Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
TeaDaze
|
Posted - 2010.01.25 18:58:00 -
[1]
CSM 4 meeting 005, Sun 24th Jan - Meeting Minutes
Meeting took place Sun 24th Jan at 14:22
Eve Wiki Link Summary and raw logs External Downloads Raw Log | PDF Summary
TL:DR
Present: ElvenLord, Alekseyev Karrde, TeaDaze, Korvin, Song Li, Helen Highwater (alt), T'Amber (alt) Apologies: Sokratesz, Z0D Absent: Zastrow, Mrs Trzzbk, Farscape Hw (alt), Meissa Anunthiel (alt), Serenity Steele (alt)
Results
1. Shield bonuses
Proposal rejected until further details included
2. Drone rigs and implants
Proposal rejected until further details included
3. T3 refitting subsystems at pos / carrier
Proposal was split into two votes
Allow T3 subsystems to be refitted at a POS Passed 7 for
Allow T3 subsystems to be refitted at ship fitting services Passed 5 for, 2 against (ElvenLord, Helen Highwater)
4. ORE Faction Control Tower
Passed 6 for, 1 against (Korvin)
5. Tradable and Subscribable BlockLists (Version #2]
Proposal failed 4 against, 3 for (TeaDaze, Song Li, T'Amber)
6. Scan probes of all types - an addable option to overview profiles
Passed 7 for
7. CCP/CSM meeting issues list (alphabetic)
ElvenLord set out the list
General discussion Dominion discussion Unfinished expansions Customer support CSM
Major issues 2 Account Security Enhancements 3 Battle recorder 4 Balance self-destruction 5 Black Ops Improvements Part 2 6 Boost warfare links and revisit information warfare 7 Destroyer Improvements 8 Docking games fix 9 Forum Censorship 10 Factional Warfare - CCP Inaction Towards Bugs/Exploits 11 Factional Warfare - Lack of Development Part 2 12 Modular Starbase 13 Overhaul of roles and grantable roles system 14 Suicide ganking discussion 15 Shared Corporation Bookmarks
Minor issues 1 Alliance Logos, CSM Intervention Requested 2 Alliance action confirmation windows 3 Bring Logistics Warp Speed In-Line with T2 Ships 4 Broadcast "In position" improvement 5 Directscan improvement 6 FW Complex NPCs and Standings 7 Factional Warfare - Complex Spawning Part 2 8 Fix kill mails 9 Ingame Events Menu 10 Mining crystals change colour of mining laser beam 11 ORE Faction Control Tower 12 Put more faction items on market 13 Scan-able wrecks&containers for the salvager profession(1.2) 14 Scan probes of all types - an addable option to overview profiles 15 Titan bridge range 16 Tracking for fighters lost in combat 17 T3 refitting subsystems at POS / carrier 18 Visible Aggression Indicator in 0.0 Space 19 Watch list and broadcasts
List Passed 7 for
Other Business
The next meeting was set for Sunday 7th February at 15:00
Meeting ended at 15:51
|
Ashina Sito
Gallente Center for Advanced Studies
|
Posted - 2010.01.25 21:33:00 -
[2]
Edited by: Ashina Sito on 25/01/2010 21:34:06
Originally by: TeaDaze
6. Scan probes of all types - an addable option to overview profiles
Passed 7 for
FYI there is a missing con to this...
"* makes directional scanning for probes easier "
Being someone on both sides of the fence this is important to to note. If Scan probes are allowed on the overview I would set up a probe only overview just for simple sorting at the times I would need it. Currently all the garbage you have to sort though provides at least some difficulty in seeing probes.
Then again your back to the the other side. When I am baiting salvage Ninja's it is very frustrating sorting though 150+ items on a scan just to scroll down to where the probes are just so I can see if a mark is looking for me.
So in the end, it's the same pro and con for this one. It just depends on how CCP wants to handle pilots ability to look for probes.
Edit: Thank you for the speedy delivery of the minutes.
|
JitaPriceChecker2
|
Posted - 2010.01.26 09:16:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Eternal Bellend I don't think this was brought up on the 17th so could someone raise it, even it is just under Any Other Business (AOB) the experimental Gallente storyline missions which are causing huge problems for Gallente missions runners. It essentially makes us Gank bait in low sec and FW systems and makes raising faction tedious to impossible especially if you get one of these badly thought out storylines 4 times in a row (e.g. after running 64 normal missions).
The Assembly Hall proposal is here:
http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1248644
Thank you
Thank you cms for ignoring us (players) twice. Good job.
|
TeaDaze
|
Posted - 2010.01.26 10:50:00 -
[4]
Originally by: JitaPriceChecker2
Originally by: Eternal Bellend I don't think this was brought up on the 17th so could someone raise it, even it is just under Any Other Business (AOB) the experimental Gallente storyline missions which are causing huge problems for Gallente missions runners. It essentially makes us Gank bait in low sec and FW systems and makes raising faction tedious to impossible especially if you get one of these badly thought out storylines 4 times in a row (e.g. after running 64 normal missions).
The Assembly Hall proposal is here:
http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1248644
Thank you
Thank you cms for ignoring us (players) twice. Good job.
It is CSM not CMS
This topic only has 24 supporters and was submitted too late for the meeting on the 17th (it didn't have 7 full days before the meeting). We only had limited time for issues on the 24th and thus this wasn't looked at.
If you want this brought up ahead of better supported proposals I suggest you seek out one of the mission focussed CSM reps and get them to take it forward.
Alternatively get 25% of the voter turnout from the CSM4 election to support the issue which will force it to be included on the agenda.
|
Ophelia Ursus
|
Posted - 2010.01.26 13:41:00 -
[5]
Originally by: TeaDaze Alternatively get 25% of the voter turnout from the CSM4 election to support the issue which will force it to be included on the agenda.
There were 20k votes cast in the CSM 4 election. Has any Assembly Hall thread ever had anything even vaguely close to 5k supports? Looking over the first few pages, even widely supported threads like 'boost AFs' and the original 'dead horse POS' only have a few hundred supports. 5k supports is also considerably greater than the number of votes received by any one member of the current CSM. Don't you think this number should be revised downwards?
|
TeaDaze
|
Posted - 2010.01.26 14:57:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Ophelia Ursus
There were 20k votes cast in the CSM 4 election. Has any Assembly Hall thread ever had anything even vaguely close to 5k supports? Looking over the first few pages, even widely supported threads like 'boost AFs' and the original 'dead horse POS' only have a few hundred supports. 5k supports is also considerably greater than the number of votes received by any one member of the current CSM. Don't you think this number should be revised downwards?
I'm simply quoting from the CSM devblog. IMO even 400-500 supports would be beyond most proposals!
This may well be a topic for discussion with CCP, in the meantime the only practical way to have a proposal raised is by talking to a CSM rep who campaigned along similar issues/gameplay.
The other point here is that if you can't get even a single CSM rep to support an idea what do you think the chances are of it being passed at a meeting? Is this fact part of why so few people support proposals?
|
Awesome Possum
Underworld Excavators
|
Posted - 2010.01.26 15:22:00 -
[7]
Seems Helen's a bit butthurt about drones.
Boat violenced by 'em a few times? ♥
Wreck Disposal Services |
TeaDaze
|
Posted - 2010.01.26 16:26:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Awesome Possum edit: There was nothing wrong with my proposal, the maffs are entirely up to CCP as has been stated. I gave plenty of options and suggestions. and reasoning, lets not forget reasoning behind it. someone just obviously did NOT read the proposal.
I will quote whole proposal as raised in response.
Quote: Currently there exist no implants with bonuses to drones, and the rig selection is very limited. All other weapon systems have a wide range of rigs and implants. I would like to request CCP to introduce a line of implants with bonuses to drones, and increase the line of available drone rigs.
It will be beyond the scope of this proposal to suggest complete stats for all the implants and rigs, however there are several posts with helpful suggestions in the assembly hall thread. (see below)
The vote should be about 'Please CCP, introduce new drone implants and expand drone rig line Y/N'. Specifics like stats, balancing etc. would have to be done by CCP itself in all its wisdom.
Where is the specific reasoning behind drone rigs and implants beyond "because other weapon systems have them".
If this was not your original proposal then I suggest you contact the CSM rep who raised it and ask them why they didn't include any details
So working from this proposal there are no options and not a single suggestion for types, stats etc. Saying that it is up to CCP to design everything is pure laziness. Certainly they will tweak what is proposed (if it is passed) but they shouldn't have to do all the initial research on a CSM proposal. It should have included examples in the first place (mostly to support why they are needed).
The irony is I like the idea of drone implants (as I stated) providing they are sized as per weapon implants.
Originally by: Awesome Possum 3. "large rigs only working on large drones." wtf does this even mean teadaze? do large weapon damage rigs only give bonuses to large guns? no, they give that bonus to all guns of that weapon type. so yes, a large drone damage rig will give its damage bonus to every combat drone.
Sized rigs are new which is why we currently have a small sentry drone augmenter which is a bit daft when only one ship (IIRC) can even use it (and why would you fit one sentry in a frig over 5 T2 lights).
So yes, the current system is that any size of rig gives the bonus to any size of gun/launcher etc. However the only drone damage rig is specifically locked to sentry drone damage. Have you considered why CCP decided that only sentries should have a damage rig? It was never addressed in the proposal but it must have reasoning behind it, no?
