EVE Search - CSM3 meeting #3, Sunday June 21st 17:00

All Channels

Jita Park Speakers Corner

CSM3 meeting #3, Sunday June 21st 17:00

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Dierdra Vaal	Posted - 2009.06.07 20:28:00 - [1] CSM3 meeting #3, Sunday June 21st 17:00 The second issues meeting of CSM3 on June 21st at 17:00. Issue submission deadline will be June 20th 17:00 Items on the agenda: 1: 2: 3: Director of Education :: EVE University
David Caldera Gallente Strix Armaments and Defence	Posted - 2009.06.08 09:11:00 - [2] I don't mean to rush the CSM, but without a report on the meeting yesterday, you might get people asking for input on the same issue twice, or not keeping in mind what has already been said about them. In order to keep things clear it might be a good idea to open meeting threads after the last one has a report, and referring to that report in the new thread itself. Just a friendly suggestion to keep things clear for all of you. =)
mazzilliu	Posted - 2009.06.08 14:12:00 - [3] bringing these up for next meeting since i plan on showing up x] 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 and since im pretty sure everything that needed to be said has already been said so far on this issue... CCP releasing the client for player modification wiki MAZZILLIU 2009. CHANGE I CAN IMPOSE ON YOU.
Vuk Lau	Posted - 2009.06.08 17:34:00 - [4] Originally by: David Caldera I don't mean to rush the CSM, but without a report on the meeting yesterday, you might get people asking for input on the same issue twice, or not keeping in mind what has already been said about them. In order to keep things clear it might be a good idea to open meeting threads after the last one has a report, and referring to that report in the new thread itself. Just a friendly suggestion to keep things clear for all of you. =) People are asking about same issues two, three, four times even if issue was forwarded to CCP :D I am sure everyone can wait 24-48 hours as its usualy need for secretaries to post meeting logs and minutes.
David Caldera Gallente Strix Armaments and Defence	Posted - 2009.06.08 20:29:00 - [5] Originally by: Vuk Lau Originally by: David Caldera I don't mean to rush the CSM, but without a report on the meeting yesterday, you might get people asking for input on the same issue twice, or not keeping in mind what has already been said about them. In order to keep things clear it might be a good idea to open meeting threads after the last one has a report, and referring to that report in the new thread itself. Just a friendly suggestion to keep things clear for all of you. =) People are asking about same issues two, three, four times even if issue was forwarded to CCP :D I am sure everyone can wait 24-48 hours as its usualy need for secretaries to post meeting logs and minutes. As I said, merely a suggestion. =) Keep up the good work guys.
Omber Zombie	Posted - 2009.06.09 02:48:00 - [6] please add: Share dividends payout value
Dierdra Vaal	Posted - 2009.06.11 08:28:00 - [7] added my 2 issues for this meeting :) Director of Education :: EVE University
Meissa Anunthiel	Posted - 2009.06.14 10:08:00 - [8] Plese add the following issues: http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Manufacturing_and_Invention_at_POSes thread: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1097709 http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Show_Implants_on_POD_killmails thread: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1097714 http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Remove_pause_for_JC_and_implants thread: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1097247 http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/POS_labs_and_assemblies_use_by_corp_and_alliance thread: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1097712
RedSplat Heretic Army	Posted - 2009.06.16 23:03:00 - [9] Nice spread of issues there, its the little things sometimes that make the most difference. Has anyone voiced interest in picking up the proposal to look at having sentry guns not engage drones or to have them treat drones as a low priority target over player ships?
Dierdra Vaal	Posted - 2009.06.17 09:32:00 - [10] Originally by: RedSplat Has anyone voiced interest in picking up the proposal to look at having sentry guns not engage drones or to have them treat drones as a low priority target over player ships? this was done in our 2nd meeting by... Larkonis I think
RedSplat Heretic Army	Posted - 2009.06.17 12:08:00 - [11] Originally by: Dierdra Vaal this was done in our 2nd meeting by... Larkonis I think My apologies dont know how i missed that
Vuk Lau	Posted - 2009.06.18 09:45:00 - [12] Armagedon day I will wikify the issue tonight.
WheatGrass Gallente Silent but Friendly	Posted - 2009.06.18 13:01:00 - [13] If possible, please gather information from CCP regarding the CSM Open Issue "Make Certain Factions More Valid for Mission Running - Part 2". The recent shuffle of level four agents caused a bit of a stir. I'm interested in knowing what future plans CCP may have regarding this. With additional epic story line missions supposedly on the way, being able to improve faction standings 'across the board' would likely be appreciated by many. I'm getting ready to wrap up my InterBus mission running experiment -having just exceeded 325K LP with no chance of improved faction standings and no LP store. I'm wondering why such agents are even in the game. Thank you and have a lot of fun.
mazzilliu	Posted - 2009.06.19 02:43:00 - [14] Originally by: Dierdra Vaal 1: add a "can set standings" role for corps (maz) 6: Corp interface overhaul (DV) i think these two issues need merging. you can either eliminate #1 from the list and put it within #6 as a mention of a specific need, or during the meeting discuss #1 within the context of #6. whatever is least repetitive. i think the important thing though is to put an urgent emphasis on cases where faulty corp role design forces CEOs to grant more permission then necessary. that is the real motivation behind issue #1 i put forward, not user friendliness.
Dierdra Vaal	Posted - 2009.06.19 12:42:00 - [15] Originally by: mazzilliu Originally by: Dierdra Vaal 1: add a "can set standings" role for corps (maz) 6: Corp interface overhaul (DV) i think these two issues need merging. you can either eliminate #1 from the list and put it within #6 as a mention of a specific need, or during the meeting discuss #1 within the context of #6. whatever is least repetitive. i think the important thing though is to put an urgent emphasis on cases where faulty corp role design forces CEOs to grant more permission then necessary. that is the real motivation behind issue #1 i put forward, not user friendliness. good point. I basically merged the issues into item 6, I removed your "can set standings" and moved your client overhaul issue to position #1. also added vuk's issue to the agenda.
Vuk Lau	Posted - 2009.06.19 20:30:00 - [16] Added Armaggedon day 2.0 on Wiki
Erik Finnegan	Posted - 2009.06.19 23:14:00 - [17] Please add * What's in the works for FW? * Give the caldari medal to pilots enrolled in FW on date of capture! I would kindly ask permission to discuss the second topic, which is not yet seven days old. But the urgency of the matter requires immediate action IMHO. All facts are on the table. This is not something where ideas need to be gathered.
WheatGrass Gallente Silent but Friendly	Posted - 2009.06.20 03:27:00 - [18] Edited by: WheatGrass on 20/06/2009 03:34:41 Originally by: Erik Finnegan "Please add...." Pardon me, Mr. Finnegan, Sir, for revealing my ignorance but... It seems to me that you might wish to vote (onto the agenda) the issue you already have on the CSM Open Issues page of the CSM Wiki. -Back to my cave...
Omber Zombie	Posted - 2009.06.20 03:34:00 - [19] Originally by: Erik Finnegan * Give the caldari medal to pilots enrolled in FW on date of capture! I would kindly ask permission to discuss the second topic, which is not yet seven days old. But the urgency of the matter requires immediate action IMHO. All facts are on the table. This is not something where ideas need to be gathered. I'm not sure what the rush is to get this on the agenda for this week considering the earliest it would be discussed with CCP is in September.. ---------------------- My Blog
Dierdra Vaal	Posted - 2009.06.20 11:37:00 - [20] I agree with OZ. Since there's no difference between putting it on agenda #3 and agenda #4, I see no reason to overrule the CSM rules. Director of Education :: EVE University
Erik Finnegan	Posted - 2009.06.20 12:27:00 - [21] True. OZ, Dierdra, I am correcting my request : I would like to inform the CSM that I will send that issue to CCP personally. It is IMHO nothing which needs a slot in the Iceland meeting in a few months, neither should a correction wait till then. Instead, CCP should act on short notice, or not.
mazzilliu	Posted - 2009.06.21 14:24:00 - [22] Edited by: mazzilliu on 21/06/2009 14:24:40 created wiki page for macro haulers issue. i know i just did it 3 hours before a meeting the content of the page is just copy pasted, and there is nothing new added. EDIT: i guess you would want the link to it http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Macro_hauler_solution MAZZILLIU 2009. CHANGE I CAN IMPOSE ON YOU.
Vuk Lau	Posted - 2009.06.23 07:57:00 - [23] Was good meeting. Cheers
Dr BattleSmith PAX Interstellar Services	Posted - 2009.06.24 02:34:00 - [24] Edited by: Dr BattleSmith on 24/06/2009 02:38:02 Minutes are where? hmmm this is odd, apparently you've met... and discussed things.... However there is zero info for us.....
Omber Zombie	Posted - 2009.06.24 04:16:00 - [25] Originally by: Dr BattleSmith Edited by: Dr BattleSmith on 24/06/2009 02:38:02 Minutes are where? hmmm this is odd, apparently you've met... and discussed things.... However there is zero info for us..... it does take time to summarise and format a 3 hour meeting chatlog...
Larkonis TrassIer Neo Spartans Laconian Syndicate	Posted - 2009.06.24 09:56:00 - [26] Edited by: Larkonis TrassIer on 24/06/2009 09:56:33 Originally by: Omber Zombie Originally by: Dr BattleSmith Edited by: Dr BattleSmith on 24/06/2009 02:38:02 Minutes are where? hmmm this is odd, apparently you've met... and discussed things.... However there is zero info for us..... it does take time to summarise and format a 3 hour meeting chatlog... Quick OZ, take this, you'll find it more effective than logic. Fighting for justice
Meissa Anunthiel	Posted - 2009.06.25 13:16:00 - [27] Download: PDF \| raw log - txt Meeting Minutes: 2009/06/21 Present Dierdra Vaal, Vuk Lau, Avalloc, Erik Finnegan, Larkonis Trassler, Mazzilliu, Meissa Anunthiel, Omber Zombie, Zastrow J, Issler Dainze, Shatana Fulfairas Discussion Omber Zombie got a reply from CCP Xhagen mentionning that nothing being discussed in the CSM channel was to be discussed outside of the channel while the meeting was in progress, until the minutes were published. Dierdra mentionned that the CSM 3 members still don't have their email addresses and that he would continue to harass CCP Diagoras in a more pressing tone than he had before. Larkonis asked if members with forum bans (such as himself) could post in the CSM section of the forums. Omber Zombie replied that bans are forum wide, and that Darius JOHNSON had the same problem. *Client Modification (Mazzilliu)* In raw text from: 2009.06.21 17:09:29 Meissa Anunthiel said that while the proposal would decrease the gap between the people following the EULA and those who do not, it was in the direction of allowing macros more easily and wondered if that was something we need. Mazzilliu replied that the goal of the proposal isn't to allow people to rat AFK, but in some cases it does decrease the gap without adverse effect. She emphasized that the proposal was a convenience issue. Omber Zombie said that modding in the past has lead to stripping all artwork to reduce lag, among other things, and also that it creates an arms race where everyone has to mod the client to compete. Mazzilliu replied that people should be able to play the game the way they like, that competition doesn't rely on the UI as much in EVE as in other games, that the important part was more ship fits and other such decisions. She also stated that people might able to deal with client lag better than the devs. Larkonis said it removes lots of player skills from the games (broadcasts, autolock, autoguns, autorep), leading to a situation where the groups with the best programmers win. He agrees the UI is pretty **** but it's a level playing field. Mazzilliu pointed out that the skill in gang fight involves not clicking the wrong thing in the godawful interface. She also replied that people will want to make a name for themselves and release the best and newest UI and pointed to Evemon, EFT and others as examples of released tools (Dierdra pointed to Bacon as another exemple), and that there aren't useful eve tools only available to big alliances. Larkonis replied that Evemon/EFT and other such tools don't have effects on immediate gameplay. Mazzilliu continued, stating that software tends to spread if it is useful. Erik agreed with Oz and Meissa in thinking it would open Pandora's box. He also pointed out that creating such plugin API without macro or security issues would take a tremendous amount of work that would be best used in a UI overhaul the regular way, as well as possibly extend the out-of-game HTTP API. Mazzilliu thinks we would need some faith that CCP does not screw it up horribly, but no matter how CCP would overhaul the UI, nobody would be happy with everything. Unlike people creating their own. She further stated that macro opportunities are here already. She noted that security can be increased by determining what the scripting allows or not.
Meissa Anunthiel	Posted - 2009.06.25 13:17:00 - [28] essed his concern that people would be depending on mods that patches would break, that creators would need to fix, but CCP would be the ones getting the grief. He however agreed the UI needs a revamp. Mazz replied that well maintained mods take a short time to get updated and since Eve relies much less on reaction time [than WoW], people would still be able to function by using the old UI. Meissa pointed out that some elements are hidden from view because of design decisions. He also described diverse exemples of how any functionality the API would have could be abused (reading the overview = autotargetting/scramming, reading the market = auto -0.01, etc.) thereby leading to an unabusable API being actually deprived of any function. He also pointed that while eve is currently macroable, it's a bannable offense, making it legal is in his opinion a bad idea. Mazzilliu replied that costumizeable UI elements need to be looked at for balance, also stating that macros are poorly enforced. She expressed her opinion that auto manufacture/invention would be awesome. Omber asked how mazz proposes CCP deal with people using client mods to steal data (ingame channel passwords, IGB data, etc.). He also asked if this proposal was Mazz' or Kugutsmen. Mazz replied that she's no meat puppet. She pointed to a few suggested solutions to the abuse problem (mandatory open source of the mods, etc. [see proposal]) Dierdra agreed that the open sourcing requirement is needed to make the mods "clean" in terms of security. Erik expressed his undecision on the matter, agreeing that both sides have a point. Agreeing with Dierdra that people who want to macro will macro and with Meissa's doubts about hidden information. Mazz replied that CCP will not allow something hidden by design to be revealed in a customized UI. Dierdra said that hidden information could be argued to be bad design decisions that would be overthrown with mods. Mazzilliu said her ultimate goal is that CCP adopt really good player mods as the default or built-in alternative. Voting followed with 1 minute suspense moment as we waited for Zastrow and Avalloc to cast their votes... Leading the approval of the motion(5 for, 4 against: Larkonis, Omber Zombie, Meissa, Vuk Lau) *Share dividends payout value (Omber Zombie).* In raw text from: 2009.06.21 17:49:45 Omber Zombie introduced the issue, stating it was basically changing a value so that dividends can be paid out with one button click instead of 50 Mazzilliu asked if there was any downside to the proposal, Omber replied negatively. Dierdra said that we should request for a code change to allow larger values instead of requesting 64 bit integers, saying we could use a "long" [Note from the secretary: "long" is programming datatype, depending on the language it's either 32 or 64 bit], his point being that we should request a solution, not an implementation. Erik pointed to a previous CSM suggestion related to dividends that we might want to link. Omber Zombie replied that it was already raised, passed and that CCP already agreed but "never did anything". Erik said that past CSM was asked to provide details on a "good" stock exchange Omber Zombie replied that it was an entirely separate kettle of fish, that this proposal is about payout of dividends. Shatana mentionned a dev saying a couple of years ago that this was "too hard" a code change and aren't certain as that code had lots of implication. Larkonis replied that it was about dividends, not some fancy pants fleet street stock exchange. Shatana said that they were asking the same question, but the 64bit would cascade down crippling the client with double the workload.
Meissa Anunthiel	Posted - 2009.06.25 13:18:00 - [29] Omber Zombie replied that this was noted in the proposal. Motion passed unanimously. *Zoom Buttons (Dierdra Vaal)* In raw text from: 2009.06.21 17:59:53 Mazzziliu and Dierdra went off-topic with UI customization, which Omber Zombie and Larkonis pointed out. Motion passed unanimously. Manufacturing and Invention at POSes In raw text from: 2009.06.21 18:07:30 Meissa introduced the issue. Larkonis expressed his current understanding of the current BP/lab/station mechanics. Meissa said it was correct. [Anyone not familiar with the current mechanics may find more information about the questions asked and answered in the raw minutes]. Larkonis asked if the proposal was going to change the need for resources to be located in the POS labs/arrays. Meissa answered that the resources would still be at the POS. Omber Zombie helped clarify the proposal in simpler terms: "basically instead of having to remember which hanger you put the bp/mats in, it just looks for them all and does what it needs to" Larkonis asked if it was about improving the operation of labs remotely, Meissa agreed that it was. Larkonis asked if there would be any change to anyone coming accross labs on offline POSes, blowing them up, and then scooping the juicey loots like a nine year old smashing a pinata at a birthday party. Meissa replied that it could, on the contrary, make labs/arrays more present in 0.0/lowsec at best and keep the status quo at worse. Avalloc said that having all resources be pullable from a Corporate Hangar Array at a POS makes sense. Meissa agreed that this was indeed what the proposal was asking for. Avalloc said that this proposal was trying to put too much together, especially when it came to the BPC stacking issue. Meissa agreed, and removed the BPC stacking from the wikified issue, leaving the 2 main issues that had been discussed so far. Erik expressed his confusion at the issue and asked for clarification as to wether the researcher would still need to be at the POS. Meissa answered that the proposal would make researcher be able start their jobs remotely. Meissa asked if, considering some of the confusion, each half of the issue could be voted on independantly. Voting followed on the first part (make blueprints in labs/assemblies the user has access to visible from afar, according to the Scientific Networking skill, at least optionally) and passed unanimously. Meissa explained the second part again, which was voted on (a lab/array takes items from a corporate hangar array anchored at a POS if the lab/array lacks some items), which passed unanimously.
