| Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
ElvenLord
   |
Posted - 2009.12.20 21:54:00 -
[1]
The second issues meeting of CSM4, Sunday January 3rd at 14:00 eve time
Issue submission deadline will be Friday January 1st 14:00 eve time (CSM Delegates must reply to this thread listing the ISSUE name and appropriate links to Assembly Hall thread and CSM wiki)
Agenda:
1. Alliance action confirmation windows
2. Identify and remove price ceilings
3. Mining crystals change color of mining laser beam
4. Ingame Events Menu
5. Killmails fix
6. Standings list import/export
7. Hybrid guns balance
8. Forum Censorship
9. Suicide Ganking Part 3
10. Boost Warfare Links and Revisit Information Warfare
11. Battle Recorder wiki
12. Tracking for Fighters lost in combat
13.
14.
15.
16.
...
NOTE: This agenda is not final and is subject to change
***
All CSM delegates and Alternates are invited to attend (CCP staff too).
|
Song Li
|
Posted - 2009.12.20 21:54:00 -
[2]
<held in place for future use>
|
Z0D
|
Posted - 2009.12.20 21:56:00 -
[3]
* Reserved *
Click below for my manifesto.
|
TeaDaze
|
Posted - 2009.12.21 01:46:00 -
[4]
<new topics go here>
|
Sokratesz
|
Posted - 2009.12.21 10:59:00 -
[5]
sup
When will TQ hit the 100K PCU mark? Place a bet! |
Jenny Wimbishi
|
Posted - 2009.12.21 13:28:00 -
[6]
Please examine the following game grind issues and put them forward for change.
Sorting Corporate Deliveries (as personal assets can be sorted by range). Also, fix the deliveries/assets columns to actually function properly, as Stoned pointed out.
Allow us to get rid of the market over/under percentage warning popup. If we can get rid of the criminal action popup, why must we suffer this thing with no recourse?
Repair the forgotten feature that is the TRUE COSMOS. Make COSMOS goods worth the nightmare effort of actually producing.
Thank you,
|
Dante Edmundo
|
Posted - 2009.12.21 19:55:00 -
[7]
I would suggest issue 8 "Forum Censorship" be broadened to CCP communication. Do I have to put this in a proposal? Not sure what the formality here is.
Citing the Nozh Mothership Dev blog that received a large amount of censorship, I feel the censorship was a symptom of the problem but not the problem itself. The real issue was CCP communication which I will number:
1. Innacurate statements made in the original dev blog post - i.e. the use of target painters in cap ship engagements.
2. Poor follow-up to a player base that was obviously concerned by the misstatements and other changes (or rather non-changes) to Motherships
3. Mismanagement of player expectations with Mothership testing and development. Players who had worked with CCP on the test server and former developer Abernathy seeing sudden changes in Mothership development without any clear explanative communication - for example, the sudden change to allow MOther ships to dock. Then 2 weeks before Dominion release with player expectations high, pulling the plug on Mothership development while going ahead with other cap ship changes - leading to what many players believe to create a gross imbalance to Mothership pilots.
4. Heavy censorship seemed to be the most significant response to players snowballing anger - toward negative changes, expectations being misled, and incorrect statements being made on dev blog.
I will go ahead and post this as a Proposal if required.
Dante
|
ElvenLord
|
Posted - 2009.12.21 22:26:00 -
[8]
Edited by: ElvenLord on 21/12/2009 22:27:58
 Originally by: Dante Edmundo
I would suggest issue 8 "Forum Censorship" be broadened to CCP communication. Do I have to put this in a proposal? Not sure what the formality here is.
Citing the Nozh Mothership Dev blog that received a large amount of censorship, I feel the censorship was a symptom of the problem but not the problem itself. The real issue was CCP communication which I will number:
1. Innacurate statements made in the original dev blog post - i.e. the use of target painters in cap ship engagements.
2. Poor follow-up to a player base that was obviously concerned by the misstatements and other changes (or rather non-changes) to Motherships
3. Mismanagement of player expectations with Mothership testing and development. Players who had worked with CCP on the test server and former developer Abernathy seeing sudden changes in Mothership development without any clear explanative communication - for example, the sudden change to allow MOther ships to dock. Then 2 weeks before Dominion release with player expectations high, pulling the plug on Mothership development while going ahead with other cap ship changes - leading to what many players believe to create a gross imbalance to Mothership pilots.