Now if we look at ship bonuses, all ships with weapon bonuses have it apply only to a single size of gun/launcher except some missile boats where light and heavy missiles are bonused and all drone boats where it applies to all sizes of drone.
The domi (for example) is the only battleship that gets a bonus to light weapons (when using light drones of course). If there was a general drone damage rig then the domi would be the only battleship with a double bonus to light weapons. Even having single bonused light drones off a rigged battleship is a nerf to frigate pilots with no drawback to the battleship (well it would take up the rig slots but that is all).
I simply wondered if drone rigs should be sized (which wasn't possible originally with the one size fits all rig) so that the bonuses apply to the size of drone appropriate to the ship. It was a topic for conversation and something not addressed in the proposal.
I am not against the idea of more drone rigs, even though there are already 16 drone rigs in game.
Originally by: Awesome Possum You want a specific proposal? Here it is:
Dear CCP Claus, there are NO drone implants in game. The drone users of EVE would like some.
Also, while you're at it, a drone damage rig would be nice.
That was even less specific than the proposal we voted on
|
CLETUS DEADMAN
|
Posted - 2010.02.16 00:46:00 -
[9]
Will results or an update on the ganking issue be posted in this thread after the Iceland meeting? I am monitoring this issue for a return to Eve if it is sorted.
Thank you.
CLETUS
|
TeaDaze
|
Posted - 2010.02.16 08:49:00 -
[10]
Originally by: CLETUS DEADMAN Will results or an update on the ganking issue be posted in this thread after the Iceland meeting? I am monitoring this issue for a return to Eve if it is sorted.
Nope, results of the Iceland summit will be in a new thread not this one. This forum though.
From previous discussions I'm certain an outright ban on suicide ganking is unlikely and the probable outcome will be removal of insurance payouts to the gankers. Even if this is agreed it will be some time before it makes it into game.
|
|
CLETUS DEADMAN
|
Posted - 2010.02.16 12:48:00 -
[11]
Thanks for the update. Me and several others have closed our multiple accounts in protest. Our grievence isn't that ganking be banned, but the slap in the face that the gankers are giving the "gankee" with insurance, recouping all of their loss while we don't. Hulkagedon and trade route gate camps proves that point daily.
Our slap back is paying Cryptic Studios (S.T.O.) instead of CCP. If Eve is meant to be recreation, it isn't from our perspective.
Thanks again, I will monitor this forum in the future.
|
Sokratesz
|
Posted - 2010.02.19 08:43:00 -
[12]
sup
Want to test a supercap on SISI but don't have one? |
ElvenLord
|
Posted - 2010.02.19 09:53:00 -
[13]
Originally by: CLETUS DEADMAN Thanks for the update. Me and several others have closed our multiple accounts in protest. Our grievence isn't that ganking be banned, but the slap in the face that the gankers are giving the "gankee" with insurance, recouping all of their loss while we don't. Hulkagedon and trade route gate camps proves that point daily.
Our slap back is paying Cryptic Studios (S.T.O.) instead of CCP. If Eve is meant to be recreation, it isn't from our perspective.
Thanks again, I will monitor this forum in the future.
Your stuff, can Sok and I get it? :D
|
CLETUS DEADMAN
|
Posted - 2010.02.20 12:33:00 -
[14]
Sure,but first you have to actually do something to earn it.
|
Sokratesz
|
Posted - 2010.02.20 18:08:00 -
[15]
Originally by: CLETUS DEADMAN Sure,but first you have to actually do something to earn it.
we did, and you won¦t like it, can we have your stuff now?
Want to test a supercap on SISI but don't have one? |
CLETUS DEADMAN
|
Posted - 2010.02.20 19:44:00 -
[16]
Yes, but you won't like it. You have to collect it in Starfleet energy credits and merits.
|
Sokratesz
|
Posted - 2010.02.20 22:41:00 -
[17]
Originally by: CLETUS DEADMAN Yes, but you won't like it. You have to collect it in Starfleet energy credits and merits.
that¦s ok my uncle deals in antiques
Want to test a supercap on SISI but don't have one? |
Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange
|
Posted - 2010.02.22 01:11:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Ophelia Ursus There were 20k votes cast in the CSM 4 election. Has any Assembly Hall thread ever had anything even vaguely close to 5k supports?
I believe the anti speed nerf thread prior to Quantum Rise had close to 2000 supports. It's certainly #1 of all time for AH. That said, there's been a few true threadnoughts over the years that have gotten several thousand posts(most notably, the one on the T20 scandal) - if they'd been in AH instead of General or Information Portal or one of those, they could likely have gotten to the requisite number.
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |