Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Dierdra Vaal
|
Posted - 2009.05.30 22:09:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Dierdra Vaal on 30/05/2009 22:11:09 The first issues meeting of CSM3 on June 7th at 17:00.
Issues to be announced. Director of Education :: EVE University
|
Zastrow J
|
Posted - 2009.05.30 23:07:00 -
[2]
!
|
Dierdra Vaal
|
Posted - 2009.05.31 11:38:00 -
[3]
submitting the following items:
Neutral alt repping: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1076556 Eve Online font (defaulted due to the amount of support): http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1019753 Director of Education :: EVE University
|
mazzilliu
|
Posted - 2009.05.31 12:26:00 -
[4]
Edited by: mazzilliu on 31/05/2009 12:33:26 how do you submit items, and how much support is the minimum before you can submit an item?
what if you want to make a minor change to the idea based on feedback in the original idea's thread? can you do that without having to gather support all over again?
EDIT: and how do you vote on issues that have multiple points that need debate and voting? i guess just vote on each sub-issue?
MAZZILLIU 2009. CHANGE I CAN IMPOSE ON YOU. |
Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange
|
Posted - 2009.05.31 13:01:00 -
[5]
Originally by: mazzilliu how do you submit items, and how much support is the minimum before you can submit an item?
what if you want to make a minor change to the idea based on feedback in the original idea's thread? can you do that without having to gather support all over again?
EDIT: and how do you vote on issues that have multiple points that need debate and voting? i guess just vote on each sub-issue?
You submit items via your internal email list or in this thread. There is no minimum support aside from your own judgment, but it has to be discussed for a week before it can be submitted. Minor changes are fine, whether they're intended as additional options or as amendments. Issues with multiple sub-topics are split if anyone in the meeting asks that they be split, though I suppose you could also split at submission time if you feel the need.
|
Erik Finnegan
|
Posted - 2009.05.31 15:33:00 -
[6]
Dierdra, please push these onto the agenda:
* Factional Warfare, Lack of Development * Faction Warfare lag needs fixing NOW * Give Assault Frigates a 4th Bonus * The new L4 Agents - Wrong Approach
|
mazzilliu
|
Posted - 2009.05.31 15:40:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
Originally by: mazzilliu how do you submit items, and how much support is the minimum before you can submit an item?
what if you want to make a minor change to the idea based on feedback in the original idea's thread? can you do that without having to gather support all over again?
EDIT: and how do you vote on issues that have multiple points that need debate and voting? i guess just vote on each sub-issue?
You submit items via your internal email list or in this thread. There is no minimum support aside from your own judgment, but it has to be discussed for a week before it can be submitted. Minor changes are fine, whether they're intended as additional options or as amendments. Issues with multiple sub-topics are split if anyone in the meeting asks that they be split, though I suppose you could also split at submission time if you feel the need.
ok cool, then here's the issues ill start with the first meeting. i think ill take it slow and put up two easy ones for the first day
http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1059463 - add a "can set standings" role for corps, rather then bundle the role with directorship
http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1058486 - solution to macro haulers
MAZZILLIU 2009. CHANGE I CAN IMPOSE ON YOU. |
Omber Zombie
|
Posted - 2009.05.31 16:19:00 -
[8]
add Whatever Happened to the Industry Expansion please ----------------------
My Blog |
Dierdra Vaal
|
Posted - 2009.05.31 17:47:00 -
[9]
Added the topic. atm I left off the eve font issue since that was voted through last april: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1042783
I'll add it if you really want it but I dont think its required to bring it up again 1 month after it was succesfully voted through. Director of Education :: EVE University
|
Vuk Lau
|
Posted - 2009.05.31 19:02:00 -
[10]
http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1077362 - Logistic drones (Hull repair drones)
|
|
Larkonis TrassIer
Neo Spartans Laconian Syndicate
|
Posted - 2009.05.31 21:53:00 -
[11]
*Change to Agro Mechanics Ref Outlaws *Reroll Default Overview Settings to Pre Apoc 1.2 *Factional Warfare Wardec Mechanic
|
RedSplat
Heretic Army
|
Posted - 2009.05.31 23:32:00 -
[12]
Not much in the way of interest for people that don't have a + sec status there...
Originally by: CCP Mitnal
I don't sleep. I am always here. Watching. Waiting.
Originally by: CCP Mitnal it does get progressively longer.
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange
|
Posted - 2009.06.01 00:55:00 -
[13]
Originally by: RedSplat Not much in the way of interest for people that don't have a + sec status there...
Yes, because carebears had one of their major groups fold because of the standings role being tied into directorships, and a Lark thread about outlaw aggro mechanics is bound to be something the +sec types will love.
|
Omber Zombie
|
Posted - 2009.06.01 05:48:00 -
[14]
i guess this is going to be a very long meeting then ----------------------
My Blog |
Vuk Lau
|
Posted - 2009.06.01 07:09:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Omber Zombie i guess this is going to be a very long meeting then
I am looking forward to it Prepare webcams
|
RedSplat
Heretic Army
|
Posted - 2009.06.01 10:47:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
Originally by: RedSplat Not much in the way of interest for people that don't have a + sec status there...
Yes, because carebears had one of their major groups fold because of the standings role being tied into directorships, and a Lark thread about outlaw aggro mechanics is bound to be something the +sec types will love.
Oh boy do we feel favored!
Originally by: CCP Mitnal
I don't sleep. I am always here. Watching. Waiting.
Originally by: CCP Mitnal it does get progressively longer.
|
Zastrow J
|
Posted - 2009.06.01 20:58:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Omber Zombie i guess this is going to be a very long meeting then
yea i got some things to talk about but i dont want it to get buried in the 200 topics of this first meeting so i'll wait for round 2
|
Becq Starforged
Minmatar Ship Construction Services Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2009.06.01 23:51:00 -
[18]
Edited by: Becq Starforged on 01/06/2009 23:51:49 (Edit: added link)
I'm still looking for an official response/update on this issue: http://evajobse.net/csmwiki/index.php/Alliances_and_Factional_Warfare_pt3 Has one been given? If so, a link would be appreciated; if not, perhaps CSM could spend 30 seconds of the meeting to prompt CCP for one?
Thanks,
-- Becq Starforged
The Flame of Freedom Burns On! |
small chimp
|
Posted - 2009.06.02 16:23:00 -
[19]
why not about t3 production bottlenecks?
|
Nooto
Caldari Panta-Rhei Guardian Federation
|
Posted - 2009.06.02 16:45:00 -
[20]
Edited by: Nooto on 02/06/2009 16:51:16 . BEWARE!!!
All text above this sig represents my personal opinion. This in no way reflects the views of my corporation or alliance |
|
mazzilliu
|
Posted - 2009.06.03 13:37:00 -
[21]
So, I just realized I have a conflict with this meeting date... I have family coming over this weekend, so probably 99% chance I won't make this meeting. Alts you better be sure to log on, and can you please not raise the issues I brought up in this thread if I don't come? I'll bring them up instead next meeting.
so, consider that your official notification that i won't be here. dunno if i'm supposed to send that warning to some GM's email or what as well.
MAZZILLIU 2009. CHANGE I CAN IMPOSE ON YOU. |
Crucifier
The Collective Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2009.06.03 14:48:00 -
[22]
Edited by: Crucifier on 03/06/2009 14:48:46
|
Solo Player
|
Posted - 2009.06.03 17:11:00 -
[23]
Go Issler! :)
Does this mean the participating alternate can also add issues to be raised?
|
Dierdra Vaal
|
Posted - 2009.06.03 18:29:00 -
[24]
Originally by: mazzilliu So, I just realized I have a conflict with this meeting date... I have family coming over this weekend, so probably 99% chance I won't make this meeting. Alts you better be sure to log on, and can you please not raise the issues I brought up in this thread if I don't come? I'll bring them up instead next meeting.
so, consider that your official notification that i won't be here. dunno if i'm supposed to send that warning to some GM's email or what as well.
updated and removed your issues :) Director of Education :: EVE University
|
Dead6re
Amarr Ministry of War
|
Posted - 2009.06.08 11:39:00 -
[25]
Any minutes yet, I'm keen to see what was discussed. |
Phantom Slave
JUDGE DREAD Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.06.08 18:19:00 -
[26]
Originally by: small chimp why not about t3 production bottlenecks?
New dev blog released today addresses some of the t3 bottlenecks.
Also, just curious as to how long it normally takes for meeting minutes to be released?
|
Meissa Anunthiel
|
Posted - 2009.06.08 18:49:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Phantom Slave
Originally by: small chimp why not about t3 production bottlenecks?
New dev blog released today addresses some of the t3 bottlenecks.
Also, just curious as to how long it normally takes for meeting minutes to be released?
I'm 50% done.
I have to clean the logs, prepare a readable version (reword), prepare for wikification, save in selected formats, upload, spell check and then I'll post. So most likely tomorrow, maybe today. Either way it should take less than 3 days. |
Phantom Slave
JUDGE DREAD Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.06.08 19:27:00 -
[28]
Thanks Meissa! I'll check back in a few days. |
Meissa Anunthiel
|
Posted - 2009.06.09 13:28:00 -
[29]
Download: PDF | raw log - txt Saturday 30 May 2009
Present: Dierdra Vaal, Vuk Lau, Avalloc, Erik Finnegan, Larkonis Trassler, Meissa Anunthiel, Zastrow J, Omber Zombie, Issler Dainze, Serenity Steele, Shatana Fulfairas Apologies: Mazzilliu
Sorry for the length, the meeting was very long and I couldn't abbreviate too much, especially this early in the CSM.
Dierdra reminded everyone to sign their NDA and to wikify their issues when submitting them to the agenda before the deadline. For clarity, he also repeated the guidelines on how meetings are conducted.
1. Remote Repping and Agression In raw text from: 2009.06.07 17:08:14
Dierdra introduced the issue. Larkonis said he was favorable to the proposal, as it would assist against remote repping neutrals who flee during engagements. He requested that the dock/jump timer be tied to the recipient of the remote rep. Oz agreed with Larkonis, and requested that energy transfer be added to the list and that it starts a regular aggression timer instead of a "blanket" 1 minute timer. Dierdra agreed to modify the proposal. Erik liked the concept and the extension to all forms of assistance. Erik also requested that this issue be discussed at the same time as issue number 5. Dierdra stated that, as the issues aren't directly related, they would stay separate. Avalloc agreed with the proposal. He however requested that Outpost owner shouldn't get an aggression flag in this instance, as people repping station services would be prevented from docking again should hostiles decide to shoot at the service. Dierdra objected that being shot doesn't incurr a dock/jump timer, only shooting back does. Avalloc clarified his statement. Dierdra considered it a good point that he would add. Meissa requested clarification on Larkonis' request that the repper's timer be tied to that of the repped, objecting to either interpretation anyway. Meissa also opposed Avalloc's suggestion on the ground that it would give the outpost owner free repping; something that isn't fair for the attacker. Larkonis clarified that the aggro timer would only apply if the repped is agressed at that point, and as such does not give a disadvantage to outpost owners unless they have an aggression timer through other means. Dierdra agreed. Dierdra mentionned that that is what he had in mind, but that he didn't want to do any nitpicking over details, prefering to mention the problem to CCP and let them come up with their own solution. Vuk agreed with Meissa, stating that repping a station should incur aggro as well, clarifying as "remote modules should have the same status as offensive modules when it comes to aggro mechanics". Serenity said that it will also affect the repping of POSes and asked how we wanted to rule if the only solution was of the form of "one size fits all". Avalloc replied to Meissa that he didn't know wether CCP could code a very specific aggression system in, thereby requesting that 0.0 be exempt and stated again that people repping an outpost would be at the mercy of quick hostiles. Meissa tried to clarify the issue by reformulating it as redefining an aggression act, as far as jumping/docking is concerned, to include "assisting someone with an aggression timer", with the same penalities. Dierdra and Erik agreed with the redefinition. Meissa replied to Avalloc that if there was [code for] an aggression timer for shooting Outpost modules, code to handle penalties for repping those modules should be of the same difficulty. Dierdra clarified that the vote was on "on the remote boosting and aggression mechanic revision. (changes made due to the meeting: all forms of boosting are included). To clarify, this vote issue does not include an exception for 0.0 outposts".
Issue passed unanimously (9 for, 0 against) |
Meissa Anunthiel
|
Posted - 2009.06.09 13:29:00 -
[30]
2. Factional Warfare, Lack of Development In raw text from: 2009.06.07 17:32:41
Erik introduced the issue. Vuk asked if using Eva's document was something we can do [Note: the original proposal was changed to include a link to a word document that former CSM member Ankhe had redacted and privately sent to CCP] Meissa stated that CCP had already aknowledged the issues presented in the proposal in CSM meeting 2.3 and that the proposal misrepresented CCP's stance on alliances in FW, as they had already accepted to make it possible for alliances to join FW. Issler said that FW was just one of many things needing atttention, of no higher priority than others, adding that CCP is already aware of the points made and that escalation was unnecessary. Omber Zombie had no issue asking "wtf is going on with FW" [sic] but was not sure that stating that they had broken a promise was correct, as they had already said they would do most of the things listed but hadn't given a timeline to their implementation. Erik conceded that he might want to work on the phrasing, as it still carried "Ankhe's anger". Erik added he wants CCP to commit to something. Vuk stated that the document included in the proposal would have to be removed, as it had not been presented publicly in the correct timeframe. Meissa requested the proposal to be modified to be less whiney and presented in a less childish manner. Erik stated he was not familiar with the proceedings and apologized for the mistake. Erik further asked wether Eva's document had been presented as part of a prior FW issue and as such was already public. Omber Zombie answered he had never seen the document before, that it was sent directly to CCP and that, had he seen it before, he would have "ripped it to pieces". Dierdra agreed with Omber Zombie, adding that it was fair to ask CCP about their plans for FW, and siding with Issler in stating that FW wasn't more important than other issues presented. Serenity said that if issues are raised for which there is no specific communication, their relative priority in the product backlog should be requested. Issler expressed her sadness that Ankhe sent the document without CSM review, further noting that the wording was unacceptable. Erik conceded that we could not design the game for CCP and as a consequence he would skip Eva's document. He added that considering lag wasn't solved, this is a general issue. He also agreed with Serenity's suggestion, and what Meissa said. Meissa stated that prioritization is done prior to the meeting with CCP, and that the discussion was on wether we wanted this particular topic adressed as presented. Omber Zombie suggested changing the issue to request explanations as to where development of FW was, and when said developments would reach the game. Dierdra requested that Erik clarifies what the CSM will vote on. Erik asked if we can ask CCP to commit to anything. Dierdra answered that we can ask, but they can deny the request. Omber Zombie added that a request for information couldn't be avoided. Erik restated the issue as "a request to give FW a higher priority"
The issue failed to pass (8 votes against, 1 for)
3. Industry Expansion
In raw text from: 2009.06.07 17:56:03 Omber Zombie introduced the issue. Omber Zombie stated that despite the issue listing a few specifics, it was essentially an open question for CCP to answer. Shatana, Meissa said they would love to see some effort in that direction, as the Industry Patch was overdue. Issler added that mining really needs some love and as such, getting CCP to comment on the revamp is needed. Dierdra agreed with everyone, since it is simply asking CCP for information, he has no problem supporting the motion.
Issue passed (8 for, Zastrow against [voted late])
|
|
Meissa Anunthiel
|
Posted - 2009.06.09 13:31:00 -
[31]
4. Logistic drones (Hull repair drones) In raw text from: 2009.06.07 18:03:03
Vuk Lau introduced the issue. No questions from anyone. Issue passed (9 for, 0 against). Dierdra added that real men hull tank, after all.
5. Change to Agro Mechanics Rep Outlaws In raw text from: 2009.06.07 18:05:08
Larkonis introduced the issue. Shatana agreed with Lark's issue. Omber Zombie asked if one would get a GCC (Global Criminal Countdown) if the person one is repping incurs a GCC while being repped. Larkonis confirmed. Erik suggested the auto-cycle should end in that case. Larkonis pointed out that you normally get a little pop-up if you try to rep someone with a GCC. Erik suggested the repper should have a way of avoiding acquiring a GCC in that situation. Larkonis answered that it is currently already the case.
Vote passed (9 for, 0 against)
|
Meissa Anunthiel
|
Posted - 2009.06.09 13:32:00 -
[32]
6. Factional Warfare Lag needs fixing now In raw text from: 2009.06.07 18:15:14
Erik introduced the issue. Issler stated that CCP knows lag needs fixing and that she doesn't see how bringin up lag related to FW makes any sense at all. Meissa quoted CCP Wrangler and CCP RyanD's forum posts saying [paraphrased for the minutes] "we know, please don't bump, we'll let you know" Omber Zombie asked how, other than whipping the coders, Erik expected CCP to fix this faster. Erik replied that they had successfully adressed the lag in 0.0 on a much bigger scale. Omber Zombie answered that this what a global system upgrade. To which Erik replied that it didn't work for FW systems. Dierdra asked if the lag was specific to certain FW situations or if it was "regular lag" due to many people in the same place. Larkonis stated that big 0.0 fights are easier to predict. Issler answered that it hasn't been solved for 0.0 and that CCP is definately trying to improve it again. Avalloc answered that the 0.0 lag was adressed by reinforcing nodes and that he imagined in FW systems are randomly lagged as blobs moved about. Erik aknowledged CCP's aknowledgement of difficulties, but wants them to be more precise. He conceded to Lark and Avalloc that it may be a predictability issue. Shatana noted that as lag was not predictable, it was hard to manage perfectly. Erik said CCP has been posting "we are looking into it" for months and requested they be more specific. Dierdra asked if Erik would like to adjust his issue to ask CCP where they are in terms of FW lag investigation as opposed to asking them to boost their effort in that area. Erik said he would like CCP to be more specific. He mentioned that the emotions are high because CCP does explain why there's no fix, after months of trying. Dierdra mentionned that he can support the reworded issue. Issler wondered what Erik was expecting, as any further info would get seriously technical. Omber said that CCP already stated they're working on it. Oz also wondered how would the CSM asking cause a different answer than the one they're already giving. Erik replied that CCP has been more precise in other areas, that there's no reason they can't here. Omber Zombie asked wether Erik had considered the possibility CCP might not have figured the problem yet. Erik answered that the CSM asking would be a nice hint to CCP to increase their effort, although he was not litterally asking for that. Meissa provided exemples of technical answers that wouldn't help at all and restated his point that the devs have already said on multiple occasions that they're aware of the problem and expressed his opinion that harassing them won't provide a faster solution. Vuk agrees that FW needs some love, but agrees with Oz that this issue is pointless. He would however be happy to vote on a general FW issue as Oz did for the industry expansion. Dierdra said that requests have resulted in more elaborate explanations in the past and that he sees supports asking CCP for more information. Dierdra further explained that the frustration comes from the lack of communication as it is just a matter of people not liking being ignored. Erik thinks it's valid for the CSM to ask if the forum didn't bring the desired responses. Meissa expressed his opinion that saying people are ignored is stupid as the numerous devs replies on the forum attest to the contrary. Issler noted that any answer CCP might give right now wouldn't make any sense to someone who's not a software engineer with knowledge of how eve is implemented, and as such would be of little value. Erik explained that it was more a matter of CSM sending a signal that something in FW isn't right more than a technical explanation. Issler didn't think the CSM needed to signal CCP about FW.
Issue failed ( 5 against, 4 for: Erik, Dierdra, Meissa, Oz). |
Meissa Anunthiel
|
Posted - 2009.06.09 13:33:00 -
[33]
7. Reroll Default Overview Settings to Pre Apoc 1.2 In raw text from: 2009.06.07 18:45:52
Larkonis introduced the issue. Meissa agreed with the proposal but was unsure about the blinky part as it now clearly states someone who will shoot you (blinky) vs someone you can shoot at (red, blinky or not). Larkonis answered that the blinky part was a question of pride for the outlaws. Dierdra agreed with some changes to the default on the basis that it is harder for newbies to identify threats now, and that he loves his newbies and wants to keep them safe..ish. Meissa and Larkonis argued a tiny bit more on the blinky part without exactly adding new elements. Issue passed unanimously.
8.Give Assault Frigates a 4th Bonus In raw text from: 2009.06.07 18:56:50
Erik introduced the issue. Omber Zombie agreed they definately need to be looked at, but is unsure the examples given are required. Dierdra asked how many needed rebalancing. He pointed out that the ishkur was already pretty good and that the AFs should be boosted because they're not good enough, not because all the other T2 ships have 4 bonuses. Shatana agreed. Erik agreed that he was uneasy about that argument and that we should focus on putting them in the right line of power with other T2 ships. Larkonis agreed that most of the AFs need a little buff and that a 4th bonus shouldn't be added for the sake of adding one. Vuk added that beside missing a 4th bonus, AFs are suffering from a crapy slot layout that make tanking them passively or actively a difficult thing, concluding that a role bonus of -50% cap reduction on reppers would be a viable bonus for AFs. Erik answered that he didn't think we need to point out exactly the details on how to boost the AFs. Vuk agreed. Dierdra expressed his support for the issue since AFs seem a bit underpowered and that they need to be brought in line with other T2 ships, but not necessarily focusing on a 4th bonus. Shatana said a general look at the AFs was a good idea. Meissa agreed with Dierdra, and replied to Vuk that speed tanking the AFs was also somewhat of an option. Oz agreed with Dierdra
Motion passed unanimously.
|
Meissa Anunthiel
|
Posted - 2009.06.09 13:34:00 -
[34]
9. Factional Warfare Wardec Mechanic In raw text from: 2009.06.07 19:14:40
Oz mentionned that this proposal could be exploitable thusly: 1. i make an alt corp, 2. I join militia with alt corp. 3 my main corp wardecs alt corp, 4. militia gets a free wardec back on my corp. 5. i just got to wardec most of a militia for the cost of wardeccing a single corp. Larkonis answered that the offer was only for corps who wanted to and not automated. Meissa didn't see why they should have a common front, further stating that one corp wardeccing a FW corp would end up facing 10 or 15 with no associated cost to the other FW corps, and that nobody else gets free wardecs when their friends get one. Larkonis answered that if the attacker doesn't expect more counter-dec, it only means the attacker should have done a more thorough homework, and that there is no guarantee a corp will receive help. He also added that the agressor can always retreat. Dierdra requested clarification. He also believes a free war not to be right, although a reduction of the cost may be acceptable, regardless of the fact that the base fees are too low, in his opinion. Larkonis explained that the proposal can be summarized as: "Corp A wardecs Militia corp (corp M), all other militia corps get a counter dec, either for free or at base cost. Corp M decs corp A, this option is not available to corps within corp M's militia". Meissa pointed out that any reduction in cost increases the odds of counter decs, and that the attacker decided to dec one corp, not one + some. Shatana didn't think FW members should get free wardecs. Dierdra asked if the "free dec" part would be removed from the proposal. Larkonis agreed and pointed out that this is merely a way to allow militia corps an easier means to render aid to their fellow militia mates. Meissa replied that the normal wardec fees were surely not too much to ask in order to help such good militia mates. Larkonis stated once more that the costs quickly add up for all parties involved. Dierdra suggested the focus be put more on the spirit of the proposal rather than a specific implementation. He was also inclined to agree with Meissa, saying that the increased fee is minimal, with the exception of an alliance wardeccing a FW corp. Larkonis answered that the costs rises by 2 mil for each beligerent involved, and that if 20 corps were to counter dec, the bill would be 40 mil, with was significant albeit not a huge amount.
Motion failed (7 against, 2 for: Larkonis and Erik Finnegan)
10. The new L4 Agents - Wrong Approach In raw text from: 2009.06.07 19:38:40
Erik introduced the issue. Dierdra asked wether the proposal was a request to change/revert the current agent additions. Erik answered negatively, that it was more to add agents, but to the right side. Avalloc said that according to the forum post, Ankhe wanted 23 new L4 agents for each non-caldari faction, something he was not to keen on. Dierdra reminded that the CSM is voting on the wiki issue, not the forum thread. Erik said that the details would be left to CCP, but that the other factions were kinda forgotten. Meissa believed the agent change was because caldari agents hubs are overcrowded, a problem less significant for other factions. He added that more L4 agents for the other factions would be nice. Dierdra commented that the issue seemed to lump together a number of issues that all have a common root cause (the nature of which was not explained in his message). He suggested it be explained better in the issue description. Omber Zombie explained that the change was to spread the system load, and that it worked. Adding that while more agents for all factions would be nice, the agent system as a whole needs revision. Erik agreed that the bundling of these issues might not be good. He asked wether he could withdraw the issue to split and rephrase and bring back later for a vote.
Chairman agreed, the issue was therefore withdrawn by Erik. |
Meissa Anunthiel
|
Posted - 2009.06.09 13:34:00 -
[35]
11. Sentry gun aggression and Drones In raw text from: 2009.06.07 19:49:27
Larkonis introduced the issue. Issler didn't think leaving people to fight at the gates longer was the way to go, adding that gate guns need to be buffed as being able to permanently tank sentry guns was never intended. Larkonis replied that 90% of the fights occur at the gates, and that players tanking sentry guns was not the issue, except insofar as sentries not shooting drones would actually increased DPS on players. Omber Zombie asked how this would prevent him from tanking a sentry in highsec and using his drones to kill someone before concord arrives. Larkonis explained that sentries work on a 30 seconds cycle and that the agressing ship will always take the first cycle and since concord shows up well within 30 seconds even in 0.5, drones are never primarily agressed by sentries in highsec. Meissa agreed with Larkonis that fight occur at gates and that he didn't want gate guns to be boosted. Sentries not shooting drones would add more variety and he therefore supported the proposal of making drones immune on the condition that ships are available in range to be shot at. Dierdra disagreed with Issler, also stating that fight occur at gates. He expressed his concern that this technique could be exploited, particularly in highsec with drone suicide ganks. Larkonis answered that concord disables the drones as well as the aggressor ship. Issler continued on her point that gate guns are, in her opinion, a joke, leading to perma-camped gates. Larkonis replied that operating under sentries will be unchanged and that anyone knowing what he's doing can get any ship through a lowsec camp. Erik liked that the proposal fosters diversity in lowsec fights, an aspect on which he agreed with Meissa. He added that Gate camps are a seprate issue.
Motion passed (5 for, 4 against: Issler, Zastrow, Vuk, Omber Zombie)
Other Business
General chatter ensued about the time of the next meeting (which was agreed to be on June 21st), reporting on issue passing/failing during the meeting and the NDA coverage status of discussion with former CSM members. |
Treelox
Amarr Seppuku Warriors
|
Posted - 2009.06.09 13:42:00 -
[36]
thank you for the minutes, Meissa Anunthiel
|
Phantom Slave
JUDGE DREAD Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.06.09 16:41:00 -
[37]
Woot thanks Meissa! I was really interested in the Assault Frig discussion and the Industry expansion (or lack thereof). Appreciate the work you all do! |
Nur AlHuda
Amarr Callide Vulpis
|
Posted - 2009.06.10 08:13:00 -
[38]
The meeting regarding FW is such a fail i cant even describe it.
With such approach ccp doesnt need to bother fixing anythink FW related and will spam new content as there would be no tommorow.
Its like if i call a support and ask them what they will do with my problem and they say they are aware of that problem but not will give any explanation for a year.
|
Sappho Ajhannis
Minmatar Knowledge Stick Station Puppy Reprocessing Plant
|
Posted - 2009.06.10 14:07:00 -
[39]
Seems any issue raised related to FW is gonna get nuked by this CSM. Ho hum.
|
Kuluskitur
Tribal Liberation Force
|
Posted - 2009.06.10 16:37:00 -
[40]
3/3 FW issues voted down, wth?! One sad puppy here. ***
We fight for Freedom! |
|
Dex Nederland
Caldari Lai Dai Infinity Systems
|
Posted - 2009.06.10 17:13:00 -
[41]
Originally by: Kuluskitur 3/3 FW issues voted down, wth?! One sad puppy here.
From the notes it seems like they don't understand the issues.
Originally by: He was also inclined to agree with Meissa, saying that the increased fee is minimal, with the exception of an alliance wardeccing a FW corp.
Considering the idea/discussion was originally presented by a member of an alliance that is wardeccing multiple FW corporations and has been for over a year, it seems prudent to present the issue to CCP.
There is also the fact that while alliances are unable to join FW, some of the mutual defense advantages of an alliance should be confered to the faction aligned corporations. Even if this is a replying wardec at a set cost it would go a long way in providing that mutual defense aspect to the factions that alliances provide.
Quote: Avalloc answered that the 0.0 lag was adressed by reinforcing nodes and that he imagined in FW systems are randomly lagged as blobs moved about. Erik aknowledged CCP's aknowledgement of difficulties, but wants them to be more precise. He conceded to Lark and Avalloc that it may be a predictability issue.
Except it may not be as difficult as opponents are making it out to be and we aren't talking about fleets of 100s but rather fleets numbering in the 20-30s. Reinforcing constellations that are close to having their bunkers vulnerable, reinforcing the OMS-Tama corridor, all these things are either predictable or known events, regular events.
In general the idea that "CCP is aware of it, so we shouldn't bring it up" is a bad policy. CCP maybe aware of the issue, but CCP asks the player base to official raise issues through the CSM. The CSM rejecting issues based on CCP awareness means that the official line of communication between the players and CCP is not functioning. |
Nebulaeus Moonstalker
|
Posted - 2009.06.10 18:11:00 -
[42]
i was expecting more from ccp and the csm on the fw issues. it seems that they don't want to address it in the csm so they will use lame adminstrative and protocol tactics to avoid answering.
sounds to me that ccp have nothing planned and don't want to come out and say that for fear of losing subs. |
Kane Starkiller
|
Posted - 2009.06.10 19:13:00 -
[43]
FW abandoned yet again, Big surprise there. The longer I play the more I see the worthless atributes of EVE getting buffed and the fun being nerfed.
I have only been playing for 7 months.
Time to find something new it seems. . .
|
Meissa Anunthiel
|
Posted - 2009.06.10 19:31:00 -
[44]
Originally by: Nebulaeus Moonstalker i was expecting more from ccp and the csm on the fw issues. it seems that they don't want to address it in the csm so they will use lame adminstrative and protocol tactics to avoid answering.
sounds to me that ccp have nothing planned and don't want to come out and say that for fear of losing subs.
Just a note. CCP doesn't see the issues presented to the CSM directly. We assemble issues that passed (the ones we're voting on at the moment) and present them to CCP once every 2 months. CCP then gives an answer. As such bundling CCP and the CSM in this criticism is not correct. As far as CCP's plans are concerned, we will probably learn more in the first CSM/CCP meeting, until then we rely on the dev blogs and forum posts like you.
Now, replying as myself: As for the disapointment on FW issues, the "FW wardec fee" issue was a matter of opinion and not really an improvement on FW per se. The majority of the CSM disagreed with the proposal. It was more about wardecs than about FW anyway.
I can only recommend you read the other 2 proposals. The first one was "give FW a higher priority". Different people have different priorities. FW, as far as *I* am concerned, does not have a higher priority than other topics. We tried to have the champion of the issue to rephrase his proposal as a discussion on the FW developments, which a few more would have approved. He didn't, the proposal thus didn't pass.
The last FW was about the FW lag. I believe bug reports should be handled through the bug reports. Personally, I think that raising bug reports through the CSM is appropriate if: - CCP doesn't aknowledge the issue on the forum. - CCP doesn't display any veleity of fixing the problem. - The problem is of a large enough scale that it seriously hampers play.
For the FW lag, I counted at least 8 dev answers on the subject, all of which state that they are ALREADY working on fixing the problem. I'll thus repeat here what others have said during the discussion. Imagine the issued had passed, we see CCP and tell them "ok, FW lag is an issue". What, other than what they are already doing, do you want them to say/do? They said they don't know exactly where the issue is, they said they're already working on a fix. What more do you want?
|
Sun Clausewitz
|
Posted - 2009.06.10 19:49:00 -
[45]
/me jots down notes to prepare for next CSM campaign season
Pick Three: Caldari/PVP/Solo/Success |
Hurtado Soneka
Caldari State Protectorate
|
Posted - 2009.06.10 19:54:00 -
[46]
well played CSM you have failed yet again
|
Dex Nederland
Caldari Lai Dai Infinity Systems
|
Posted - 2009.06.10 20:24:00 -
[47]
Originally by: Meissa Anunthiel As for the disapointment on FW issues, the "FW wardec fee" issue was a matter of opinion and not really an improvement on FW per se. The majority of the CSM disagreed with the proposal. It was more about wardecs than about FW anyway.
I disagree entirely, it is a FW issue and is very much related to the general issue of "Improvements to Factional Warfare".
It is about what are the 4 Factions (Amarr Empire, Caldari State, Gallente Federation, and Minmatar Republic) that the corporations joining factional warfare become part of.
When you look at a corporation that is part of factional warfare it is a member of one of these Factions (the Faction's corporation list isn't dynamic, perhaps it should be), just like a corporation in an alliance. However the corporations in an alliance recieve a protection from a direct war declaration - a corporation or alliance can not choose to target a particular corporation within an alliance.
While I agree I don't think joining Factional Warfare should provide a corporation with freedom from outside wardecs, it should recieve some benefit from joining a larger group of corporations.
At the same time it has been said that Factions ~= Alliances and thus Alliances should not be allowed to join Factions. This argument ignores that the benefits of joining an NPC Faction are much less than joining a PC Alliance - 2 constant wardecs, opportunity to particpate in CTF Skirmish warfare, gain faction standing faster. A PC Alliance however provides individual corporate protection from wardecs, alliance level standings, ability to claim 0.0 space, party to any and all wardecs the alliance is part of, multitude of warfare styles dependent on alliance goals (except CTF wafare).
This question of "What are the Factions?" is a critical component of the FW mechanics and answering it answers questions that have been asked for more than a year like: - Should alliances get to join FW? - If you want to wardec a FW corp, what responses are available to the defenders and their allies? Can you even target the FW corp directly or do you have to target the Faction as a whole? (I suspect Star Fraction would love to be able to just wardec whole Factions.) - Should factions be able to claim 0.0 sovreignty through their FW corps? (Would CVA & AM disband and join the Empire wholesale, to create a true Imperial Providence? What about EM & U'K?)
These go right into Factional Warfare Improvements discussion that was turned down based on interpertation of the document provided by a single individual and not a general FW/RP community desire to provide feedback via the CSM to CCP on a desire to see changes in what many feel is their preferred endgame. |
Raimo
Gallente Wrath of Fenris
|
Posted - 2009.06.10 20:58:00 -
[48]
Edited by: Raimo on 10/06/2009 21:02:14
Originally by: Meissa Anunthiel
The last FW was about the FW lag. I believe bug reports should be handled through the bug reports. Personally, I think that raising bug reports through the CSM is appropriate if: - CCP doesn't aknowledge the issue on the forum. - CCP doesn't display any veleity of fixing the problem. - The problem is of a large enough scale that it seriously hampers play.
For the FW lag, I counted at least 8 dev answers on the subject, all of which state that they are ALREADY working on fixing the problem. I'll thus repeat here what others have said during the discussion. Imagine the issued had passed, we see CCP and tell them "ok, FW lag is an issue". What, other than what they are already doing, do you want them to say/do? They said they don't know exactly where the issue is, they said they're already working on a fix. What more do you want?
Bolded the 2 important bits to you. Yes, CCP has investigated the issue, they have asked for logserver files, the corporation PERVS even organized an arranged blobfest fight between the factions that (I think) CCP observed...
Yet, several months later the issue persists. No updates on their progress have come in a *long* time.
As it stands now, our corp is nearly unable to use RR battleships in a gang of 10-20 facing anything more then 20 opponents. We love to be outnumbered but if the number difference is too great (opponents have 3 times our numbers etc) we need RR and other super-effective tactics, currently they just don't work most of the time because of the lag.
Also, there is a "session change" bug associated with this lag that seems to be pretty unique to FW (Though it was seen in one of PL's 0.0 videos but from what I've come to understand it's not common at all in 0.0)
Hmm. 0.0 can have a couple of reinforced nodes that support hundreds of players (or a thousand?) fighting. Can FW have *ONE* such node to itself? All we would need is 5-15 systems that can support 50 players fighting after all... Not asking much is it?
To reiterate, we're talking about lag that's *horrible* with 30-40 people on grid and nobody else in system. Is that acceptable?
I sincerely wish that you get your act together soon, CSM.
(Props to Larkonis and *Gasp* Erik for this round)
Edit: added a bit |
Meissa Anunthiel
|
Posted - 2009.06.10 20:58:00 -
[49]
Edited by: Meissa Anunthiel on 10/06/2009 21:02:11
Originally by: Dex Nederland
Originally by: Meissa Anunthiel As for the disapointment on FW issues, the "FW wardec fee" issue was a matter of opinion and not really an improvement on FW per se. The majority of the CSM disagreed with the proposal. It was more about wardecs than about FW anyway.
I disagree entirely, it is a FW issue and is very much related to the general issue of "Improvements to Factional Warfare".
That's why I said it's a matter of opinion. It's about wardecs as it pertains to FW corps. How would you have reacted to a similar proposal about "every industrialist corp should have free wardecs if one of them get decced" or "Every corporation living in lowsec Metropolis gets free wardec if one of them get decced". It's about wardecs as it pertains to a certain group of corps who happen to otherwise have a similar objective.
Originally by: Dex Nederland At the same time it has been said that Factions ~= Alliances and thus Alliances should not be allowed to join Factions.
CCP already agreed to this. Point is moot.
Originally by: Dex Nederland These go right into Factional Warfare Improvements discussion that was turned down based on interpertation of the document provided by a single individual and not a general FW/RP community desire to provide feedback via the CSM to CCP on a desire to see changes in what many feel is their preferred endgame.
It doesn't, it was specifically asked of the CSM rep who raised the issue if it was a general FW improvement issue/discussion or something else, after that document had been discared from the proposal. He answered that it was about increasing the priority of FW development. While nearly everyone (myself included) in the CSM believed FW needs some improvement, only one in nine believed it should be given precedence over other issues. That's the reason the proposal failed, not because everyone in the CSM secretely hates FW and everyone who takes part in it.
The problem with this first meeting, as far as FW is concerned, was that the 2 out of 3 FW proposals were poorly worded/presented/defended. The FW corp wardec issue was a very valid one, that I happened to disagree with, but a valid one nonetheless.
Don't worry too much, I'm certain there will be better FW proposals in the following meetings. |
Raimo
Gallente Wrath of Fenris
|
Posted - 2009.06.10 21:05:00 -
[50]
Originally by: Meissa Anunthiel Edited by: Meissa Anunthiel on 10/06/2009 21:02:11
Originally by: Dex Nederland
Originally by: Meissa Anunthiel As for the disapointment on FW issues, the "FW wardec fee" issue was a matter of opinion and not really an improvement on FW per se. The majority of the CSM disagreed with the proposal. It was more about wardecs than about FW anyway.
I disagree entirely, it is a FW issue and is very much related to the general issue of "Improvements to Factional Warfare".
That's why I said it's a matter of opinion. It's about wardecs as it pertains to FW corps. How would you have reacted to a similar proposal about "every industrialist corp should have free wardecs if one of them get decced" or "Every corporation living in lowsec Metropolis gets free wardec if one of them get decced". It's about wardecs as it pertains to a certain group of corps who happen to otherwise have a similar objective.
Do all industrialist corps share blue standings between each other and do they *all* have a wardec on 2 "alliances" in common?
I thought not.
Seriously flawed analogies FTL. |
|
Dex Nederland
Caldari Lai Dai Infinity Systems
|
Posted - 2009.06.10 21:45:00 -
[51]
Originally by: Meissa Anunthiel Edited by: Meissa Anunthiel on 10/06/2009 21:02:11
Originally by: Dex Nederland
Originally by: Meissa Anunthiel As for the disapointment on FW issues, the "FW wardec fee" issue was a matter of opinion and not really an improvement on FW per se. The majority of the CSM disagreed with the proposal. It was more about wardecs than about FW anyway.
I disagree entirely, it is a FW issue and is very much related to the general issue of "Improvements to Factional Warfare".
That's why I said it's a matter of opinion. It's about wardecs as it pertains to FW corps. How would you have reacted to a similar proposal about "every industrialist corp should have free wardecs if one of them get decced" or "Every corporation living in lowsec Metropolis gets free wardec if one of them get decced". It's about wardecs as it pertains to a certain group of corps who happen to otherwise have a similar objective.
If every industrialist corporation joined the same alliance, all the corporations in the alliance would be party to the wardec if one of them was wardeced. If every corportion living in lowsec Metropolis joined the same alliance, all the corporations in the alliance would be party to the wardec.
Every corporation joining the Gallente Federation Faction/Alliance is not party to the wardecs of the other corporations in the Gallente Federation Faction/Alliance.
Is GOONS or MM or AAA not a certain group of corps who happen to otherwise have similar objectives? How do wardecs pertain to them?
There would also be a downside to being 'afforded' the protection of joining an NPC Faction/Alliance, no PC corporation is an executor corporation and thus no PC corporation can declare war on the part of the Faction/Alliance. No offensive war declarations on the part of anyone joining NPC Factions/Alliances.
Originally by: Meissa Anunthiel
Originally by: Dex Nederland At the same time it has been said that Factions ~= Alliances and thus Alliances should not be allowed to join Factions.
CCP already agreed to this. Point is moot.
No, the point is not moot. If it is CCP's position that PC Alliances can not join NPC Factions because NPC Factions are analogous to PC Alliances; it should follow that the PC corporations that are part of the NPC Factions should be afforded similar opportunities to aid the corporations within their Faction that those in an Alliance are.
You are arguing that in one case Factions are not Alliances and in the other that Factions are Alliances. Choose one or the other. |
Merdaneth
Amarr PIE Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.06.10 22:20:00 -
[52]
My impression of the voting against the FW issues seemed that some CSM members didn't know or didn't care.
Also, my impression was that there was considerable agitation against the FW issues raised by some CSM members. Either they had their minds made up already, and were unwilling to listen to arguments, or they felt somehow insulted in the manner that the issues were raised.
That is of course entirely possible. I'll be contacting CSM members personally if I can and they are willing to try and understand this agitation and real reasons for voting so harsh against it. The reasons stated here seem to omit vital info. ____
The Illusion of Freedom | The Truth about Slavery |
Meridius Dex
Amarr Gunship Diplomacy
|
Posted - 2009.06.10 23:01:00 -
[53]
(Sigh) I knew going into the elections for this CSM that those of us languishing in the CCP ghetto of Faction Warfare would continue to be utterly neglected. Between the empire carebears and 0.0 nullsuckers, this CSM will certainly be dedicated to deriding any and all attention that might be brought to facwar and its utterly sorry state. -- Meridius Dex Visit the Gunship Forums --
|
Ankhesentapemkah
Gallente Aliastra
|
Posted - 2009.06.10 23:52:00 -
[54]
Originally by: Meissa Anunthiel
On FW lag:
- CCP doesn't display any veleity of fixing the problem.
Check.
Originally by: Meissa Anunthiel - The problem is of a large enough scale that it seriously hampers play.
Check.
Originally by: Meissa Anunthiel For the FW lag, I counted at least 8 dev answers on the subject, all of which state that they are ALREADY working on fixing the problem.
They've been saying Soon(TM) for the past 6 months now, just like they've been saying that Alliances in FW would be introduced in Empyrean Age 1.2, no wait, somewhere in October, before QR, in QR, Q1 2009, very Soon(TM) after Apocrypha...... It's typical for CCP to either ignore FW issues completely or give them such a low priority that they never get assigned a slot to be implemented as there is always something else bumping it from the to-do list.
Cloak exploit anyone? |
Issler Dainze
Minmatar Tadakastu-Obata Corporation The Honda Accord
|
Posted - 2009.06.11 06:39:00 -
[55]
So I think the CSM do realize that FW is not complete and needs some attention. However this CSM clearly understands that this could be said about a lot of Eve. A number of things have been introduced that are not "complete" in terms of the intended experience. A lot of those predate FW. So I think the CSM is saying with their votes "FW, we love you but get in line behind all the stuff that needs that CCP luvin before you".
Sorry to everyone that doesn't realize there is more to Eve than FW,
Issler (who clearly will never get a FW vote if she ever runs again)
|
Ziriko Keplit
24th Imperial Crusade
|
Posted - 2009.06.11 07:40:00 -
[56]
CSM failed.
Obviosully i did not get that simple fact CSM are NOT supposed bring up only those questions that is important for CSM members. CSM is NOT your private high priority whining chamber.
Reason why FW was ignored on CSM is obvious - none of you are interested in it (except maybe Ankh). Classical case of dirty scambags who gets power only to use it for getting all goodies to themselves.
All 3 FW problems that was mentioned are very serious and must be brought up now.
You are pathetic.
P.S. Lets hope on next voting FW people will be more active and will remeber you and what you did ("did NOT" to be exact).
|
Dierdra Vaal
|
Posted - 2009.06.11 08:36:00 -
[57]
Edited by: Dierdra Vaal on 11/06/2009 08:37:01 to everyone who is unhappy with the FW issue voting results - sorry but Eve is more than FW. Sure its not perfect, but other areas have just as many - if not more - problems. So ya, we didnt agree with a blanket 'higher development priority' for FW. Dont accuse us of only looking out for ourselves while demanding a higher development commitment to the small part of Eve you happen to play.
And while I personally wouldnt have minded asking CCP about the FW lag, it is likely that there wouldnt be much news on it. Reserve your judgement for the end of the CSM term. |
Morphisat
Hidden Agenda Deep Space Engineering
|
Posted - 2009.06.11 12:15:00 -
[58]
Originally by: Dierdra Vaal Edited by: Dierdra Vaal on 11/06/2009 11:55:43 to everyone who is unhappy with the FW issue voting results - sorry but Eve is more than just FW. Sure its not perfect, but other areas have just as many - if not more - problems. So ya, we didnt agree with a blanket 'higher development priority' for FW. Dont accuse us of only looking out for ourselves while demanding a higher development commitment to the small part of Eve you happen to play; you're doing exactly what you're accusing us of.
Looks like most CSM members have no clue about FW. Also hull repper drones ??? Why is this even an issue on the list ? Of all things in eve that are broken / need to be looked at I'd say that's not even on the list ... Aren't ther more important issues to discuss ? Makes me wonder why I even bothered voting. |
David Caldera
Gallente Strix Armaments and Defence
|
Posted - 2009.06.11 12:57:00 -
[59]
Originally by: Dierdra Vaal Edited by: Dierdra Vaal on 11/06/2009 11:55:43 to everyone who is unhappy with the FW issue voting results - sorry but Eve is more than just FW. Sure its not perfect, but other areas have just as many - if not more - problems. So ya, we didnt agree with a blanket 'higher development priority' for FW. Dont accuse us of only looking out for ourselves while demanding a higher development commitment to the small part of Eve you happen to play; you're doing exactly what you're accusing us of.
