|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Fahtim Meidires
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.07.31 04:39:00 -
[1]
supported
hopefully this stays on topic, it was an excellent read. i was gonna ask for a TL;DR but it's actually worthwhile because there are good rationales in there.
|
Fahtim Meidires
Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.07.31 05:13:00 -
[2]
Edited by: Fahtim Meidires on 31/07/2008 05:14:27
Originally by: Treelox TL;DR version?????
Simply put are you PRO or CON Zuluparks proposal concerning carriers?
Stop whining and read the whole thing. It is much more in depth *than zulupark's* and you're being rude.
|
Fahtim Meidires
Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.07.31 05:41:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Treelox
Originally by: Fahtim Meidires Edited by: Fahtim Meidires on 31/07/2008 05:14:27
Originally by: Treelox TL;DR version?????
Simply put are you PRO or CON Zuluparks proposal concerning carriers?
Stop whining and read the whole thing. It is much more in depth *than zulupark's* and you're being rude.
Then why reference Zulupark in the subject line, if they are more "in depth"(more thought out?) than Zuluparks?
I can not be arsed to read anything more than 2-3 lines long if it contains his name in it. I'm sure you understand why.....
Understood, and that's fine. Basically zulu has expressed discontent with 'capitals online.' Based on that thought and similar discussions, Bane constructed a solution that seems to lie parallel with the views and concerns of the developers.
The carrier fixes he proposes attempt to shift it to more of a support role rather than it's current role as the quantum unit of fleet engagement.
|
Fahtim Meidires
Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.07.31 07:06:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Windjammer Bane, this question has been asked and answered at a CSM meeting. The vote to escalate went against you in that meeting and for good reason. You were trying to get the CSM to agree to let you present any number of suggestions to CCP without specifying what those suggestions would be. The suggestions you did let slip were objectionable. For instance, you advocated decreasing the time it takes to train for capital ships. What do you hope to gain from this thread?
This isn't the first issue that was initially voted down when it was too vague, and then reconstructed to specificity and posted in the assembly hall to gain fresh support and force it on the table. So it may be that's the goal.
If it was presented poorly the first time, hopefully this suffices.
|
Fahtim Meidires
Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.07.31 07:23:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Jagerin
Also, IMO fighter delegation need some nerf, because mostly during sub-capital ship fights carriers just sitting near POSes and delegating fighters.
This was all discussed.
|
Fahtim Meidires
Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.07.31 08:05:00 -
[6]
Bumping this jeez.
|
Fahtim Meidires
Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.07.31 16:37:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Heartstone Edited by: Heartstone on 31/07/2008 16:11:32 Well despite the fact that you already raised this exact issue before and been voted down I still support it in theory although without specific proposals it is impossible to give any support to the thread. Unless of course you are planning on not presenting the issues without any proposals to CCP in which case I can't support it either as it would be a waste of their time.
Didn't read the rest of the posts?
|
Fahtim Meidires
Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.08.01 01:31:00 -
[8]
Edited by: Fahtim Meidires on 01/08/2008 01:34:18
Originally by: Windjammer
Originally by: Bane Glorious
Originally by: Kelsin
Just to be clear, is this the part that would be escalated? There are several different ideas brought up in your writeup, but it isn't completely clear which ones would be the ones proposed to CCP if this passes.
As I said, these ideas are just sample solutions to the problem; what CCP decides to do is entirely up to them. All three will be included in the submission template for them to read, and they will likely give their opinions on their viability.
Escalation in this case is as the topic says, a discussion of the issue of carrier spam. CCP has no obligation to give a flying fart about my idea specifically.
What you're asking for remains a request for the CSM to give you blind approval on an unlimited number of unspecified proposals.
Which takes this back to the problem with the original post starting this thread. This is merely a rewording of the same proposal you offered in a CSM meeting and which was voted down and voted down for good reason. You haven't changed the proposal in any way including refusing to limit your proposal to a specific set of proposals. "Sample" of your ideas? How many more you have waiting in the wings to bring forth if you get an escalation approval from the CSM?
Isn't there a time limit before a proposal can be reintroduced?
Windjammer
First off, if the only thing approved is the carrier topic, it will be the only thing discussed due to the rules. I do see your qualms however: a perfectly reasonable worry is that the council will ask for more background information, which to anybody who hasn't flown in cap fleets before is substantial. You predict that Bane will bring up more and more issues along with a personal agenda, but I think the delegates will have sense to keep everyone on topic.
It is a very chicken/egg debate; I think that more of the council would be willing to discuss 0.0 in general if more of them knew what currently goes on and how it works. But unfortunately they can't until they approve of the discussion in the first place. We have to try and get the ball rolling, because so far the talks haven't scratched the surface of the entire topic.
Originally by: Jade from the exploration ship thread in Jita Park
We haven't officially decided what to do about issues recurring and in a situation where convincing arguments can be made that that the CSM reached an incorrect decision first time around I'm not averse to hearing items a second time. The player base has raised some pertinent criticism about our handling of this issue - I think its worth us asking ourselves if we made the correct decision since the exploration ship debate has direct impact on solo playstyle and expansion of a whole area of game content.
It would be nice if a portion of the CSM's time be devoted to discussion of 0.0 as there is certainly a portion of EVE that spends time there. Give it a second chance - why not?
|
Fahtim Meidires
Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 01:20:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Marlona Sky
If they say they exist to destroy the game and that in order to win eve is to get players to quit the game...
Wow could you link me that? I've always wanted to see where we announced that this is our "official position on EVE".
Or even more simply, EVE can be won?
|
Fahtim Meidires
Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 15:26:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Marlona Sky
Originally by: Fahtim Meidires
Originally by: Marlona Sky
If they say they exist to destroy the game and that in order to win eve is to get players to quit the game...
Wow could you link me that? I've always wanted to see where we announced that this is our "official position on EVE".
Or even more simply, EVE can be won?
Just ask your queen bee.
Credibility. Lost. Until you link your claim.
|
|
|
|
|