4. Heavy censorship seemed to be the most significant response to players snowballing anger - toward negative changes, expectations being misled, and incorrect statements being made on dev blog.
I will go ahead and post this as a Proposal if required.
Dante
Assembly Hall is your best friend. Pls make a proposal there so we can process it 
|
Awesome Possum
Imperium Signal Corps
|
Posted - 2009.12.22 01:58:00 -
[9]
*cough* Drones *cough
fake edit: and since I saw how the sentry drones vote went yesterday, you could just add the above to the whole "complete drone review" as opposed to voting on it at the next meeting.
...but i'd rather this be discussed in particular ;)
♥
Wreck Disposal Services |
Avernus
Gallente
Imperium Technologies
|
Posted - 2009.12.23 01:04:00 -
[10]
Recent idea that is gaining fairly quick support, along with considerable discussion. Fairly heavy stuff, could be a squeeze to fit it in, but worth a look.
|
|
|
Alpha195
|
Posted - 2009.12.23 15:23:00 -
[11]
Have you guys discussed overhauling destroyers yet ? and if not, please do.
|
TeaDaze
|
Posted - 2009.12.23 17:57:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Alpha195
Have you guys discussed overhauling destroyers yet ? and if not, please do.
Everything discussed so far can be found in the minutes.
Firstly I have to admit I love the destroyer class but it is clear the thrasher is the best all round, the Catalyst is great once in range, the cormie's main claim to fame is being able to tickle stuff at 110km and the coercer is a nightmare to fit.
I have looked at some of the destroyer change threads. The last proposal I saw needs a rethink IMO.
Trying to balance optimal and falloff bonuses between class and specific ship coupled with the flexibility offered by destroyers won't work. It would in some ways make more sense to split the ships and have close range and snipe dessy variants - however I dislike that idea for a number of reasons.
I think it would be more interesting if they could have a special class bonus such that rails, arties and beams get optimal range while blasters, autocannon and pulse get falloff instead.
Then the question is what to do with the current bonuses on the cormie and catalyst, I'm sure swapping their 10% per level optimal/falloff for damage would be popular though 5% on the catalyst is too much.
If that case the coercer becomes the only one without a damage bonus but without the cap reduction it will suffer in a long fight (some people have trouble keeping a dessy alive longer than a couple of seconds so I guess it won't matter  ). As it can fit 3 damage mods it would also be OP with 5% per level damage bonus so that would need to be balanced carefully.
Onto the 25% rate of fire reduction. Even with this penalty it is possible for a thrasher with autocannons (two gyros) to get around 400dps (rigged but without implants). Without the rate of fire penalty you would be in the 530ish dps range!
Lets compare them all with 2 damage mods, no implants, no rigs, no overloading and the best close range guns.
Autocannon Thrasher: 330 dps
Blaster Catalyst: 350 dps
Blaster cormie (lolwut): 250dps (only one damage mod thanks to single lowslot)
Pulse Coercer: 300dps (330 with 3 heatsinks)
You can see the cormie is lacking but that if the Catalyst got a damage bonus it would be pretty overpowered.
Going to bigger guns, the thrasher is unmatched on alpha, but due to long cycle times on arties compared to the others the DPS is still pretty even, other than the cormie. The catalyst is very hard to fit even with AWU 5 which leads on to...
Powergrid, I agree they should be able to fit a full rack of arties/beams/rails without fitting mods, so that needs looking at. It is even more important now that small rigs are so cheap because the drawback on gun rigs is higher PG use 
Feel free to pull my post apart now
|
Alpha195
|
Posted - 2009.12.23 20:56:00 -
[13]
Can I have my cormie with missiles ? and bothe the cormie and the catalyst need some extra PG. Also, all of the destroyers need an extra mid/low slot, which ever they have the fewest of now.
|
I SoStoned
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.12.24 04:16:00 -
[14]
Edited by: I SoStoned on 24/12/2009 04:20:26
Originally by: Alpha195
Can I have my cormie with missiles ? and bothe the cormie and the catalyst need some extra PG. Also, all of the destroyers need an extra mid/low slot, which ever they have the fewest of now.
Yeah, the hull progression path for the Cormy is just not right.
If you follow how races progress from frigate to BS it should be a logical progression.
Rifter - Thrasher - Stabber - Hurricane - Typhoon Since the minmatar focus more heavily on projectiles the progression is pretty simple.
Punisher - Coercer - Omen - Harbinger - Armageddon Like the matari the Amarr have a singular weapon focus, but the Khanid ships break this when it comes to T2. The punisher hull has 2 variants so the beam's don't throw off the hull progression. Until you get to the Heretic, which goes from a beam based hull to a sadly anemic rocket based hull. The Heretic should be beams, keeping with it's T1 hull.
Merlin - Cormorant - Moa - Ferox - Rokh Again, a break when you advance to the T2 hulls, but with two variants the Merlin sets up a T2 hull progression for missiles. Unfortunately the Cormorant goes from hybrids to, anemic again, missiles. Either make the Cormorant a missile hull or introduce a second hull, the Swan, that uses rockets/light missiles and make the Flycatcher a T2 version of that. Or give the Flycatcher hybrids.
Incursus - Catalyst - Thorax - Brutix - Megathron Unfortunately the Eris gets a split weapon system that can't make up it's mind one way or the other. It should be a pure hybrid platform, or a missile platform with drones (75 m/3 drone bay, 25 bandwidth, +5 bandwidth/level). Since it's DPS would be laughable with rockets the addition drones (no damage bonus) would bring it into parity with the Sabre somewhat. Lacking a damage bonus on drones it would not eclipse the Ishkur.
Another idea is an addition to the certificate system that gives a hull progression tree allowing new pilots to focus along a specific line if they want to specialize in certain hull types.
|
TeaDaze
|
Posted - 2009.12.24 11:07:00 -
[15]
To make a missile based cormie would mean either a split weapon bonus (ask any minmatar pilot how bad these are) or lose the optimal bonus on rails thus making it unable to be a long range sniper. Making a new hull is out of the question unless you want to wait years
Also remember the role of these ships is anti frigate hence the tracking bonuses. Missiles don't have instant DPS and even with a range/speed bonus will have issues killing ceptors that thrashers can instapop.
We can discuss it is you really want, make a proposal.
|
Seth Ruin
Minmatar
Ominous Corp
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2009.12.25 01:26:00 -
[16]
Originally by: ElvenLord
The second issues meeting of CSM4, Sunday January 3rd at 14:00 eve time
Thanks for the list, EL, but could you please add links to the appropriate discussions? Some of these I'm not quite familiar with and would like to read about. 
|
Miss Xerox
|
Posted - 2009.12.25 21:40:00 -
[17]
Originally by: TeaDaze
To make a missile based cormie would mean either a split weapon bonus (ask any minmatar pilot how bad these are) or lose the optimal bonus on rails thus making it unable to be a long range sniper. Making a new hull is out of the question unless you want to wait years
Also remember the role of these ships is anti frigate hence the tracking bonuses. Missiles don't have instant DPS and even with a range/speed bonus will have issues killing ceptors that thrashers can instapop.
We can discuss it is you really want, make a proposal.
Here's the proposal, then:
Make Interdictors true reflections of their T1 Hulls to maintain the consistency that pretty much all other ships follow.
Heretic = Lasers
Flycatcher = Hybrids
Eris = Single weapon platform (Hybrids), or drone platform.
Destroyers were not well thought out when they were released, leaving 1 very capable one (still a paper tiger, but capable) and three sub par. They need a lot more help than just this minor change, to be sure.
|
Awesome Possum
Imperium Signal Corps
|
Posted - 2009.12.27 02:33:00 -
[18]
just give all dessies a rof penalty, tracking and damage bonus, and call it quits. Then people can move back to whining about lasers v hybrids v projectiles.
Oh and give the coercer an extra mid ffs.
♥
Wreck Disposal Services |
Midori Tsu
|
Posted - 2009.12.27 11:46:00 -
[19]
I agree that the coercer needs a boost, an extra mid and more power grid will help it a long way.
|
Galakktis
|
Posted - 2009.12.27 13:20:00 -
[20]
Dear M-CSM's,
I'd like to attract your attention on the issue of factional warfare. Missions and PvP.
As in life: Great risk must be rewarded by great return + Concrete proposition for a solution
Let me get into details:
1.A. The Risk.
My currently agent requires me in a level 1 mission in the middle of ennemy territory (Stacmon: like 16 jumps total and 8 jumps in enemy territory, 8 in lowsec enemy territory, 5 jumps in 0.8 - 0.9 solars).
This is a level 1 mission - T1 Frigate or Destroyer. Tech 1 missions should be doable SOLO. Doing this assignment SOLO is (at first view) a suicide mission, not because of the mission itself, but because of the "ship chase" between the rookie FW soldier, the heavy NPC militia/police in the 0.7 - 1.0 solars.
If you jump through the acceleration gate (if there is one, luckily), you should be *a little bit* safer.
Conclusion: for level 1 missions, which are *rookie missions* this level of difficulty level is insane.
1.B. The Reward
Whot ??? No Bounties ???
C'mon ! I shot down ennemy armymen. I traveled 16 jumps and dodged the poooolice like the Dukes of Hazzard. T2 frigates are not allowed for a mission in the middle of ennemy territory - Why ? ??? I participated in the "Big Story" for my homeland. I certainly risked outnumbered PvP at *any* stage of my touristic trip (I never did PvP, that's why I joined the army - to be able to participate in fleets and learn on-the-job).
I *consider* (...) politely but strictly declining the mission. By the way, declining a mission in FW is absurd because a soldier does not refuse direct orders. The army should in the other hand do everything to help the soldier succeed in the execution of his marching/mission orders.
Ideas for solving the problem.
Proposition for implementation: look at how they do it in real life, once in your life, CCP. Soldiers risk their skin every day, it's true. But they are paid for their duty. They don't have to pay for their weapons (I never saw a pilot buying his own airplane). If they are in deep ****, they should be able to call the base for extraction.
1. The bounty values should be *very* high, even for drone shootings and frigates. LP bonuses must be given for every ennemy armymen KIA.
2. Factional warfare missions should be "linked" under the form of "Tour of Duties", similar to epic arc missions, but only 5-8 missions long.
3. The ships must be "lended" to the pilot, the time of the assignment, ready to fly (and die), fully fitted with *faction* modules. Soldiers use the weaponry they are assigned to, not a ragtag army of ships arbitrarily fitted.
Did you see an "Armored Brigade Pvt" buy a tank in a shop and say "and I'll take a box of depleted uranium shells, and two packs of smokes", IRL ?
4. The soldier in a tour of duty should have access to unlimited jumpclones in the militia bases (to be used during during the mission itself, details to be worked out, but shouldn't be a problem), and have his standing at 8 as long as he is enrolled. The idea of "We don't like you very much, but please help us" is stupid". The "Boys" must be appreciated by their army.
5. The Militia channel is dangerous because of the presence of spies. Solution: Only characters of a race may join his own army (sorry guys), BUT anyone should be able to join (even outlaws). Outlaws may "rebuy a life" by joining the "Legion", as the french do. Alts on the same account should not be able to join another milicia.
To be continued in part 2.
|
|
|
Galakktis
|
Posted - 2009.12.27 13:26:00 -
[21]
(part 2 about the mail concerninig FW)
6. Last idea: In missions deep into ennemy territory (more than 3 jumps), the player should be assigned into an NPC fleet, as fleet commander.
Option a: For the NPC fleet/squadron: normal AI for lvls 1 - 3, and sleeper AI for levels 4 & 5.
Option b: Give orders to the fleet/squad like orders for drones, but more tactical ("Regroup", "Defend Me", assign primary targets, "Stay in Position", "Patrol and broadcast when ennemy spotted", etc...). Man, that would be ossom ! A *real* pvp school, and a *real* fleet commanding school. CCP can create a skill "Command fleet", and create two certificates: "fleet commanding" (based on skills) and "Militia Fleet Command" based on a number of PvP-type missions succeeded (maybe one PvP-type mission at the end of each tour of duty).
7. Very last idea: a soldier should be able to take a "permission period" (I think it's balled "rest and relaxation" in the US, but I'm not sure).
Implement that, and you have a better FW aspect of the game.
8: the most important. Once the tour of duty is finished, at home (the army "barracks" or "presidios") with comrade NPC's , after a short "burial" ceremony (game-engine cutscenes, a short voices instead of 1pt font text), we go to the bar, Iceland-style, or to the red quarter, international style. Oh what ??? No "Walk in Stations" yet ??? We'll wait. But some cutscenes would be so easy to implement, and would be an important attractiveness for the game.
By the way, in FW, agents should not be called agents, but should be called captains - colonels - general, depending on the rank of the soldier.
By the way, raising in ranks should be automatic, depending on the number of tour of duties realized.
Star Trek online and Jumpgate Evolution are cometh, and the CSM should help CCP to "warp-jump" Eve-Online into a next generation game. Factional Warfare is the perfect first step for that.
Could it be possible to implement all this for last week ? It's *that* important.
|
TeaDaze
|
Posted - 2009.12.27 17:22:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Galakktis
Dear M-CSM's,
I'd like to attract your attention on the issue of factional warfare. Missions and PvP.
This is not the correct place to raise proposals, they have to go into the Assembly Forum.
Feel free to post the link here, but if it isn't in the Assembly forum at least 7 days before the meeting it cannot be discussed at that meeting.
|
Awesome Possum
Imperium Signal Corps
|
Posted - 2009.12.29 19:08:00 -
[23]
Originally by: TeaDaze
Originally by: Galakktis
Dear M-CSM's,
I'd like to attract your attention on the issue of factional warfare. Missions and PvP.
This is not the correct place to raise proposals, they have to go into the Assembly Forum.
Feel free to post the link here, but if it isn't in the Assembly forum at least 7 days before the meeting it cannot be discussed at that meeting.
*cough* ;)
♥
Wreck Disposal Services |
Seth Ruin
Minmatar
Ominous Corp
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2009.12.29 23:28:00 -
[24]
Edited by: Seth Ruin on 29/12/2009 23:37:29
If the agenda's still got some spots open, any chance of picking up my issue of copying (and pasting) links in chat?  Not exactly a major or game-breaking issue, but something that would be nice if addressed anyway.
I'd also like to nominate the idea of shared corporation bookmarks.
|
Zothike
Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.12.31 16:40:00 -
[25]
little feature : possibility to remote stack stuff in hangar (like repackaging)
A feature that will help CCP to lower Database charge (to fight lag monster) 2-3 years ago (dont remember exactly) they decided to limit the number of stack by station to 1000 to lower server charge, but it's still possible to have above 1000 (for example when you buy hangar cleanout they dont dont auto stack)
I have stations where i can't dock (hostiles) where i have more than 1800 items which would go easily at 900-1200 if i could stack them
initial thread in feature and idea discussion created by John Roe http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1040532
|
ElvenLord
|
Posted - 2010.01.03 18:24:00 -
[26]
Meeting is over. Meeting minutes following.
|
LudwigvonMises
|
Posted - 2010.01.04 16:58:00 -
[27]
Originally by: ElvenLord
Meeting is over. Meeting minutes following.
Still waiting...
|
Midori Tsu
|
Posted - 2010.01.04 22:42:00 -
[28]
Originally by: LudwigvonMises
Originally by: ElvenLord
Meeting is over. Meeting minutes following.
Still waiting...
The raw log is public...
|
TeaDaze
|
Posted - 2010.01.05 09:24:00 -
[29]
Edited by: TeaDaze on 05/01/2010 09:25:00
TL:DR minutes will be out later today.
It has taken longer than previous meetings to prepare these because
a) the meeting ran even longer than meeting 2 (raw logs are 200k)
b) I had a family birthday to attend after the meeting
c) I'm suffering from manflu :P
I'm halfway done so they will be completed and published tonight GMT.
As pointed out above the raw logs are available on the wiki.
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |