Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
|
CCP Wrangler
|
Posted - 2008.07.10 14:19:00 -
[1]
High Priority: 0004 Black Ops Improvements X Jump Bridges and Cynojammers 0029 Eve-Mail Issues 0019 Contract Improvements 0018 0.0 Sovereignty Issues 0013 Skill Page Tweaks 0007 Double Click function on avatars
Medium-High Priority 0026 Suicide Ganking 0012 Minimum Size of HUD elements 0009 Alliances and Factional Warfare 0017 Empire War Decs 0030 PVP Wreck Ownership 0003 Problems with Aggression Timer 0001 Skill Queue
Medium Priority 0016 Switching all Ammo at the same time 0015 Pilot Avatar Listing 0002 Bombs need a Boost 0039 Roleplay Storylines 0028 Forum Issues and Fixing 0021 Assembly Array Issues 0022 Shares and Dividends Issues 0024 Experimental Industry Issues 0027 Drone Implants 0036 Small Freighter X Corp -> Alliance sync
Low Priority 0006 Pillageable Outposts X More Corp Standing Slots 0011 Electronic Warfare Icons 0033 Color Deficiency 0014 Personal Assets and HUD 0038 Buff Large Autocannons
Rejected/Unfeasable/Completed 0025 Game Time Codes 0020 Public POS Arrays 0023 Sell order availability 0008 Cargo Hold Size
Wrangler Community Manager CCP Hf, EVE Online Email
"It's not worth doing something unless you are doing something that someone, somewhere, would much rather you weren't doing." |
|
Kelsin
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.07.10 15:07:00 -
[2]
Could someone clarify what this means? Is this CCP's priority or a CSM-determined priority? How did things get organized in this way?
(It's a great idea to have a priority list though, cheers to that)
|
Gojyu
Ever Flow
|
Posted - 2008.07.10 15:09:00 -
[3]
So it cost us players how much for this? Basically 12 round trips to iceland to deliver a synopsis of the general forum. In all seriousness, what has this accomplished that couldn't be done over mirc?
|
LaVista Vista
|
Posted - 2008.07.10 15:11:00 -
[4]
On the final day of meetings, the CSM sat together and had some fist fights over which things should be top-priority for CCP to do.
This is the product of that.
|
Una D
Ex Coelis The Bantam Menace
|
Posted - 2008.07.10 16:00:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Gojyu So it cost us players how much for this? Basically 12 round trips to iceland to deliver a synopsis of the general forum. In all seriousness, what has this accomplished that couldn't be done over mirc?
Believe it or not but meeting in RL works a bit better than IRC. Looks like they managed with reasonable amount of work and I like most of the things brought up :)
|
Dakry helios
|
Posted - 2008.07.10 16:37:00 -
[6]
im liking how skill queuing is still only low at medium-high priority when it is one of the longest running topics around.
looking forward to the roleplaying elements and such and i hope it works out, unsure what to make of the avatar stuff but then im not a capital pilot so i wouldnt know, though must ask why its so easy to bump an avatar having managed to bump one before in a stealth bomber at 30m/s.
and sovereighnity(however its spelt) should be good to look into, the roleplaying within that would immense were it to be devised but with the whole new graphics look outs, and ofc landing on planets, im sure a method much like that could be devised where going up close and destroying key targets only in small ships (like the limiters on accel gates) would be nice.
hopefully all works out well
Dak's |
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.07.10 16:46:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Kelsin Could someone clarify what this means? Is this CCP's priority or a CSM-determined priority? How did things get organized in this way?
(It's a great idea to have a priority list though, cheers to that)
This is CCP's priority that they received from us. We've been told that they will be addressing fixes/new content based on the priority for issues agreed by the CSM. Quite amazing really, but they are going to be directly weighting development effort on the results of the formal meetings and priority we set.
Star Fraction | Dare to Dream!
|
Ricdics
Corporate Placement Holding
|
Posted - 2008.07.10 16:57:00 -
[8]
Oh wow, industry is at the bottom of the list. Quite a surprise there Insured Research and Production Services Queues |
Inanna Zuni
|
Posted - 2008.07.10 17:11:00 -
[9]
I am going to add nothing here (for the moment) other than duplicate an earlier comment (with a spot of bold)
Originally by: LaVista Vista On the final day of meetings, the CSM sat together and had some fist fights over which things should be top-priority for CCP to do.
(ok, give in, I will comment ...)
Not all of us agreed with the final ordering or thought it made any sense whatsoever. Indeed the manner in which it was done left, imho, a lot to be desired in that rather than taking an average of all the CSM's views it was based on a simple majority (so effectively ignoring those not in that majority). It is probably clear from the results (and the shock of what became the 'top priority' and the small number of pilots it will affect compared to the issues that affect every pilot,eg. skill queue, User Interface, etc) but that is the order which ended up being given to CCP.
*However* the practice of CCP is to continuously review the priority of all ideas under development, and that means not only the ones presented in this CSM-CCP visit but their pre-existing ones (some of which were discussed in passing off-agenda) and future CSM-raised ones, so this list is, effectively, but a guideline as to the proposals.
IZ
My principles |
Dramaticus
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.07.10 17:41:00 -
[10]
well this was a waste. Please don't use RL pictuers of players in Sig without permission. - WeatherMan |
|
Threv Echandari
K Directorate
|
Posted - 2008.07.10 17:42:00 -
[11]
I have to say that I am disappointed (like many) about the prioritization of some items (UI fixes *cough More Hotkeys cough* and Skill queuing. But that aside I think you all did a pretty good job of letting CCP know in concrete terms what we players would like to see and what we think is important. This list reads more like the kind of information I would like to see in the Devblogs and lists of Future enhancments that don't give away cool "surprises" that CCP may have for us players. It's interesting when I read (in a DevBlog) the CCP thought that you all should have though about more Long-Term Over all Strategery for the game than Short term Game Mechanics. I think they forget that we have to deal with these issues on a Day-to-day basis and Long term Pie inthe Sky Virtual Worlds stuff is Great and all but we want this stuff done..yesterday.
The CSM business seems a hard row to hoe, considering what we "think" know of some of the personalities and internal bickering that we have read about.
I for one will say Congratulations and Thank you to all concerned. Lets hope CCP can keep their end of the deal and deal with some of these issues swiftly. ---------------------------------------- Happiness is a Wet Pod
|
McTard
|
Posted - 2008.07.10 18:00:00 -
[12]
Edited by: McTard on 10/07/2008 18:02:51
Quote: I have to say that I am disappointed (like many) about the prioritization of some items
No kidding...
UI, Skill Queue, Suicide gankage/Insurance and Industry fall short of some of that top crap??
Speed tanking tweaks is not even there at all.
The only Factional Warfare isssue you could see a problem with is pimping that same old tired Alliance thing? Do you people even play FW? Do you care how n00bs and casuals experience this?
Looks to me like the 0.0 chowderheads are lockstepping all over this one. Not supprised though, bout how I figured it would be.
|
Dramaticus
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.07.10 18:05:00 -
[13]
Edited by: Dramaticus on 10/07/2008 18:06:05
Originally by: McTard Looks to me like the 0.0 chowderheads are lockstepping all over this one. Not supprised though, bout how I figured it would be.
yeah the 3 people with meaningful 0.0 experience on a 9 person council are surely the reason that this list and most of the items presented were and still are complete crap. clearly our 0.0 gameplay experience will be greatly affected for the better with changes to
0013 Skill Page Tweaks 0007 Double Click function on avatars 0012 Minimum Size of HUD elements 0017 Empire War Decs 0030 PVP Wreck Ownership 0001 Skill Queue 0015 Pilot Avatar Listing 0039 Roleplay Storylines 0028 Forum Issues and Fixing 0022 Shares and Dividends Issues 0027 Drone Implants 0036 Small Freighter 0006 Pillageable Outposts 0033 Color Deficiency 0014 Personal Assets and HUD Please don't use RL pictuers of players in Sig without permission. - WeatherMan |
McTard
|
Posted - 2008.07.10 18:17:00 -
[14]
Edited by: McTard on 10/07/2008 18:23:34
0004 Black Ops Improvements X Jump Bridges and Cynojammers 0029 Eve-Mail Issues 0019 Contract Improvements 0018 0.0 Sovereignty Issues 0013 Skill Page Tweaks 0007 Double Click function on avatars
Tell me why Black Ops or frickin Avatar clicking is higher in priority to the largest portion of the playerbase than say...Nannos, Skill Queue, UI, lag, Suicide gank/Insurance and any number of other things.
And I stand by my query: Quote: The only Factional Warfare isssue you could see a problem with is pimping that same old tired Alliance thing?
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Bloodmoney Incorporated
|
Posted - 2008.07.10 18:29:00 -
[15]
Originally by: McTard 0004 Black Ops Improvements X Jump Bridges and Cynojammers 0029 Eve-Mail Issues 0019 Contract Improvements 0018 0.0 Sovereignty Issues 0013 Skill Page Tweaks 0007 Double Click function on avatars
Tell me why Black Ops or frickin Avatar clicking is higher in priority to the largest portion of the playerbase than say...Nannos, Skill Queue, UI, lag, Suicide gank/Insurance and any number of other things.