With all due respect, your arguments makes little sense.
Firstly you'll find that most FW supporters don't claim that FW is the only thing that matters in EVE. Your seemingly accusing people that they think only FW needs attention. You'll find that if you talk to them this is not the case. In the same way I can start argueing that the CSM only considers 0.0 to be EVE, etc. As CSM you're supposed to be the communication bridge between us, the players, and CCP. Let's not dismiss valid arguments because you assume people think that's the only thing that matters.
All this however doesn't take away the simple fact that the entire mechanics behind FW are broken, and they have been for over a year now. No rewards, no lag fixing (and yes, the difference between 0.0 and FW is a bit strange considering how small FW battles are), bad plex spawn mechanics, risk of permanent standing destruction without compensation and still bugged with exploits such as cloaked plexing. FW has now come to full stop on the Gallente-Caldari front due to the capturing of all systems. How bad must it be before the CSM realises FW needs a bit of attention?
For a main feature from an expansion, that was presented as the best thing since sliced bread, you can't claim FW doesn't need to be looked at soon. It was even designed in an attempt to get people to PvP and fill low-sec. Regardless of whether it succeeded in doing that or not, it's a feature that was supposed to have an impact on the backstory and on players, forcing them to get into fights.
Will the CSM wait until FW is completely dead and then claim things are fixed, or will we finally get some attention to the matter, even if it's just a recent status update or a dev blog? Active FW players are disappearing left and right, and those who remain apparently can't scream hard enough in frustration for the CSM to realise how bad things are. |
Raimo
Gallente Wrath of Fenris
|
Posted - 2009.06.11 13:28:00 -
[60]
Edited by: Raimo on 11/06/2009 13:35:08
Originally by: Dierdra Vaal Edited by: Dierdra Vaal on 11/06/2009 11:55:43 to everyone who is unhappy with the FW issue voting results - sorry but Eve is more than just FW. Sure its not perfect, but other areas have just as many - if not more - problems. So ya, we didnt agree with a blanket 'higher development priority' for FW. Dont accuse us of only looking out for ourselves while demanding a higher development commitment to the small part of Eve you happen to play; you're doing exactly what you're accusing us of.
14.076 players/ characters is "a small part of EVE"? (Number is current from the IC FW stats page)
The lag affects everyone of them, and it's not "normal" EVE lag. |
|
Dex Nederland
Caldari Lai Dai Infinity Systems
|
Posted - 2009.06.11 13:49:00 -
[61]
Originally by: Raimo Edited by: Raimo on 11/06/2009 13:33:21
Originally by: Dierdra Vaal Edited by: Dierdra Vaal on 11/06/2009 11:55:43 to everyone who is unhappy with the FW issue voting results - sorry but Eve is more than just FW. Sure its not perfect, but other areas have just as many - if not more - problems. So ya, we didnt agree with a blanket 'higher development priority' for FW. Dont accuse us of only looking out for ourselves while demanding a higher development commitment to the small part of Eve you happen to play; you're doing exactly what you're accusing us of.
14.076 players/ characters is "a small part of EVE"? (Number is current from the IC FW stats page)
The lag affects everyone of them, and it's not "normal" EVE lag.
I'm not surprised that Larkonis voted for the lag issue, I'm pretty certain he has experienced it 1st hand...
Top 10 Alliances/Factions by number of members (11 June): 1. GOONSWARM - 5,735 members ( http://www.eve-maps.com/outpostalert/alliancerank.asp ) 2. CALDARI STATE - 5,200 members ( http://fwstats.eve-ic.net/ ) 3. MINMATAR REPUBLIC - 3,219 members ( http://fwstats.eve-ic.net/ ) 4. KENZOKU - 3,141 members ( http://www.eve-maps.com/outpostalert/alliancerank.asp ) 5. SHADOW OF XXDEATHXX - 3,048 members ( http://www.eve-maps.com/outpostalert/alliancerank.asp ) 6. GALLENTE FEDERATION - 3,036 members ( http://fwstats.eve-ic.net/ ) 7. MORUS MIHI - 2,741 members ( http://www.eve-maps.com/outpostalert/alliancerank.asp ) 8. AMARR EMPIRE - 2,624 members ( http://fwstats.eve-ic.net/ ) 9. AGAINST ALL AUTHORITIES - 2,159 members ( http://www.eve-maps.com/outpostalert/alliancerank.asp ) 10. INTREPID CROSSING - 1,929 members ( http://www.eve-maps.com/outpostalert/alliancerank.asp )
4 of the 8 largest organizations in Eve are the Factions. |
Lord Zekk
Caldari 22nd Black Rise Defensive Unit
|
Posted - 2009.06.11 13:54:00 -
[62]
Edited by: Lord Zekk on 11/06/2009 13:58:01 The CMS truly do fail. I am currently very upset while posting this so ignore the tone and look at what I'm actually saying.
All the comments for FW have been very valid and well backed up.
Lag is not a serious enough ****ing issue yet? Seriously!!! If you couldn't take out a 25 HAC gang in 0.0 and get into a fight without experiencing game breaking lag how would you feel?
There are more than enough players in faction warfare and we all deserve a bit a of a voice. We have been complaining on the forums and to my knowledge have not received any sort of response for the last year other than "we're working on it"
HOWEVER they have managed to make things worse by introducing cloaked plexing! How in the name of GOD did they find time to make FW worse?
Understand this. FW is not a bit off and doesn't need a little work. IT IS SERIOUSLY BROKEN!!! IT AFFECTS EVERYONE IN LOW SEC! (That means FW guys, pirates and every other Tom, **** and Harry that decides to fly through there)
Caldari captured all the Gal systems. Now what? What happened to everything else we were promised more that ONE YEAR back. Don't we deserve an update and an HONEST response?
Is addressing these issues too much to expect from the high and mighty CSM? |
Dierdra Vaal
|
Posted - 2009.06.11 14:13:00 -
[63]
David Caldera: With exclamations of "All 3 FW problems that was mentioned are very serious and must be brought up now" (and similarly demanding language was used in the issues themselves) it does look to me like FW pilots feel their part of the game deserves more attention that others. You might not feel that way, and maybe even the poster didnt intend it that way (in which case he/she should rephrase their request), but to me it reads like someone insisting that their demands are heard now.
The CSM isnt denying that FW needs attention (and in fact the lag issue only narrowly failed - perhaps partially due to a lacking explanation of the specific lag: note that my question during the issue discussion remained unanswered). We just dont agree it deserves a higher development priority at this point. CCP is working on it, just as they are working on other parts of the game. I actually talked to Erik after one of his issues was denied - I believe its a lot more likely to pass a specific issue than to simply ask for a higher priority for ALL of the FW development. In much the same vein I wouldnt support someone asking for a higher priority of 0.0 gameplay development.
Sure FW has its defects, but I have yet to meet a 0.0 pilot who feels the current sovereignity system is a good one (a system which has been in place for years, btw), and I'm hearing a lot of industry (esp. mining) pilots lament that their gameplay is in serious need of improvements. So why would FW deserve a higher development priority than 0.0, or industry, or any of the other many gameplay aspects?
Morphisat: CSM members can choose which topics to put on the agenda. If Vuk wants to discuss hull repping drones he can do so. If it makes you feel any better, the issue only took 2 minutes or so to discuss, so very little time was 'wasted'. And if you worry about CCP spending precious development time on it, these issues have NOT yet been prioritized by the CSM, and CCP will adjust the priorities themselves as well.
Raimo: 15K players seems like a lot (5% of the player base), but its eclipsed by the amount of players involved in 0.0, which in turn is eclipsed by the huge amount of players who stick to high sec. Hence why I said 'small part of eve'.
Furthermore I'd like to remind everyone there are still plenty of meetings ahead. So unbunch your panties and take a deep breath, FW issues still have plenty of oppurtunity to be brought up :)
Director of Education :: EVE University
|
Morphisat
Hidden Agenda Deep Space Engineering
|
Posted - 2009.06.11 14:38:00 -
[64]
Originally by: Dierdra Vaal
Morphisat: CSM members can choose which topics to put on the agenda. If Vuk wants to discuss hull repping drones he can do so. If it makes you feel any better, the issue only took 2 minutes or so to discuss, so very little time was 'wasted'. And if you worry about CCP spending precious development time on it, these issues have NOT yet been prioritized by the CSM, and CCP will adjust the priorities themselves as well.
Ah that's good to know. Thought it was weird that you discussed only a hand full of issues and some of these seemed to be rather trivial.
About industrial players: don't forget the ore respawn situation :).
|
Dex Nederland
Caldari Lai Dai Infinity Systems
|
Posted - 2009.06.11 15:29:00 -
[65]
Originally by: Dierdra Vaal Furthermore I'd like to remind everyone there are still plenty of meetings ahead. So unbunch your panties and take a deep breath, FW issues still have plenty of oppurtunity to be brought up :)
Here is the thing; plenty of FW players feel that FW has an expiration date. As small/minor issues and problems (unintentional "features" like cloaked plexing) appear in FW the FW player base shrinks. As the numbers decrease (below 5%) the amount of thought CCP will put into will only decrease more and the issues will not be resolved.
There are plenty of features that are basically broken or incomplete and little played. I would hate to be the devs who worked hard on COSMOs only to have them be some minor part of the game an largely ignored by the player base. I would hate to be a dev who worked on FW only to have it slid off the menu because WIS is a higher priority.
0.0 POS spamming fiefdoms are basically required for people to fly 'high-end' ships be they T2 or Capitals. There is isk to be made (reward) and in some cases fun to be had. FW has no output at the moment, only inputs.
Perhaps we (FW advocates) need to push things in smaller components so that they can easily be chewed on (again fx cloaked plexing) by the CSM and CCP. Perhaps focus on a slew of more immediate fixes that should be included in future patches versus included in a future expansion. FW 1.123 vs FW 2.0.
Issues to address: 1. Cloaked Plexing 2. Plex Spawn rate 3. Low Security, low numbers in system (<50) lag
Others? Be ready to put these on the assembly and give the CSM who takes them on all the possible info they could want.
In-Game Browser : http://ldis.caldari-made.net |
Erik Finnegan
|
Posted - 2009.06.11 15:31:00 -
[66]
Thank you Deirdra and Meissa in trying to cool off the emotions from FW players in this thread, which are quite understandable.
First off, while everyone expected FW issues to be on the CSM agenda early, it might not have been my best choice to do so, before getting to know the other CSM's way of thinking and how the issues need to be shaped to have a chance of finding consensus.
This term still is long, as we have only started off. Two points from my CSM colleagues are worth noting, I suggest, for the continued discussion: they do not want FW above other unfinished parts of the game, and the number of capsuleers engaged is not big enough. Both are absolutely valid positions. And it is never a question of how to change someone else's position.
The question to ask : how to amend the FW position so that it fits into the other's picture ?
Priority We should drop this aspect. It is absolutely unimportant, which priority CSM wants CCP to attribute to any given issue. CCP will adjust the priorities to their idea anyway. Thus, if the suggested improvement is concise, compelling, marketable, then chances are good we will find FW higher up the priority scale without expliciting the position.
Relevance More pilots need to be involved ? Well, let's not debate current figures nor wait for FW to gain followers. FW importance is not measured by the size of the militas alone.
Instead, I suggest we present issues, which will do both : - involve more people with FW - and improve the FW experience
How about the idea of small POSes, which was presented by Nyphur ? Every carebear dreams of having a home in space. Now, connect that longing for a home with FW, and you have all high-sec supporting something, which for you is a FW improvement. Would it be an idea to extend / replace the complex spawns by player built installations to fight about in order to gain occupancy ?
I guess, even Issler would want such a home. Even if it was subject to occasional destruction / siege by the opposing faction... As a side effect, I would see these deployables as far better indicators for lag predictions. But I'm not a techie.
