|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Crash Monster
Snipers Anonymous
1496
   |
Posted - 2013.09.29 17:25:00 -
[1] - Quote
Bunch of idiots thinking the CPM is there to hold there hands and make everything ok. |
Crash Monster
Snipers Anonymous
1498
|
Posted - 2013.09.29 17:46:00 -
[2] - Quote
Himiko Kuronaga wrote:The CSM was created not to tell CCP what they can or can't do, but to represent OUR side of the table and champion OUR cause. Was it a publicity stunt? Sure. Sure. But it has taken on a life of its own and if you take up the mantle, you are obligated to take up the responsibility that comes with it. You have been doing the exact opposite. You're hard working IWS, but you're working for the wrong side.
To be a little more serious than usual.
I'm not so sure that this is the case. CCP's EVE and now Dust are not the same old run of the mill feel good games. They encourage ganking, meta-gaming and things which make their games a little more meaningful, and yes, painful at times. It's all well and good to assume the community representatives should represent the community but you'll have to notice that there are always differences of opinion on every issue.
What makes your opinion the one that another person will judge to be the correct one for CCP to receive? Why should things be run by CCP the same way every sh*tty gaming company with less weighty games does it? |
Crash Monster
Snipers Anonymous
1499
|
Posted - 2013.09.29 17:53:00 -
[3] - Quote
Iron Wolf Saber wrote:Nomination Process I would still like to hear about from the community.
I was wondering how many seats should the CPM have? current roster is 6 seats should more be added?
Well, if people feel they need their own needs to be tracked a little closer perhaps have a couple of people per suit, role or mode -- as long as having larger numbers of people doesn't prove costly or onerous.
Light, medium, heavy.
Scout, assault, logi, commando, heavy.
LAV, HAV, Dropships.
Pub, PC.
Skirmish, domination, ambush.
NPE.
I don't know if it will help with the QQing but at least everybody may in theory have a good chance at representation (as many people can cross multiple suits/roles/modes). |
Crash Monster
Snipers Anonymous
1499
|
Posted - 2013.09.29 18:36:00 -
[4] - Quote
Django Quik wrote:We've had similar suggestions for nominations before but I vociferously reject the idea of specific specialists being on the CPM for the purpose or representing a narrow band of players. At worst this would only create a group of highly partisan people on the CPM all arguing their own corner and not taking into consideration the views of other roles played in the game. At best it would give us a group of people where each could only be at all useful for talking about 10% of issues because they have no knowledge of anything but their own speciality.
What we need on the CPM are people who are good communicators, impartial analysts and mediators. Most importantly we need people who will listen to the playerbase and investigate to find all sides of all issues raised to them, so that they can give CCP the clearest representation of the playerbase that they can.
I don't know... if the people who get on the panel take their position seriously then you'd have discussions concerning how doing one thing may impact another group for which the proposing party does not have any background. The people we need on the panel can have the qualities you suggest and still have a specialization for which they are most knowledgeable.
If the people we get on the panel don't take their role serious, to represent the community for the greater good of the game, then it really won't matter how it is structured. |
Crash Monster
Snipers Anonymous
1499
|
Posted - 2013.09.29 18:44:00 -
[5] - Quote
Well, if I put on my pessimist hat we're just going to get CEO's of larger corporations put in place. These are a group of folks that can get people to nominate them and vote for them.
Frankly, I worry that we have some group think going on when it comes to "what an FPS should be" and "it's a great idea to drive away the new players so that we end up with good ones" when that isn't going to grow the game. Of course players will have to toughen up -- but it doesn't mean they need a trial by fire before they figure out which end is up. |
Crash Monster
Snipers Anonymous
1501
|
Posted - 2013.09.29 19:11:00 -
[6] - Quote
SgtDoughnut wrote:Meh it does not matter how you do it, the leaders of the mega corps are going to take over for a little while, accomplish absolutely nothing because its just a popularity contest, everyone will say the CPM is a massive fail. In fact many are already saying that. Then after a year of recovery some smaller people who are actually intelligent instead of just being able to get masses of braindead minions to vote for them will get seats, CPM will be successful and then the megacorps will take over again because the prestige is back. Its the cycle of the csm after all.
Sounds about right.
Part of the idea of trying to delineate partitions that people fit into is to help spread the amount of game "covered" by the people taking part.
While we need the qualities that Django mentioned I still think it's important that we try to find a way to get a decent spread of viewpoints at the same time. For example, I'm not sure veterans from a long tradition of FPS domination in various games are a good group for figuring out how to retain and grow a player base.
Basically, this is something I've said at work before, the more people I talk to (the more viewpoints I get input from) the better a solution we can end up with. Yes, sure, things can go wrong, but getting more eyes on the problem -- get a wider spread of views -- usually uncovers new ideas or risks that otherwise would be overlooked.
Hopefully when we are doing this by some voting scheme we don't end up with too homogeneous a group. Maybe CCP can look at the elected group and appoint 1 or 2 based on the feedback of the outgoing group? |
|
|
| |
|