Everyone can understand the need to meet a deadline. I'm not suggesting that CPM should not meet deadlines. I'm suggesting that CPM should not arbitrarily restrict and/or cut-off community feedback.

In response to your second point, CCP Ytterbium is a senior game designer employed by CCP. He and his team very likely possess the special knowledge, training and expertise needed to get it right even if they opted "to cover our ears and just go straight for the initial designs we first thought of". The same cannot and should not said for members of CPM (past, present or future).

Game Designers are professionals hired to design games. CPM are end users elected to represent other end users. These are very different positions with widely divergent degrees of requisite expertise and accountability. Is it unreasonable to expect that one might not behave like the other? Would it be unreasonable to be alarmed if they did?

What you're suggesting implies that CCP didn't even read our proposal when we sent it; that the experts in question left the design solely to us without even glancing over it.

So the record's clear, that was never an argument of mine:
https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2958962#post2958962

I pointed out to Aeon that he had a history of being wrong in response to his repeated and unabashed dismissal of the concerns and opinions of other players in that thread. His "you're all wrong, I know best" assertions were antagonistic, inappropriate and altogether unbefitting a CPM Feedback thread.

My argument was absolutely not "you're probably wrong because you've been wrong before" as you say. My argument was "you've been wrong before -- alot -- and this is something you should think about before discounting everyone else's opinions and asserting your own as optimal."

I wasn't challenging his opinion. I was challenging his repeated dismissal of opposing opinions. There's a big difference between the two, Breakin. In my opinion, at least.

Alright.

EDIT: At any point, was there any consideration that the first iteration of the Shield Stats (which is what this is largely about, let's not kid ourselves) was posted on 09-14... the second iteration was made on 09-18... and the hotfix was announced on 09-24..?

Bearing in mind of course that that is quite literally ten (10) days to get Step One, the foundation, of Shield balancing down - which we can absolutely iterate on later. Alternatively, we could have had the feedback go on for several weeks/months and not seen the changes until the next build, whenever they may be, all the while shields are not getting any better. Did we consider this before jumping immediately to "Bad precedent set by CPM2 feedback threads" or did we immediately assume the worst and attempt to go for the juggular?

As a reminder, there's a process here: a) We have to come up with a proposal. b) We have to go over it and make sure it's ready for public consumption and not going to start a riot. c) We have to initiate that proposal to the public and receive feedback on it. d) We have to make adjustments based on that feedback. e) We have to ship it off to CCP.

All of that in <10 days, mind you. I mean, I'm totally down for letting shields suffer a bit longer. Been what, a year or so since we've thrown a bone to them? What's another few weeks/months?