It's not a matter of their absolute value, it's a matter of how valuable they are when compared to the difficulty of implementing them. Aside from 0.0 sov issues(which is exactly the kind of big-picture thing you want them to call high-priority), all of those issues are really easy to implement quickly. Giving us a real mail client as opposed to a system that most cell phones implement better should take some small number of man-hours, whereas fixing lag would require millions of dollars and likely a fundamental change to human nature as well. Fixing lag would be much better for the game, but it's a lower priority. ------------------ Fix the forums! |
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.07.10 18:31:00 -
[16]
Lag fix = 0.0 sovereignty issues = introducing multiple simultaneous objectives to break up blob fighting. There IS no magic lag fix beyond reducing the size of blobs. Anyone who tells you different is selling snake oil.
Star Fraction | Dare to Dream!
|
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.07.10 18:34:00 -
[17]
And seeing an alt named McTard arguing with a Goon called Dramaticus that a) the agenda is dominated by 0.0'ers vs b) no its dominated by carebears. Kinda convinces me that we hit EXACTLY the right balance. When extremists on both sides are screaming its a fair bet the committee did its job quite nicely.
Star Fraction | Dare to Dream!
|
McTard
|
Posted - 2008.07.10 18:40:00 -
[18]
Edited by: McTard on 10/07/2008 18:41:47
Quote: Aside from 0.0 sov issues(which is exactly the kind of big-picture thing you want them to call high-priority),
I see, that sounds sensible.
Quote: When extremists on both sides are screaming
So I'm an extremist for wanting to know: Out of curiosity what about my other questions? Nannos/speed tanking arent an issue to anyone at ALL? No tweaks needed?? FW has NO problems other than letting Alliances mix it up?
|
HClChicken
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.07.10 18:43:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
And seeing an alt named McTard arguing with a Goon called Dramaticus that a) the agenda is dominated by 0.0'ers vs b) no its dominated by carebears. Kinda convinces me that we hit EXACTLY the right balance. When extremists on both sides are screaming its a fair bet the committee did its job quite nicely.
So how would a wouldbe 0.0, but still empire carebear like you have changed the list?
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Bloodmoney Incorporated
|
Posted - 2008.07.10 18:44:00 -
[20]
Originally by: McTard
Quote: Aside from 0.0 sov issues(which is exactly the kind of big-picture thing you want them to call high-priority),
I see, that sounds sensible.
Out of curiosity what about my other questions? Nannos/speed tanking arent an issue to anyone at ALL? No tweaks needed?? FW has NO problems other than letting Alliances mix it up?
Nobody has yet posted a nano thread on these forums with anything like a real solution(or perhaps any nano thread at all, I certainly can't think of one). As such, it couldn't have been discussed in Iceland. Also, given the delay times on the submission process, I don't think anyone had a handle on what the issues with FW were as of the deadline for this process(which would have required the post to be on the forums about a month ago). Both of these will presumably be dealt with in the next round of submissions to CCP - stick a thread on here, and see where it goes from there. ------------------ Fix the forums! |
|
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.07.10 18:48:00 -
[21]
Originally by: McTard Out of curiosity what about my other questions? Nannos/speed tanking arent an issue to anyone at ALL?
Nano isn't an issue in the way any of the nano threads have been presented. ie a global nerf on speed isn't an acceptable solution to the relatively rare incidence of uber-rigged out 8-10k+ nano ships breaking the tracking mechanics. The CSM didn't agree with general nerfs to speed. CCP is already looking at ways of addressing the extreme cases but the solution will not be quick and easy to implement and will like involve the complete overhaul of many propulsion-related systems. In that context I'm sure you can see that CSM supporting an "omgnerfnano1111" thread would be a ridiculous waste of everyone's time.
Quote: FW has NO problems other than letting Alliances mix it up?
Course it has, they will be addressed and advocated in this session. But alliance corp involvement with FW was the big one.
Star Fraction | Dare to Dream!
|
McTard
|
Posted - 2008.07.10 18:49:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
Originally by: McTard
Quote: Aside from 0.0 sov issues(which is exactly the kind of big-picture thing you want them to call high-priority),
I see, that sounds sensible.
Out of curiosity what about my other questions? Nannos/speed tanking arent an issue to anyone at ALL? No tweaks needed?? FW has NO problems other than letting Alliances mix it up?
Nobody has yet posted a nano thread on these forums with anything like a real solution(or perhaps any nano thread at all, I certainly can't think of one). As such, it couldn't have been discussed in Iceland. Also, given the delay times on the submission process, I don't think anyone had a handle on what the issues with FW were as of the deadline for this process(which would have required the post to be on the forums about a month ago). Both of these will presumably be dealt with in the next round of submissions to CCP - stick a thread on here, and see where it goes from there.
Fair enough.
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Bloodmoney Incorporated
|
Posted - 2008.07.10 19:01:00 -
[23]
Originally by: McTard Fair enough.