FW pilots, please be creative and think out of the box. That will bring up suggestions, which will be voted through to CCP. |
David Caldera
Gallente Strix Armaments and Defence
|
Posted - 2009.06.11 15:40:00 -
[67]
Quote: With exclamations of "All 3 FW problems that was mentioned are very serious and must be brought up now" (and similarly demanding language was used in the issues themselves) it does look to me like FW pilots feel their part of the game deserves more attention that others. You might not feel that way, and maybe even the poster didnt intend it that way (in which case he/she should rephrase their request), but to me it reads like someone insisting that their demands are heard now.
You may be right, but that's not the general attitude most Fw players adopt when it comes to the whole issue. (Though I must admit the forum is a cesspool that might give a totally different impression) I apoligise if anything I said so far implied a "want now" attitude to the issue, just so we're clear there. =)
Quote: Sure FW has its defects, but I have yet to meet a 0.0 pilot who feels the current sovereignity system is a good one (a system which has been in place for years, btw), and I'm hearing a lot of industry (esp. mining) pilots lament that their gameplay is in serious need of improvements. So why would FW deserve a higher development priority than 0.0, or industry, or any of the other many gameplay aspects?
I understand what you're saying, but while 0.0 and industry are indeed in need of an overhaul, one can argue that their gameplay "works", in the sense that taking part in it has the potential of being rewarded, and due to their PvP dynamics, they have a life of their own. (Don't get me wrong; I'm not saying their mechanics are okay)
On the other hand we have FW, that never felt like it was completed. It's a wholly empty experience; a free wardec disguised as something special, with the added effect of totally ruining your faction standings for absolutely no compensation and being denied to Empire space. It's not hard to see why people leave because of that. On top of that, as I mentioned in my previous post, a front in FW has been completely conquered, with little chance for the Gallente to recover assuming they even care for it. (The latter being a player problem that can't really be changed I'm afraid) Now, the Gallente are sharpening their knives to ridicule the Caldari while they expect CCP to reset the whole thing, while meanwhile the Caldari demand they get some sort of reward for their plexing, which would cause great amounts of drama if CCP were to implement a thing to reward to Caldari *now*. (I hope you understand what I mean here)
Point is, FW was supposed to be more than a wardec, but it was never fully implemented. We're at a point where the entire FW experience (and with that I mean conquering territory, lore backstory, and just plain more depth in the whole thing) is blocked for the majority of the players.
Heck, most FW pilots would even be glad if we got a big explenation on what CCP is thinking about the whole thing. The fact that CCP is "aware" doesn't mean a whole lot. People want to know if it'll be worth sticking around. |
Kuluskitur
Tribal Liberation Force
|
Posted - 2009.06.11 16:12:00 -
[68]
Thank you to all the CSM that have bothered to write replies.
However, I do think that FW needs to have a higher priority. The CSM can come up with a lot of separate individual issues on how to improve FW, but Ankh already did that, the player already did that, and fanfest already did that. None of the things the CSM brought up in the past regarding FW got implemented, and meanwhile things start to break down (FW cloaking exploit, FW Occupancy map crash) which go unfixed, even unrecognized by CCP.
AT THE MOMENT WE CANNOT EVEN PROPERLY DEFEND SYSTEMS AND CAPTURE PLEXES IN FW BECAUSE LOADING THE OCCUPANCY MAP CRASHES THE GAME.
I don't think anyone is asking the CSM to prioritize FW above 0.0 or other important issues. We do not dismiss other aspects of the game. We're just asking you to convince CCP to raise FW from priority 100 to priority 20 so it at least gets a higher priority than combat simulators, as Ankh pointed out! ***
We fight for Freedom! |
Sappho Ajhannis
Knowledge Stick Station
|
Posted - 2009.06.11 16:24:00 -
[69]
The reason why FW needs attention quickly is that the pve element is completely broken- and the main gripes could be lessened somewhat by relatively easy quick fixes. Other areas of the game are indeed unfinished/unsatisfactory, but not to the same extent as this element of FW.
Some of the changes that have been suggested- changing plex spawn times, preventing cloaky plexing, increasing FW mission rewards, and nerfing Caldari npc jamming- are not big things to implement, but would make the FW experience much better. I would like to think that a well written proposal suggesting something along these lines would be taken up by the CSM, but I worry that any point raised is going to be voted down.
Anyway, in the bigger picture, the problem of lack of risk vs reward and underpopulation in lowsec is as much a problem for the health of EVE as POS warfare being dull. As FW is one of the main drivers of people into lowsec, along with piracy, it deserves some love. |
Dierdra Vaal
|
Posted - 2009.06.11 17:23:00 -
[70]
Well I admit I wasnt aware there were so many problems with FW (I only plex occasionally on my minmatar FW alt), so I'll see if we can do anything more to improve FW. :)
Mind you, I still stand by my votes from meeting #02 on the issues as they were presented there. |
|
Nephilim Xeno
Caldari Pimebeka Mining Corp
|
Posted - 2009.06.11 19:16:00 -
[71]
guess the CSM is nothing more than a lobby for big 0.0 alliances to get themselfes heared while all people living in high sec or low sec are being left out.
also all of low sec seems to be affected by this lag, its just FW that has bigger fights regulary so that the problem is showing there far more than on other occasions.
and do 0.0 systems really need to be reinforced to handle 50 vs 50 fights without lag? i think not!
we dont ask for 500 vs 500 without lag, we just want 50 vs 50 to be playable ffs
CSM is completly useless for the average eve player
|
Dohl Khrensen
Huang Yinglong
|
Posted - 2009.06.11 22:08:00 -
[72]
While everyone's brainstorming on the 'out-of-the-box,' brilliant proposal to present to the CSM, I suggest we go general first.
General is here.
If something better comes along as the meetings with CCP come nearer, great. In the meantime, I'd feel more comfortatble knowing at least one general FW issue was going to be raised.
Dohl |
Larkonis TrassIer
Neo Spartans Laconian Syndicate
|
Posted - 2009.06.11 22:47:00 -
[73]
Originally by: Nephilim Xeno guess the CSM is nothing more than a lobby for big 0.0 alliances to get themselfes heared while all people living in high sec or low sec are being left out.
also all of low sec seems to be affected by this lag, its just FW that has bigger fights regulary so that the problem is showing there far more than on other occasions.
Sup, Lowsec dwelling CSM delegate here.
I have been in fights in Lowsec with upwards of 100 participants with managable lag. I have also been in fights with less than 60 with horrible lag. The difference? Node reinforcement was requested for one and not for the other. Due to the numbers involved I doubt CCP will ever allocate as many hamsters per system to Lowsec as they do to some parts of 0.0, added to that the predictability of a lot of the larger battles in 0.0 which revolve around stront timers and the like. It is generally easier to prepare a node for a battle in 0.0 than it is for lowsec, especially the FW areas where large fleets tend to bump into each other.
Take advantage of the systems that are in place, if you anticipate a big fight for a moon/bunker then petition to reinforce the node.
|
Sappho Ajhannis
Knowledge Stick Station
|
Posted - 2009.06.11 23:22:00 -
[74]
Battles in 0.0 are admittedly easier to predict. But larger FW fleet battles do often take place in only a handful of sytems. So bring the fights to where the servers can cope - If systems x y and z are known to have more server-side resources made available, people will go to x y and z to have their lag-free FW fleet fights. Not to mention pirates and other low-sec dwellers who might like a lag-free environment.
There's even a game tool there for ccp- want faction A to attack a system? Stick an order in the motd saying 'this week faction a are requested to attack etc etc..' Shift server resources to support that system.. FW players know they'll get some lag free fights there, and FW campaigns become a bit less random and more story driven = good things.
|
Nephilim Xeno
Caldari Pimebeka Mining Corp
|
Posted - 2009.06.11 23:34:00 -
[75]
95% of all fights in FW always happen in the same systems anyway and there arent that many of them
also comparing this huge 0.0 blobs to FW is just stupid, i already stated we would never need that many hamsters than 0.0 does
another fact is that this lag wasnt always there, at the beginning of FW the lag was just fine and fleets usually much bigger than the ones now.
atm you get more lag in a 25 vs 25 battle than you got in a 100 vs 100 battle at the beginning of FW
that lag started about the time QR was applied and lasted until apocrypha, at the beginning of apo that lag was still there
then after a few weeks of really bad lag it was suddently gone and returned a few months later
without a single update on this issue from ccp !
i also suggest the people that have no clue about this issue and just say "deal with it" should join FW and get into one of this lag battle themselfes before they make comments on this issue
|
Raimo
Gallente Wrath of Fenris
|
Posted - 2009.06.12 06:54:00 -
[76]
Originally by: Larkonis TrassIer
Take advantage of the systems that are in place, if you anticipate a big fight for a moon/bunker then petition to reinforce the node.
So should we petition Tama and similar systems every night? Local often reaches 100+ and if it was known that the server can support it larger fights would be more common... Even now 40-50+ on grid happens almost nightly.
Also, you do remember that the "FW lag" has not always been there, like Nephilim pointed out? It seems to be not just about the hamsters and CCP have admitted to something along those lines... We just want progress and at the very least updates on this issue. --- WOLFY is recruiting!
|
lucifers widow
|
Posted - 2009.06.12 08:10:00 -
[77]
Originally by: Dierdra Vaal Edited by: Dierdra Vaal on 11/06/2009 14:38:52 David Caldera: With exclamations of "All 3 FW problems that was mentioned are very serious and must be brought up now" (and similarly demanding language was used in the issues themselves) it does look to me like FW pilots feel their part of the game deserves more attention that others. You might not feel that way, and maybe even the poster didnt intend it that way (in which case he/she should rephrase their request), but to me it reads like someone insisting that their demands are heard now.
The CSM isnt denying that FW needs attention (and in fact the lag issue only narrowly failed - perhaps partially due to a lacking explanation of the specific lag: note that my question during the issue discussion remained unanswered). We just dont agree it deserves a higher development priority at this point. CCP is working on it, just as they are working on other parts of the game. I actually talked to Erik after one of his issues was denied - I believe its a lot more likely to pass a specific issue than to simply ask for a higher priority for ALL of the FW development. In much the same vein I wouldnt support someone asking for a higher priority of 0.0 gameplay development.
Sure FW has its defects, but I have yet to meet a 0.0 pilot who feels the current sovereignity system is a good one (a system which has been in place for years, btw), and I'm hearing a lot of industry (esp. mining) pilots lament that their gameplay is in serious need of improvements. So why would FW deserve a higher development priority than 0.0, or industry, or any of the other many gameplay aspects?
Raimo: 15K players seems like a lot (5% of the player base), but its eclipsed by the amount of players involved in 0.0, which in turn is eclipsed by the huge amount of players who stick to high sec. Hence why I said 'small part of eve'.
First up I not think I've ever seen anyone in FW say they deserve special treatment, all we are really asking for is a fix to the lag in maybe no more than 8 systems, is that truely too much to ask ? ( esp as it was fixed for a week or so then strangely "broken" again once we got used to running fleets of more than with minimal lag ).
We even put did organised fights with set numbers with logs running to help but nothing other than a "thanks" from ccp was ever heard from for us doing this.
As new content surely it deserves some attention, even just to iron out a few of the issues ?
All of you're examples of people who " are more important " are rubbish tbh, 0.0 player and sov fair enough needs looking at, but what if these players couldn't undock in a gang of more than 15 withuot being lagged out if found a fight ?
Industry fair enough need some love, but miners etc not seem to struggle with lag when turning on strips so much do they ? |
TraininVain
|
Posted - 2009.06.12 10:30:00 -
[78]
Edited by: TraininVain on 12/06/2009 10:38:05 ****balls tbh.
Bit of a failure on the FW front.
I guess some of the proposals weren't necessarily that well worded but I'm completely unimpressed with the discussions that followed on 2/3 of the issues.
I don't think the majority of the CSM understand some of the issues involved in some of the issues at all to be perfectly honest.
|
Nyphur
Pillowsoft Total Comfort
|
Posted - 2009.06.12 12:14:00 -
[79]
Originally by: Dierdra Vaal Well I admit I wasnt aware there were so many problems with FW (I only plex occasionally on my minmatar FW alt), so I'll see if we can do anything more to improve FW. :)
Mind you, I still stand by my votes from meeting #02 on the issues as they were presented there.
With all due respect, if you haven't researched a topic well enough to consider yourself completely informed, should you really be voting on it? There are plenty of people you could have spoken with who could provide you with a condensed summary of the issues to help you prepare for the meeting. There's also documentation of the complaints about FW raised to the last CSM which were shot down by CSM members who hadn't even tried FW.
I played in faction warfare from its release until the apocrypha expansion. The build-up was some awesome storyline and it indicated that FW was to be CCP's new big thing. The beginning of FW was fantastic, with diverse fleets roaming around capping plexes and fighting whatever they could find. Although plexing quickly lost its appeal when it became clear that system ownership was worthless, there was still tons of awesome PvP to be had and it kept my corp entertained for months. We had small gang PvP with destroyers, frigs or cruisers, large battleship gangs and ad-hoc fleets of 80 or more pilots. I wrote two articles on FW in those early months singing its praises because frankly, it was just that awesome. I remember thinking "This right here is what EVE is all about, get new players into THIS.". It had a few problems of course but with feedback from players it was understood that those problems would be sorted out quickly enough to not be a big issue and development on FW would continue to make it perfect. It was a great time and I'm sure CCP were patting each other on the back for a job well done.
The problem was a complete lack of follow-up. Those problems it had at launch which would have been relatively trivial to fix are still there a year later. System ownership is still worthless, FW missions are still pointless and the plexes that respawn at downtime still provide more capture points than can be neutralised by running plexes in the region for the entire rest of the day. That's how the caldari took every gallente system, by running the plexes immediately after downtime every day. When the gallente stopped fighting them for the downtime plexes, their systems fell like dominoes. To be clear, these are all failings of the system that were pointed out a year ago and should have been worked on since then. New problems have even crept in like the ability to capture complexes while cloaked and the crippling lag that CCP have been dragging their heels on identifying and resolving.
FW wasn't the kind of feature they could just create and then leave for a year, it's not like adding more mission content or a new ship. To re-appropriate a phrase used earlier in this thread, Faction Warfare came with an expiration date. It may now be too late to fix it.
After we did the whole wormhole thing for a few months, I decided to join FW again for some of that laid back pvp fun I remembered. Instead, this time I couldn't even get a fight out of the caldari because most of the people interested in pvp had left due to the lag. All the fights I got were against pirates and I sure as hell didn't need to be in FW for that. I don't know if FW was just a stall-tactic to keep players interested until apocrypha or if it was genuinely meant to be good but the fact is that it was awesome when it started. A year later and with absolutely NO follow-up, it's all but dead. Even the storylines have stalled and died in spite of all the promotional releases leading up to FW.
|
Havohej
Minmatar Du'uma Fiisi Integrated Astrometrics
|
Posted - 2009.06.12 12:32:00 -
[80]
Originally by: Dierdra Vaal David Caldera: With exclamations of "All 3 FW problems that was mentioned are very serious and must be brought up now" (and similarly demanding language was used in the issues themselves) it does look to me like FW pilots feel their part of the game deserves more attention that others. You might not feel that way, and maybe even the poster didnt intend it that way (in which case he/she should rephrase their request), but to me it reads like someone insisting that their demands are heard now.
FW pilots aren't suggesting that their issue deserves more attention than others. FW pilots are manifesting their deserved frustration at how, for the entire existence of Factional Warfare in EVE, FW-related issues have been pushed further and further down in the queue of priority if not outright ignored while the 0.0 crowd (which, as stated in statistical releases from CCP represents a very small fraction of the overall playerbase) seems to get all of their concerns answered near instantaneously.
And you should hardly be surprised if any given player 'demands' that an issue be fixed 'now'. The pvp-inept demanded for months that 'nano' ships be nerfed now and it happened. Almost all pvpers demanded that Caldari recons be nerfed now and it happened. There seems to be a prevailing hope that if we demand FW be addressed by CCP now some attention might actually be paid.
"You can still steal their stuff." - CCP Explorer
|
|
Nyphur
Pillowsoft Total Comfort
|
Posted - 2009.06.12 13:05:00 -
[81]
Originally by: Havohej FW pilots aren't suggesting that their issue deserves more attention than others. FW pilots are manifesting their deserved frustration at how, for the entire existence of Factional Warfare in EVE, FW-related issues have been pushed further and further down in the queue of priority if not outright ignored while the 0.0 crowd (which, as stated in statistical releases from CCP represents a very small fraction of the overall playerbase) seems to get all of their concerns answered near instantaneously.
I'd just like to add to this that there doesn't appear to be a single thing with lower priority in EVE than FW. It's been a year since its release and it has seen absolutely no development whatsoever. Not even the simple tweaks and fixes that should have been implemented in the months following the expansion's launch. There's been a lot of talk, some good ideas and a lot of "We're looking into it" but so far not a single significant change or fix to FW has hit TQ. This isn't about making FW high priority, it's about asking if they're ever going to develop it. |
Meissa Anunthiel
|
Posted - 2009.06.12 16:47:00 -
[82]
Originally by: Nyphur
I'd just like to add to this that there doesn't appear to be a single thing with lower priority in EVE than FW. It's been a year since its release and it has seen absolutely no development whatsoever. Not even the simple tweaks and fixes that should have been implemented in the months following the expansion's launch. There's been a lot of talk, some good ideas and a lot of "We're looking into it" but so far not a single significant change or fix to FW has hit TQ. This isn't about making FW high priority, it's about asking if they're ever going to develop it.
Now, this is a valid complaint/request. However, the request that was presented to the CSM was not that one, it was specifically stating that FW should have higher priority. Hence why it got voted down. Plans for FW development/improvements is a fine topic to discuss, as would be specific issues that are not aknowledged by CCP, or specific improvement ideas.
Each proposal has pros and cons, it seems a lot of people look at the pros without looking at the cons. "assigning a higher priority to FW" => decreasing the priority of everything else. (not fine in my book) "giving FW corps free wardecs" => giving a disadvantage to everyone not taking part in FW. (not fine in my book). "fix lag NOW" => other than the tone, a valid request, one that CCP already approved of. (and keep in mind fixing stuff takes time).
If you want to discuss this further, hit me up in game.
|
Ankhesentapemkah
Gallente Aliastra
|
Posted - 2009.06.12 17:00:00 -
[83]
Originally by: Meissa Anunthiel "assigning a higher priority to FW" => decreasing the priority of everything else. (not fine in my book)
Not necessarily.
FW has priority 100. Combat Simulators has priority 25. 0.0 Sov has priority 5. Combat Simulators gets assigned devtime, while minor FW fixes slip under the radar.
Now: CSM convinces CCP to put FW to priority 20. Issues 20-99 are affected, issues 1-19 are unaffected. 0.0 and FW get assigned devtime, with 0.0 still retaining a higher priority than FW. Result: Happy FW and 0.0 players.
Noone is asking to assign priority 1 to FW. |
Dohl Khrensen
Huang Yinglong
|
Posted - 2009.06.12 17:13:00 -
[84]
Originally by: Meissa Anunthiel Plans for FW development/improvements is a fine topic to discuss, as would be specific issues that are not aknowledged by CCP, or specific improvement ideas.
If you think a general issue about encouraging CCP discussion in regards to Faction Warfare is a worthwhile issue, please visit this thread and support it as your CSM colleague Omber Zombie has.
Thank you,
Dohl |
Meissa Anunthiel
|
Posted - 2009.06.12 18:06:00 -
[85]
@ Dohl: I'm most certain that topic will appear in the CSM shortly. And as I said I would, I'll vote it up if the requirements I mentionned above are met and it's not a stupid/unbalanced improvement suggestion ;-). I'm careful about expressing support for proposals ahead of time, because if their nature changes during the discussion into something I can no longer agree with, it's a bit weird. The way I see it, my way of showing support for a proposal would be to champion it myself if nobody else does.
@Ankhe: resources don't magically appear out of nowhere, if you assign more someplace, you have to take them from someplace else. Ergo, if you increase FW priority, you decrease the priority of something else. There's no way around that, no amount of using exemples of dubious relevance and magic numbers will change that. I would have thought even you would understand it.
It's like boosting things. You boost something, you nerf something else in comparison. Same thing with nerfs. You nerf something, you boost other things in comparison. |
Ankhesentapemkah
Gallente Aliastra
|
Posted - 2009.06.12 18:23:00 -
[86]
Originally by: Meissa Anunthiel @Ankhe: resources don't magically appear out of nowhere, if you assign more someplace, you have to take them from someplace else. Ergo, if you increase FW priority, you decrease the priority of something else. There's no way around that, no amount of using exemples of dubious relevance and magic numbers will change that. I would have thought even you would understand it.
It's like boosting things. You boost something, you nerf something else in comparison. Same thing with nerfs. You nerf something, you boost other things in comparison.
I'm not denying that, I'm just saying that nothing important will get affected. 0.0 and whatever still retain the same amount of resources, but things like COMBAT SIMULATORS which everyone hated would have gotten scrapped. Please re-read the example until you understand it. ---
|
Issler Dainze
Minmatar Tadakastu-Obata Corporation The Honda Accord
|
Posted - 2009.06.12 18:38:00 -
[87]
Ank, you are trying raise the rabble claiming that the combat simulator took resource away from other Eve features. CCP made it very clear (over and over) when we were in Iceland that the team that did the combat simultor was new and was not able to work at that time on any of the primary features of Eve. The combat simulator was in effect a way to get that new team up to speed.
The FW zealots need to realize that the request in the last meeting WAS to make FW higher priority. Sorry, things have been broken and needing attention in other areas longer thant FW. So the CSM was not going to tell CCP to put FW in front of things that have needed attention since before FW was introduced.
Ank's bizzare resources from thin air idea about prioritization essentially violates the laws of physics "conservation of dev resources" :-)
So again, "FW, get back in queue, no cutting line!"
Issler
|
Ankhesentapemkah
Gallente Aliastra
|
Posted - 2009.06.12 18:45:00 -
[88]
Originally by: Issler Dainze Sorry, things have been broken and needing attention in other areas longer thant FW. So the CSM was not going to tell CCP to put FW in front of things that have needed attention since before FW was introduced.
Noone is asking to put FW in front of things that need attention more.
FW is currently at priority 100. People are asking for priorty 20, not priority 1. Which is what is meant by giving it a higher priority. Please understand. ---
|
Nyphur
Pillowsoft Total Comfort
|
Posted - 2009.06.12 20:37:00 -
[89]
Originally by: Meissa Anunthiel
Originally by: Nyphur
I'd just like to add to this that there doesn't appear to be a single thing with lower priority in EVE than FW. It's been a year since its release and it has seen absolutely no development whatsoever. Not even the simple tweaks and fixes that should have been implemented in the months following the expansion's launch. There's been a lot of talk, some good ideas and a lot of "We're looking into it" but so far not a single significant change or fix to FW has hit TQ. This isn't about making FW high priority, it's about asking if they're ever going to develop it.
Now, this is a valid complaint/request. However, the request that was presented to the CSM was not that one, it was specifically stating that FW should have higher priority. Hence why it got voted down.
My complaint was specifically that FW has low enough priority that it hasn't been developed at all in an entire year, including a complete lack of the post-release tweaks that are customary for any new expansion content. Of course FW's priority should be raised. The current priority level has let it go a full year without necessary updates and has let it get to the point where the entire FW system is becoming worthless, it's clearly on too low a priority. Nobody's asking for it to be given absolute number 1 priority, we're asking that it be raised to a level such that it actually gets developed before we die of old age. Otherwise we could be having this same argument in another year's time asking why they haven't developed FW in two years.
|
Bunyip
Gallente Center for Advanced Studies
|
Posted - 2009.06.13 01:08:00 -
[90]
Hey guys,
I served on the last term of the CSM, and I feel we did get some attention to FW done. I'll admit that the FW issues tanked in this last meeting, but it was partially due to bad proposals of the issues.
CCP seem to be in the opinion of fixing one major topic per patch while adding some new content, and I think this is the way to go. Scanning was revamped in Apocrypha, and 0.0 sovereignty will be revamped SOON (TM). Mining and corporate management need a fix about as much as FW does, so there is hope for an eventual recreation of the activity.
Please note: I do not participate in FW, but I understand it's importance and how integral it is to the success of Eve. Some things did surprise me about this last meeting, but if you want more people interested in FW, get to know the candidates then use the power of the vote.
"May all your hits be crits." - Knights of the Dinner Table. |
|
Dex Nederland
Caldari Lai Dai Infinity Systems
|
Posted - 2009.06.13 03:28:00 -
[91]
Originally by: Bunyip CCP seem to be in the opinion of fixing one major topic per patch while adding some new content, and I think this is the way to go. Scanning was revamped in Apocrypha, and 0.0 sovereignty will be revamped SOON (TM). Mining and corporate management need a fix about as much as FW does, so there is hope for an eventual recreation of the activity.
Really should go back to some of the first topics regarding FW and the CSM. CCP was getting feedback on FW before it even hit Singularity (the RP community was watching its development closely).
In-Game Browser : http://ldis.caldari-made.net |
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.06.14 08:26:00 -
[92]
Originally by: Raimo
Hmm. 0.0 can have a couple of reinforced nodes that support hundreds of players (or a thousand?) fighting. Can FW have *ONE* such node to itself? All we would need is 5-15 systems that can support 50 players fighting after all... Not asking much is it?
I.e 0.0 can have 1-2 reinforced nodes, can we have 5-15.
From what I get there is a very limited number of reinforced nodes.
Reinforcing them require to dedicate 1 single node to a system during DT. What you are asking is to dedicate 5-15 (so all of those available and even more) of them permanently to FW when it is not even granted they will be sued.
Look the blog about reinforced nodes. If the CEO of a corp/alliance ask for them and then the battle don't happen he will be put on probation and his further request of node reinforcing will not be accepted. It is not something that it is done lightly. Reinforcing a node is a major drain of server resources. Every reinforced node is 10-20 or more system that need to be moved to other nodes. 15 reinforced nodes mean 200-300 systems that need to find space on other, already burdened, nodes.
|
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.06.14 09:00:00 -
[93]
Originally by: David Caldera
Quote: With exclamations of "All 3 FW problems that was mentioned are very serious and must be brought up now" (and similarly demanding language was used in the issues themselves) it does look to me like FW pilots feel their part of the game deserves more attention that others. You might not feel that way, and maybe even the poster didnt intend it that way (in which case he/she should rephrase their request), but to me it reads like someone insisting that their demands are heard now.
You may be right, but that's not the general attitude most Fw players adopt when it comes to the whole issue. (Though I must admit the forum is a cesspool that might give a totally different impression) I apoligise if anything I said so far implied a "want now" attitude to the issue, just so we're clear there. =)
The problem is that FW players stance, as a group, seem to be "We want this fixed now, before any other problem, CCP should know what the problem is, it is impossible they don't know what is the problem and how to fix it. They are not fixing it to spite us."
So yes, when they appear to campaign to get all CCP to work for them they get stonewalled by people with other interests. |
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.06.14 10:27:00 -
[94]
Originally by: Ankhesentapemkah
I'm not denying that, I'm just saying that nothing important will get affected. 0.0 and whatever still retain the same amount of resources, but things like COMBAT SIMULATORS which everyone hated would have gotten scrapped. Please re-read the example until you understand it.
Make that Mining, Industry, smoother UI, ecc., ecc.
Using something that has already been scrapped is simply using a straw target.
|
Gabriel Darkefyre
Minmatar Shadows Of The Federation
|
Posted - 2009.06.14 15:39:00 -
[95]
Edited by: Gabriel Darkefyre on 14/06/2009 15:41:38
Originally by: Venkul Mul Edited by: Venkul Mul on 14/06/2009 10:09:10
Originally by: Raimo
Hmm. 0.0 can have a couple of reinforced nodes that support hundreds of players (or a thousand?) fighting. Can FW have *ONE* such node to itself? All we would need is 5-15 systems that can support 50 players fighting after all... Not asking much is it?
I.e 0.0 can have 1-2 reinforced nodes, can we have 5-15.
From what I get there is a very limited number of reinforced nodes.
Reinforcing them require to dedicate 1 single node to a system during DT. What you are asking is to dedicate 5-15 (so all of those available and even more) of them permanently to FW when it is not even granted they will be sued.
Look the blog about reinforced nodes. If the CEO of a corp/alliance ask for them and then the battle don't happen he will be put on probation and his further request of node reinforcing will not be accepted. It is not something that it is done lightly. Reinforcing a node is a major drain of server resources. Every reinforced node is 10-20 or more system that need to be moved to other nodes. 15 reinforced nodes mean 200-300 systems that need to find space on other, already burdened, nodes.
Think you're not understanding what's being asked for here. It's not "Give us 1 Reinforced Node Per FW System that we think there might be a fight happening in at some point today as we cannot reliably predict exactly where the fight may occur" it's "Can you dedicate Standard Nodes to specifically handle the FW Area's ONLY?"
For example, say a node can handle 20-30 Systems under normal Circumstances. At the moment, you never know whether the node you're on also happens to support the Likes of Dodixie / Motsu / Oursulaert / Rens etc. Instead, we're asking for Dedicated Nodes (Note: These would be Standard Nodes Permanently devoted to a Specific Set of Systems rather than Reinforced Nodes where it's Dedicated to only a Single System) where the 20-30 supported systems are ALL FW Systems with no chance of having to compete with Non-FW systems for Node resources.
So, the same number of systems are supported by each Node as before, it's just the Type of Systems that are different. This would also Mean Non-FW Areas wouldn't have to compete with FW Areas for Node Resources either. ---------------
Image from Crumplecorn's DesuSigs |
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.06.15 08:33:00 -
[96]
Originally by: Gabriel Darkefyre
Think you're not understanding what's being asked for here. It's not "Give us 1 Reinforced Node Per FW System that we think there might be a fight happening in at some point today as we cannot reliably predict exactly where the fight may occur" it's "Can you dedicate Standard Nodes to specifically handle the FW Area's ONLY?"
Point taken.
Originally by: Gabriel Darkefyre
For example, say a node can handle 20-30 Systems under normal Circumstances. At the moment, you never know whether the node you're on also happens to support the Likes of Dodixie / Motsu / Oursulaert / Rens etc. Instead, we're asking for Dedicated Nodes (Note: These would be Standard Nodes Permanently devoted to a Specific Set of Systems rather than Reinforced Nodes where it's Dedicated to only a Single System) where the 20-30 supported systems are ALL FW Systems with no chance of having to compete with Non-FW systems for Node resources.
So, the same number of systems are supported by each Node as before, it's just the Type of Systems that are different. This would also Mean Non-FW Areas wouldn't have to compete with FW Areas for Node Resources either.
I think you misunderstood how nodes work and are allocated. Mots (for what I know) has his node, like Jita. Maybe another couple of heavy load systems have that, so you are not sharing nodes with extremely busy systems.
Node allocation is done on the basis of average usage in the last days and common numbers spikes. Part of FW problem is that for most of the day the number of average users in system is low, with some high spike, so part of your problem could be that you share nodes with average usage system and when you get a spike in presences you get lag. Dedicating some nodes only to FW won't resolve the problem (I think) as those systems will be hit by the spike in the number of concurrent users all at the same time. Your fleets in being, your fleet in combat and your reinforcement will be there all at the same time on a limited number of nodes, so you risk to get all the FW system lagging at the same time. Probably it would work better to get your to share your nodes with seldom used 0.0 systems.
I think CCP has checked that but a doubt I often have reading how lag/desync work for FW wars is that the problem is somewhere in the sec/faction standing hit mechanism. Your fights start with no or reasonable lag but they degenerate very fast. So it seem something that build up during the fight, more than what happen during a "normal" fight.
As the big difference in a FW fight is that the players will be losing standing with the other faction every time they attack a ship in one of the militias and that require one or more extra check than in normal fights.
It would be interesting to try a fleet fight with the same ships/people on the Singularity server while they are in the militia and while they are not in it see if the difference is in that.
That could explain the small periods of grace too, as (from what I recall) there have been small changes in the faction standing hit system during those periods.
|
Gabriel Darkefyre
Minmatar Shadows Of The Federation
|
Posted - 2009.06.15 09:17:00 -
[97]
That'll teach me to post with an incomplete Understanding of how the Node System Works.
I knew Jita had it's own Node permanently assigned to it, wasn't sure about the other major hubs of the game though.
I'm guessing that you're right though. If it were as simple as reconfiguring which systems were handled by each particular Node, this would have been solved Months Ago. It's most likely something conflicting within some ancient piece of code that really shouldn't have any effect on Combat, as you said, the Standings Decreases with the opposing Corporation for shooting enemy Pilots seems to be the most obvious place to look first.
Personally, I'm guessing it'll be something daft like a Misplaced Comma in the Code for some obscure Part of the Game that has nothing to do with FW at all. So, a proverbial Needle in a Haystack to find. |
Louis deGuerre
Gallente Azure Horizon Federate Militia
|
Posted - 2009.06.15 22:44:00 -
[98]
Rather depressing. After all this time and effort by many people we will press CCP for...hull repair drones (/facepalms)
FW has been left to die since its release for all intents and puproses and this is FINE. The FW players would like a bit of LOVE but we can do without.
We don't like the HATE we're getting. Since the intention for fixes was released by CCP (what was it ? six months ago ?) they have actually BROKEN vital FW stuff.
My pet hate => Cloaked plexing : This has been the death blow to the PVE part of FW. At least it put it out of its misery.
I ask the CSM to ask CCP to just give fixing the problems they've caused SINCE they announced they would improve FW a high priority. Forget about the lag and further development of FW. We FW players don't ask for much.
|
Nephilim Xeno
Caldari Pimebeka Mining Corp
|
Posted - 2009.06.15 23:19:00 -
[99]
who needs lagless battles and fixes to broken mechanics when we can have hull rep drones instead !!
Council of Stellar Mismanagement
|
Issler Dainze
Minmatar Tadakastu-Obata Corporation The Honda Accord
|
Posted - 2009.06.16 04:52:00 -
[100]
Hey! Its time for hull tankers to get some love! Seriously voted for it but hull rep drones are not something I think are going to make Eve any better.
Issler |
|
RedSplat
Heretic Army
|
Posted - 2009.06.16 22:58:00 -
[101]
When quoting statistics about the numbers of individuals involved in FW it is far more usefull to consider those whom are actually active- and by this i do NOT simply mean those whom log on and play the game but those that take an active role in FW features; be that fighting the militia directly or even Roleplaying.
FW is in reality one facet of EVE. One of many.
I totally understand that some of you have legitimate interests in FW and raise valid issues it has, but the CSM is not a body solely dedicated to improving Factional Warfare.
Railing at the CSM for not continuous raising an issue acknowledge by CCP previously and documented on the forums since by Devs. accomplishes nothing; aside likely re-inforcing the emerging negative steryotypes of the contributions those involved with FW have made and are trying to make to Game Dev.
Further, raising issues that are not solely connected and pertaining to FW but are things that need to be looked at by CCP in the wider game and failing to acknowledge, realize and or address this is miring your own cause somewhat. The recent CSM minutes make for interesting reading in this regard.
Originally by: CCP Mitnal
I don't sleep. I am always here. Watching. Waiting.
Originally by: CCP Mitnal it does get progressively longer.
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page] |