EVE Search - CSM - CCP Meeting 001

Search EVE-Online forums for:

All Channels

Assembly Hall

CSM - CCP Meeting 001 - Priority List

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]

Author	Topic

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?

ian666 Rave Technologies Inc. C0VEN	Posted - 2008.07.10 22:34:00 - [31] Edited by: ian666 on 10/07/2008 22:36:12 What about adding new time intensive skills for those who already have high amounts of SP's. For example skills like +1% to CPU/PG with x5 multiplier and pre requirements like several x1, x2, x3 skills up to lvl5? You talking about specializing in industry, think about specializing in engineering or electronics. High pre requirements of new skills will make them far from overpowered and in second hand give interesting alternative to learn for those who paying ccp from really long time.
Waxau Unus - Vir Exercitus	Posted - 2008.07.11 01:15:00 - [32] To be frank - Whilst the proposed issues/changes to black ops are useful, they still leave the ship roleless and underhanded in combat. The jump range and fuel bay isnt the base concern, its more so the ships have no true role in pvp. A suggested fix has been that of creating them as 'bs force recons'. Has been discussed at great lengths in many topics, so wont spam anymore. But yes - Whilst its good to see them being looked into, scan res, whole 'unable to warp cloaked' and so on gives them a whole variety of issues (let alone holding no advantage in most scenarios vs their t1 variants.)
Pivalak Gallente Center for Advanced Studies	Posted - 2008.07.11 07:12:00 - [33] Why is it that the Linux client issue(s) are missing from the list? CSM - CCP Meeting 001 - 0034 Linux Client After a delay of 7 months, all we know is that a beta on a better version of the client is going to occur "at some point in the future". Now I'm not sure anymore what having "official support" from CCP on Linux and Mac does mean... :(
ZephyrLexx	Posted - 2008.07.11 15:29:00 - [34] it's frustrating to see that UI fixes and improvements are not the number 1 prioritory, whatever else gets changed, the UI is always there and it's how we play the game, and everyone has to deal with it. sigh.
Mell Prime	Posted - 2008.07.11 18:56:00 - [35] thanks for posting this. now i know what is going on. i never really kept up-to-date with the CSM.
Windjammer Gallente	Posted - 2008.07.11 21:18:00 - [36] How did Jump Bridges and Cyno Jammers make it to high priority? I thought escalation of that was voted down in a CSM meeting. Windjammer
Matalino Gallente Ki Tech Industries	Posted - 2008.07.11 21:58:00 - [37] Here is the original list repeated with links to official thread as best as I could find them. If I find official threads for the remaining issues, I will edit my post to include them as well. Originally by: CCP Wrangler 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
Odewad Gallente Geddonites	Posted - 2008.07.12 01:23:00 - [38] Originally by: Jade Constantine 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. You didn't do shit .... except win a free trip. As many ahead of me have pointed out, you were so busy patting yourselves on the back you forgot to mention the concerns of the same people who won you the trip. ------ http://img255.imageshack.us/img255/5962/brightlc7.png This ^^ sucks
Masu'di Es and Whizz Hedonistic Imperative	Posted - 2008.07.12 01:31:00 - [39] i'm really excited about evemail improvements, does anyone have a link to a post with any further details?
Jinx Barker GFB Scientific	Posted - 2008.07.12 01:59:00 - [40] Edited by: Jinx Barker on 12/07/2008 02:01:11 Originally by: Odewad Originally by: Jade Constantine 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. You didn't do shit .... except win a free trip. As many ahead of me have pointed out, you were so busy patting yourselves on the back you forgot to mention the concerns of the same people who won you the trip. Pretty much correct - CSM had a chance to do something special, instead they focused on some "safe" nickel and dime bull shit and failed all those who voted for them Goonswarm maybe able to push their candidates through sheer force of numbers, but rest of you "regular" elected CSM better be ready when the next election comes. Where is the fix for POS? Something that had overwhelming support? I am not talking about a controversy here, like Black Ops, or War Decs, or idiotic suicide ganking, all those things worked, and worked OK, even half broken. Very much unlike the current POS system which has been broken for years and takes bloody hours and days and years to maintain when it has to be improved, and is affecting pretty much everyone.

