to nerf EVE harder to allow the monetizers to recruit more eyeballs for their ads and more clickers for their PLEX-links. This can only be done by removing conflicts and forms of PvP, since the "eyeballs" wouldn't have a chance in a fair fight.

Say no to turning EVE to space-WoW! Say no to the CSM! Boycott the CSM 11 elections!

21 comments:

Provi Miner said...

LOL we have been over this Core never signed it. Just ask him. I know why you keep saying he did "cause he didn't speak out against it" but can you be a little more honest about it.

Chris Coble said...

Yes and? It looks to me like the CSM have gotten various null sec leaders together to pitch an idea to CCP? And it seems like a good idea, opening null sec up to smaller alliances, major collations would soon break down into their alliances more wars and content dished out. Mean while in a remote 0.0 a small alliance is upgrading and making better systems by simply living in them. You sir are a twat.

Zax said...

"Chance Ravinne Some small group"

Yes, wormholers are a small group, and chance ravinne is known by nobody in eve, because you do not know him.

What is your evidence that citadels will turn eve into space wow, as opposed to the first step to removing NPC factions?

Are you suggesting that the EP of Eve is under the influence of goons, rather than their own vision which has been in the making for at least 3 years. If so, call them out, rather than beating around the bush.

Kevan Smith said...

I think you should look into Chance a bit more. He's interviewing on various podcasts. From what I gather listening, he is interested in marketing EVE to new players, then helping those players by providing a better learning experience in their first few weeks. I've watched and listened to a lot of Chance, and I like his style.

Gevlon said...

@Provi Miner: clicky link. His name is on the list by The Mittani. Or you say he just forged it there?

@Chris: you seriously claim that removing competition and "Nullsec is for everyone" fits the idea of a competitive game?

@Zax: who is talking about citadels?

@Kevan: I don't care about podcasts. Can you point his group on the map? Can you point them on big battle reports? Can you point them on killboard summaries? Do they matter at all?

Anonymous said...

The nerf to low quality 0.0 space actually reduced conflict as many people just left 0.0, CCP did taht due to the fact that there was a lot of farming going on causing inflation and they wanted a conflict driver over good systems, but they failed to deal with the other issues at the time, which is no need to live in systems to control it and super blobs.

I support making poor quality 0.0 better because it offers more opportunity for smaller entities, I know what I am talking about as a leader of Pirate Nation we rented at a very low price 4 poor systems in Querious a number of years back and effectively lived in them and that was before they nerfed 0.0 space, afterwards we could not do that.

What the game needs is a driver towards more localised combat and a collapse of the large entities and to be blunt boredom is the only way that this is going to happen.

Dracvlad

lowrads said...

I don't believe pve ever has or ever will drive conflict in EVE. You can find isk anywhere. PVE is almost always oriented towards avoiding other players.

Kevan Smith said...

Gevlon, I was just saying you should research Chance more. His group does not hold sov, like MoA. They are mercenary, so no big battles. They have a killboard reports you can look up; they are equal opportunity employers --- kill whatever they can. They do matter to me, but I respect your opinion. They are the small guys just out there sweating and doing it ... Bolshevik. It's up to you to spend 20 minutes finding out, but, for the goblin, "time is money." You aren't a Commissar, I hope.

zyan said...

I don't think that boycott will help here much. You won't get that much people not to vote, that as a result CCP will put down the CSM.
The only result would be: the only voters (or the very majority) will consist of the members of the big money makers. Not voting, like in rl, always supports the other side.
A better way would be to select 3 or 4 persons, that share your mind, and support them.


zyan

Anonymous said...

Many people outside the CSM also signed the document. Anyone with a decent stake in nullsec would sign it because it fixes a huge problem. The problem was that the size of some of the null groups meant that they had to own multiple regions to make it worthwhile for their members. By condensing the anoms, less space is needed per alliance and so more space is open for new people to move into null. The thing you miss is that condensed anoms don;t make any more isk than spread out anoms. They are still worth exactly the same, just now goons don;t have to own half the universe. That's a good thing for smaller groups as we can now get into null.

Gevlon said...

@Kevan: I'll do a killboard analysis on them and we'll see if they exist or not.

@zyan: the perception of individual devs matter. If they believe that "CSM is just a Goon pet", they are more likely stonewall them than if they'd believe "CSM represents all players"

@Anon: so big groups had to own multiple regions and it was hard. Let's see the possible solutions:
- they split into manageable parts
- they learn to manage the large space
- they whine for the game to be nerfed
The optimal solution was picked.

Every idiot can get to nullsec isn't a "good thing". It's "WoW in space".

Anonymous said...

Chance ravine is not a wh csm. His own words. He only cares about streaming and npe.
As for turning null sec into a riskfree environment that is already underway with the New citadel system...
No risk of losing any stuff in null with that. Just a lootdenial fee.
Compare that with the current pos system...
At least in wh there is still loss possible...

Anonymous said...

"so big groups had to own multiple regions and it was hard. Let's see the possible solutions:"
No, that's not the point. It wasn't that it was hard for big groups to own lots of space. That's the problem. It was easy for them to do, so groups like mine had to live in NPC space or lowsec because any attempt to take sov encroached on their anom running so they attacked us. By condensing down the anoms, they make the exact same amount of isk they used to make but in a smaller space, meaning that our smaller groups can take sov and run our own anoms.

"Every idiot can get to nullsec isn't a "good thing". It's "WoW in space"."
Every idiot can't, and even if they could it's still not WoW in space as PvP is open in null. "WoW in space" is highsec incursions which make a huge amount more isk per person than we can ever hope to make in null with nearly no risk of being blown up.

Anonymous said...

There are two types of CSM. Those that are voted in because people like them. These tend to be more positive about the process and the game. Chance, Kyle & Steve all seem to have very honest opinions and enjoy playing Eve.

Then there are those who are voted in because the blocks are told to. Those seem to be very bitter and cynical; Sion being the prime example.

The difference between the populist CSMs (Chance, Kyle etc) and the nominated ones (Sion) is that the former are in it to make the game better. Those like Sion have only ever struck me as wanting to make their game better; for them.

I wonder if this is because many of the block CMSs don't actually play the game in the client?

Kinis Deren said...

I've voted in every CSM election since joining the game and had actively encouraged everyone to do so as well. I've come to realise the CSM, as an entity, has never represented my views for a more vibrant and diverse null sec (in fact, on balance, one could say they've actively opposed it).

There have been individual CSM reps that have put in a tremendous amount of hard work during their period of CSM tenure (Sugar, Mike and Ripard for example) and I feel bad for them when I try to imagine how frustrated they must feel when they reflect on all the CSM shenanigans that have occured.

Will my abstention from voting make a difference to the result? Absolutely not! The block vote is assured of the win anyway. The CSM will still be a vehicle for pushing individual block agendas, gaining advantage by leaking NDA material to their coalition & as a communication channel for shady RMT media deals.

So, on balance, I will reclaim the 10 minutes of my life it takes to vote and spend it doing something more constructive instead. I won't be voting in the 2016 CSM election.

Anonymous said...

"Will my abstention from voting make a difference to the result? Absolutely not! The block vote is assured of the win anyway."
They aren't ensured a complete win. There's not been a CSM yet where the block vote has been the same as the elected member list.

Anonymous said...

I would have voted for Gevlon, but ccp took that right from me. So yeah wont be voting this year.

Anonymous said...

Mike passes only by being on a goon ballot, where he gets due to being a vegetable who represents nobody, just so a real hisec candidate doesn't get elected. I won't mark him as Passed if I were you, he's just a gewn sleeper.

Provi Miner said...

Again they added his name, he never signed it bro you can come down to provi and ask him your self. I was on when people were still talking about it, core made it clear he never agreed to anything other than it was an interesting idea they slapped his name on it and he didn't bitch about it cause honestly it has/had zero effect on what provi does.

Banedon said...

Gevlon,

I admit I'm not up on 0.0 politics but the article you linked doesn't (to me) seem to ask for anything like this.

It's asking for NPC 0.0 space in every region and "Occupancy Sov" or "Fozzie Sov" or "Aegis Sov". I would think that more NPC stations would be a good thing. IT would mean more places for MoA-like agents of Chaos to base out of.

I know that CCP increased the anomaly count in a recent patch, but they can easily enough decrease it in the next, or make them worth less per run. While I agree with risk/reward, what's broken with the current iteration?

I'm honestly asking that question because I don't know. What would be your suggestion as an acceptable number/payout for anomalies? How many people should be able to live in a WH or 0.0 system without too much crowding?

Anonymous said...

http://i.imgur.com/QK6nasb.png Interesting conversation in the tweetfleet slack between Aryth (goon directorate) and Steve Ronuken. More CSM drama incoming.
(source: https://s3.amazonaws.com/tweetfleet/logs/structures/structures.log.20160108.txt )