Meissa Anunthiel	Posted - 2009.06.25 13:20:00 - [30] *Armageddon Day (Vuk)* In raw text from: 2009.06.21 18:34:14 Larkonis said it wasn't too much to ask CCP to throw one of those everytime there's a major patch, even though it's going to be laggy on SiSi [Singularity, the test server]. Omber Zombie said he was happy for this to take place on SiSi, but not on TQ [Tranquility, the main Eve cluster]. Dierdra thought it a good idea on SiSi, but not on TQ. Vuk Lau agreed that if it's doable on SiSi, then it's better on SiSi. Larkonis pointed that the last Armageddon Day was on SiSi and as such it should stay that way. Vuk replied that it was not so stable, and that the player base as grown. Larkonis asked to be made semi-regular, like monthly. Vuk answered that if it's too frequent, it looses its epicness. Voting followed, motion passed unanimously. What is in the works for FW In raw text from: 2009.06.21 18:41:43 Erik Introduced the issue. Dierdra saw no reason not to request more information, Vuk agreed. Voting followed. Motion passed (6 for, the last 3 voters against: Mazzilliu, Meissa and Larkonis) solution to macro haulers (Maz) In raw text from: 2009.06.21 18:47:27 Erik expressed his appreciation for the fine solution. Larkonis thought the proposal pretty cool, as it would add some tangible reward to popping haulers. Omber Zombie expressed his concern that without increasing the reward, it would skew the risk vs reward out of proportion (towards risk). Mazz answered that few humans run hauler missions, but that while reward might need to be looked at this proposal aims at fixing macro mission runners. Also pointing that hauling being boring rather than lack of rewards was the deterrent to running them, not the low rewards. Larkonis said the cargo requirement of L4 courriers are within capabilities of blockade runners, thereby removing risk for the average player. Mazzilliu said it's not impossible to kill blockade runners, just very hard, and it increases the risk of seeing it blown up. Larkonis agreed that a good blockade runner pilot is nigh uncatchable, but mission farmers tend to linger on gates. Mazzilliu replied that they could just jump a carrier on top of the station and be more invincible, but as stupid carrier pilots get killed all the time, the risk will always be there. Larkonis agreed this would make them sharpen up and make tastier preys. Mazzilliu agreed that any area infested with farmers will attract pirates and decrease the macro population. Omber Zombie pointed out that the proposal ignores the fact that humans actually do these missions. Mazzilliu agreed, but stated they aren't many and are alert, thereby evading gatecamps. She agreed there will need to be a rebalancing to make it worth it however. This proposal is aimed at solving the farmer problem without ruining for people who know how to complete the missions. Larkonis said that just like L4 kill missions have a higher requirement (well-fitted BS), it's not unreasonable to expect courrier L4s to have higher requirements. Meissa said that people run those missions (him for one), and that a 1 mil collateral would be a lot for newbies, therefore requesting that the higher collateral be limited to L4 missions. Dierdra agreed. Mazzilliu pointed that a specific provision was put in to preserve low level highsec missions. Dierdra thought it an interesting idea, at least worth putting forward as CCP is likely to like a player-policing solution.

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.