Lynn Suriyawong	Posted - 2008.07.12 03:54:00 - [41] I'm disappointed as well, as it seems that the interests of a minority of players (0.0 players in large alliances) are being over represented in this priority list. First and foremost should be attention paid to the core parts of the game, in particular the UI. Anyone who plays eve for any significant amount of time can sit down and write out a list of things that could be tweaked to make using the UI less tedious and annoying. Here's a few off the top of my head: Mining laser countdown timers More tabs for the overview, 5 just isn't enough. Perhaps a drop down list for the list of tabs you want displayed. I'd love to be able to set up a group for general PvP, a group for complex/scanning/exploration, a group for missioning, a group for gathering loot/salvaging, etc. The vast majority of the time, I could use 2-3 tabs for the type of gameplay I'm currently engaged in... but since I like to do lots of stuff, there are far more than 5 total. Applying ALL color tags to the local list (I'd love to see low security standing players, for example) Making similar context menus have the same options... for example, I can't align to a stellar object in some context menus, while I can in others. (Why would you have different implementations of context menus in different places anyhow?) Letting us "view market details" on any UI element that has an item contained inside... for example, the info window sometimes has it as an option, sometimes it has no options at all... why the difference? Let us cancel warp in mid-flight... if we can bookmark a location while warping, why can't we just stop? It's not likely that you could have the accuracy needed to land anywhere specific on purpose. Ever warped to the wrong gate while flying a freighter, and realized it just as you entered warp.. and the gate is 120 AU away? SUCKS! Fix the various ways that numbers are handled in text fields. When I click on a price, there should be a cursor inserted there, that's it. I don't want to do anything odd, and I don't need the numeric display to change to something like 41883.1299. Where'd the 99 come from anyhow? (I think the auto justification is part of the problem here.) For god's sake, let us sort by meta level in our hangers! I can't remember which modules are the valuable ones, but meta level can certainly help! Let us export and import overview settings to other characters/accounts. This data is obviously being stored somewhere on our hard drives in some format... why not make it portable? Let us highlight our own orders in the market window! And shoving the whole alliance thing in there as the top FW issue... come on! The reason why alliances aren't in FW has been stated, and it's a reasonable restriction given the likely outcome if the restriction were lifted. Let corps in alliances in FW? Do you really want Goonfleet or Evolution signing up in FW? Factional warfare is fun, but based on the last month's worth of player experience, it could use some tweaking... better rewards, mission tweaks, something to discourage giant blobs, etc. Yet, none of that is on the list. Instead, we have the issue of alliances participating in FW. How about we get FW polished up and make it more fun first, before worrying about that? And despite what Jade said above, the speed issue SHOULD be a priority on the community representative's list, as it is obviously a priority in the community! How can you possibly justify saying that this is representative of the entire Eve community without that issue listed? It's one of the most talked about issues in the community! It doesn't matter what YOU think of the issue, or what CCP thinks of the issue... it's what WE think about it. You're there to represent us, please don't forget that. It's unfortunate that "special interests" seem to have a disproportionate influence in this priority list... just like real world politics.
Lynn Suriyawong	Posted - 2008.07.12 04:04:00 - [42] Additionally, why black ops over assault frigates? Far more players have the ability to fly assault frigates than black ops, yet black ops has the highest priority, and assault ships are absent. Why? What about the 3rd high slot on the Helios? The missing turret on the Vulture? The fact that only a few of the recons are really used? All of these ships are more available to the general population of Eve than black ops ships... yet we see nothing. It'd be easier to swallow if black ops was further down the list, but you guys have it as the absolute highest priority! I'm sorry, but it's just not that important to the majority of us! Sure, it should be looked at, but not before you give the assault frigate class a better role and/or tweak them so they're an attractive option to cruisers.
Lord Fitz Project Amargosa	Posted - 2008.07.12 10:12:00 - [43] Originally by: Inanna Zuni 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). The same flaw the elections for CSM had in the first place if you voted for someone that got a low number of votes, your vote was wasted, when if done on a preferential system you could have either re-cast or indicated a second preference etc to affect a change in which 'other' candidate you would prefer to be elected out of the remaining. A much fairer system, instead of the current one where effectively 0.02% of people decide each CSM candidate (and the views of a third of the voters are simply discarded).
Lord Fitz Project Amargosa	Posted - 2008.07.12 10:18:00 - [44] Originally by: Lynn Suriyawong What about the 3rd high slot on the Helios? I fly the Helios, the reason it doesn't have third high slot is because unlike the other cov-ops, it has a drone bay. So while the fitout for the others is probe launcher / cloak / gun, the fitout for a helios is just probe launcher / cloak (drone). I rather like this as it means you don't have to waste fitting on your weapon. And the drone is handy for popping pods you scan down etc. Granted this may not be an effective use of the ship if you're using it in one of the newer PvE roles, but I guess that's something to consider. I don't think adding a high slot to them would necessarily make them overpowered since they are so tight on fittings anyway, and not exactly useful in doing damage against anything that can shoot back. I think the reason for Black Ops being on the list is that they're not really a ship worth having, and cost quite abit. Though being at the top of the list IMO is a long way from where they should be. Because they're not all that useful, as you point out, not a heap of people fly them, so the problem doesn't affect that many people (not flying something because it's not useful isn't the highest order of problem IMO), things that you use constantly (possibly because you have to) but that have issues are pretty high on my personal list of things I'd like to see fixed.
Mesuno Azure Horizon	Posted - 2008.07.12 22:15:00 - [45] Out of curiousity, exactly how did the CSM decide the order of these items. You mentioned fist-fights etc but I can't believe that any individual would have looked at that list and put 'black ops improvements' top. Sounds like you needed a formal system of reviewing these items, such as a pivot table system. I'll give a little demo on a random list of letters.... sotganhdumexyw Pick one item from the list and decide whether each of the remaining items should be above or below it. Effectively that one becomes the pivot dividing the list in two. Pick 's' - divide alphabetically oganhdme s tuxyw On each of the new sublists pick a pivot and continue.. ganhdme o s tuw x y ade g hmn o s t u w x y a d e g h m n o s t u w x y And evenually you get a nice ordered list. It may seem like a complex way of doing it but it has advantages: a) It is transparent - you can justify why the CSM as a whole placed any item where it is b) It should reduce the problems with obvious misplacements. You are asking 'Is issue X more or less important than issue Y?' As opposed to 'what should go top of the list?' which risks everyone jumping on their own hobby horses. c) it makes the process systematic so people are less likely to get worked up. /me removes his maths teachers hat and puts the Decision Maths textbook back on the shelf to collect more dust. Hmmm... doesn't come out as pretty as I would like - for some reason the forum is stripping out the extra spaces I'd put in to make it all line up. I hope it still makes sense! Originally by: t20 If it's not fixed by the christmas holidays, I'll most likely get fired. - on the forum "!" problem
JVol Amarr The IMorral MAjority Imorral Dragons	Posted - 2008.07.13 04:22:00 - [46] Just before the CSM's went to Iceland I remember Jade saying that he was going to bring up duel ownership of wrecks and cargo from pvp.. I didnt see it in the minutes.. What happend jade?
Matalino Gallente Ki Tech Industries	Posted - 2008.07.13 05:11:00 - [47] Originally by: JVol Just before the CSM's went to Iceland I remember Jade saying that he was going to bring up duel ownership of wrecks and cargo from pvp.. I didnt see it in the minutes.. What happend jade? I am guessing that is the medium-high priority item "0030 PVP Wreck Ownership". The question is, where is Wranglers post-meeting thread to follow up discussion on this feature.
Antiquus Altercor Minmatar Phoenix Propulsion Labs Lost Sheep Domain	Posted - 2008.07.13 13:06:00 - [48] I spend all my time in lo-sec and in the past in