You're being surprisingly reasonable for a character named McTard. What's the catch? ------------------ Fix the forums! |
Dramaticus
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.07.10 19:23:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
And seeing an alt named McTard arguing with a Goon called Dramaticus that a) the agenda is dominated by 0.0'ers vs b) no its dominated by carebears. Kinda convinces me that we hit EXACTLY the right balance. When extremists on both sides are screaming its a fair bet the committee did its job quite nicely.
no i'm more arguing that the majority of the council was useless since they were more interested in playing 'chieftains of the internet' instead of addressing real issues. but hey im sure you'll find a way to utilize double clicking on avatars in your next brothel chatroom so maybe it is a victory. Please don't use RL pictuers of players in Sig without permission. - WeatherMan |
Joe Starbreaker
AnTi. Atrocitas
|
Posted - 2008.07.10 19:59:00 -
[25]
So what does this stuff mean? Stuff like "Empire War Decs"... ok there are a lot of issues around that, but what decision was made? Is it a high priority to improve the CEO interface? To cut the cost, increase the limit on war decs? Or is the high priority decision that you want to remove war decs? There are a hell of a lot of things that every one of these list items could mean...
|
Marcus Gideon
Gallente Excessive Force
|
Posted - 2008.07.10 20:13:00 -
[26]
Everything on this list... was apparently a topic that was up for discussion.
And every topic has since received its own thread in the Assembly Hall.
Each thread starts out with "We discussed the follow topic... which raised some issues like..."
And each thread ends with "CCP is aware of the issue, and will work towards resolving it." ---
Don't take my rantings personally. I may just be arguing the topic... unless you're saying something stupid, and then I mean every word. |
TornSoul
BIG Libertas Fidelitas
|
Posted - 2008.07.10 21:04:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Marcus Gideon And each thread ends with "CCP is aware of the issue, and will work towards resolving it."
That bit is disappointing me also.
There better be some kind of followup on that, like : - Will be in patch xxx on this or that month. - 2 full time programers/UI people/whatever have been assigned to solve the issue - Work can not start on this until xxx date, but then we have y people assigned to it, and expect it to be finished z time after, to be included in next patch.
I fully understand that the above itself takes some time to assess, and as such that info can hardly be available at this time.
Hence why I'm hoping to see a followup.
Else it's a load of Soon(tm)....
BIG Lottery |
Herschel Yamamoto
Bloodmoney Incorporated
|
Posted - 2008.07.10 21:06:00 -
[28]
Originally by: TornSoul
Originally by: Marcus Gideon And each thread ends with "CCP is aware of the issue, and will work towards resolving it."
That bit is disappointing me also.
There better be some kind of followup on that, like : - Will be in patch xxx on this or that month. - 2 full time programers/UI people/whatever have been assigned to solve the issue - Work can not start on this until xxx date, but then we have y people assigned to it, and expect it to be finished z time after, to be included in next patch.
I fully understand that the above itself takes some time to assess, and as such that info can hardly be available at this time.
Hence why I'm hoping to see a followup.
Else it's a load of Soon(tm)....
The problem with that is that nobody would believe them even if they did give dates. Soon(tm) is always Soon(tm), even with numbers attached, whether CCP is right this time or not. ------------------ Fix the forums! |
TornSoul
BIG Libertas Fidelitas
|
Posted - 2008.07.10 21:18:00 -
[29]
Edited by: TornSoul on 10/07/2008 21:18:53
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
The problem with that is that nobody would believe them even if they did give dates. Soon(tm) is always Soon(tm), even with numbers attached, whether CCP is right this time or not.
Time for CCP to turn that around then isn't it? And definatly something the CSM should push for.
CCP knows very well how to approximate how long a given task will (should) take and to work towards deadlines.
Yes they might get it wrong, software can be tricky in that regard. I do it myself daily, and have myself had projects suddenly blow up in my face, and *occationally* have had to push a deadline.
To point beeing however, that a new deadline was set! And communicated to the client! (and I've yet to miss a 2nd deadline /fingers crossed)
Most of the issues on that list are pretty isolated tasks, that *can* be assesed with regards to time etc.
An example on the opposite would be their ongoing effort to rewrite their network layer etc, but few of the items on the list are anywhere near that kind of complexity.
So I stand by my first post.
Soon(tm) (regardless the wording) will simply not do on issues specifically brought up by the CSM on behalf of the players. If so, then nothing has changed at all, and the whole thing will be a huge disappointment to me personally.
BIG Lottery |
Jinx Barker
GFB Scientific
|
Posted - 2008.07.10 21:50:00 -
[30]
Where is the POS issue on that least? The POS overhaul? Which was, I might add, a significant issue to which number of CSm candidates responded favorably?
How come it is not even on the list?
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |