| Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
ElvenLord
   |
Posted - 2010.03.08 01:53:00 -
[31]
 Originally by: Bomberlocks
I am pretty much impressed with the new CSM's no nonsense attitude and willingness to communicate player dissatisfaction and wishes so far. I hope it stays that way.
tnx, we will try to keep up the work we've done so far and make sure all we started does go trough.
|
galphi
Gallente
Sileo In Pacis
THE SPACE P0LICE
|
Posted - 2010.03.08 05:31:00 -
[32]
Edited by: galphi on 08/03/2010 05:34:01
Excellent read, looks like the process is getting more efficient all the time.
The redocking mechanic change sounds sexy, looking forward to testing that out 
Destroyers could use a massive overhaul, but if time is an issue, lowering signature (50-60) and increasing overall HP (+30% to 50%) would be a nice stopgap. Sure, they're glass cannons, but it's too much glass and not enough cannon. Perhaps increasing their warp speed to 4.5au/sec would be nice too.
|
Hack Harrison
Caldari
|
Posted - 2010.03.08 06:37:00 -
[33]
In regards to stopping someone docking when scrammed - just to clarify. Do they have to be scrammed or is warp disruption enough?
I figure it means either, but I ask so that this is clear.
|
Charles Javeroux
Gallente
INTERSTELLAR CREDIT
|
Posted - 2010.03.08 09:10:00 -
[34]
Good to see that our votes and fate in the CSM project, is not wasted and there is clear results to show and work on.
Originally by: Orek Fear
I guess the ultimate solution to inflation in EVE turned out to be an NPC stripper...
|
Fade Toblack
|
Posted - 2010.03.08 09:13:00 -
[35]
The blog/minutes say that the CSM term has been increased to 12 months to give a bit of continuity. If you want to improve continuity can I suggest an alternative way of doing it.
Rather than electing an entire CSM for a fixed term why not have staggered elections. So for example a third of the CSM is eligible for re-election every 6 months.
|
Theron Gyrow
Gradient
Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2010.03.08 09:28:00 -
[36]
Quote:
Moving datacore production to nullsec was identified as a possible means to give players incentives to operate there.
I believe the T2 BPO owners make enough money as is, thank you very much.
Quote:
Noah asked what the CSM thought of a feature where ships that were scrambled or under other module effect could not dock.
The problem with that is that ships often drop outside the dock range when warping to dock. If this is implemented, you will pretty much need a center-of-station bookmark for each station where you are planning to dock. I'm not sure that is a good idea.
If the warp-to location to stations is changed so that the docking maneuver will always succeed immediately and the docking command will take without fail, this would probably be a good thing.
--
Gradient forum |
Miyamoto Uroki
Caldari
Revelation of the Fallen
|
Posted - 2010.03.08 09:40:00 -
[37]
Moar power and transparency to the CSM..
The stakeholder decision sounds nice, although I don't know how big the influence of stakeholders actually is.
But what about transparency? Will we, the players, get to see a list of influenced decisions or even backlogs points? As someone from the CSM rightfully mentioned, the majority of players are losing faith in the CSM.
|
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.03.08 10:26:00 -
[38]
Originally by: Fade Toblack
The blog/minutes say that the CSM term has been increased to 12 months to give a bit of continuity. If you want to improve continuity can I suggest an alternative way of doing it.
Rather than electing an entire CSM for a fixed term why not have staggered elections. So for example a third of the CSM is eligible for re-election every 6 months.
It would be even worse.
Everytime the same majority of voters will win and the CSM would be a direct representation of the major power blocks without even one different voice.
|
Pottsey
Enheduanni Foundation
|
Posted - 2010.03.08 10:51:00 -
[39]
Edited by: Pottsey on 08/03/2010 10:54:41
Why zero mention of the Gallante highly experimental storyline missions that most of player Gallante mission runnerĘs absolutely hate. These missions are destroying PvE and have totally ruined mission running for many gallante players.
The missions are so bad many people bug reported them thinking they are bugs.
See http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1228466
CCP said they are highly experimental. The missions failed yet no comment on removing them or fixing them? Are CCP even aware of the problems with these highly experimental missions.
Why where highly experimental missions even put directly on the live server without the test server?
Nothing about the broken sound engine thatĘs worse then when the game first shipped? Noting about core broke features like shadows or the juke box? What about all the gfx effects that look worse now then a few years ago?
http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1262938&page=1
http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1018419&page=14
______
How to Passive Shield Tank T2
|
Nova Fox
Gallente
Novafox Shipyards
|
Posted - 2010.03.08 13:49:00 -
[40]
good work CSM, hope to see some of the stuff become reality.
Pre-order your Sisters of ≡v≡ Exploration ship today, Updated 24FEB10
|
|
|
1oldspacedude
|
Posted - 2010.03.08 19:00:00 -
[41]
"Noah asked what the CSM thought of a feature where ships that were scrambled or under other module effect could not dock."
You guys better think long and hard about this one before going though with it. This will only encourage blobs. Add what they said about bringing back DDD to low sec how hard would it be to send one bait ship to engage a cap and then cyno in a cap fleet for easy kills on stations.
Maybe a certain ship or point is need for this i.e use the infinite point but not ever scram and disrupt should stop you from docking. I would like to see something implemented to stop docking games but this is not the answer IMO. Think about scenario where this would be very overpowered and empower blobs even with the overview in station its not hard to setup safespots just off grid or put cynos on bait ships where the overview does no good at all.
Yes fix docking games no to points not letting you dock think of something better!
OSD
|
Musashibou Benkei
Combined Imperial Fleet
JIHADASQUAD
|
Posted - 2010.03.08 19:15:00 -
[42]
I agree with what the above poster mentioned about not being able to dock while under other module influence 100%
It will make it too easy to have a bait abaddon or something with a high tank point a capital ship or something outside the station and simply sit there and keep things from docking AND warping away while the enemy hotdrops dreads/battleship fleet on you. Say goodbye to aggro fighting and it just becomes more and more blob warfare
|
Razin
The xDEATHx Squadron
Legion of xXDEATHXx
|
Posted - 2010.03.08 19:43:00 -
[43]
Originally by: 1oldspacedude
"Noah asked what the CSM thought of a feature where ships that were scrambled or under other module effect could not dock."
You guys better think long and hard about this one before going though with it. This will only encourage blobs. Add what they said about bringing back DDD to low sec how hard would it be to send one bait ship to engage a cap and then cyno in a cap fleet for easy kills on stations.
A cap shouldn't be flying without support, so nothing wrong with this.
This change will in fact encourage smaller gangs as you'd actually have a hope of killing something with a smaller force if you have a chance of keeping it from docking.
...
|
Chi Quan
Bibkor Enterprises
|
Posted - 2010.03.08 21:08:00 -
[44]
Quote:
It was agreed that CCP formally recognizes the CSM as a stakeholder in EVE development on equal footing with stakeholder departments within CCP, allowing the CSM much greater influence on development prioritization.
you should have bolded that line
----
Ceterum censeo blasters need some tracking love |
1oldspacedude
|
Posted - 2010.03.08 22:27:00 -
[45]
Originally by: Razin
Originally by: 1oldspacedude
"Noah asked what the CSM thought of a feature where ships that were scrambled or under other module effect could not dock."
You guys better think long and hard about this one before going though with it. This will only encourage blobs. Add what they said about bringing back DDD to low sec how hard would it be to send one bait ship to engage a cap and then cyno in a cap fleet for easy kills on stations.
A cap shouldn't be flying without support, so nothing wrong with this.
This change will in fact encourage smaller gangs as you'd actually have a hope of killing something with a smaller force if you have a chance of keeping it from docking.
I'll agree with you on the cap should fly with support but in small gang warfare out side a station a small group of RR could pin down a cap even with its own support till the larger alliance or corp can get more numbers. You will see logoffski rise about 95% since theres nothing else you could do.
Mega alliance would kill more caps and smaller corp that dont want to join them would suffer even more. Right now if a fight happens on a station Carrier can RR then dock up before Mega alliance can get support but if this changes you can point a carrier and just "WAIT" for your support. No reason to ever undock caps unless you know your numbers are greater less tactics saving your guys and getting docked.
I would support aggression timers based on mass or even RR getting flagged but not this. Would the point also stop you from jumping though gates or entering POS shields? where do you stop?
|
Gravecall
|
Posted - 2010.03.08 22:35:00 -
[46]
Quote:
One option is to sell random number generators but the CSM expressed doubt that a significant number of players would utilize that option.
Would it be worth maybe trying to find out through the forums if folks would be interested?
Could such devices be connected to multiple accounts since many Eve players have more than one account?
|
Mick Jabber
|
Posted - 2010.03.08 23:08:00 -
[47]
Originally by: 1oldspacedude
"Noah asked what the CSM thought of a feature where ships that were scrambled or under other module effect could not dock."
You guys better think long and hard about this one before going though with it. This will only encourage blobs. Add what they said about bringing back DDD to low sec how hard would it be to send one bait ship to engage a cap and then cyno in a cap fleet for easy kills on stations.
Maybe a certain ship or point is need for this i.e use the infinite point but not ever scram and disrupt should stop you from docking. I would like to see something implemented to stop docking games but this is not the answer IMO. Think about scenario where this would be very overpowered and empower blobs even with the overview in station its not hard to setup safespots just off grid or put cynos on bait ships where the overview does no good at all.
Yes fix docking games no to points not letting you dock think of something better!
OSD
A module should not prevent you from docking. Solve docking games by increasing the de-agro timer. You agro you can not dock for 5 minutes. Also have remote effects create agro. Solved. Carriers Repping Nano Machs are now open to a good ol' attack. A module would open up all sorts of abuse. A cloaked Lachieses would hose most people that are not combat oriented.
Gate timers I think are fine. You can have someone on the other side of a gate, you can not have someone on the other side of a station. (Yet)
I am thinking of JF. Not normally flown with a lot of support, if scrammed, totally hosed. there is NO OPTION for him to get safe. He undocked and a cloaked ship hosed him.
|
Razin
The xDEATHx Squadron
Legion of xXDEATHXx
|
Posted - 2010.03.08 23:53:00 -
[48]
Originally by: Mick Jabber
A module should not prevent you from docking. Solve docking games by increasing the de-agro timer. You agro you can not dock for 5 minutes. Also have remote effects create agro. Solved. Carriers Repping Nano Machs are now open to a good ol' attack. A module would open up all sorts of abuse. A cloaked Lachieses would hose most people that are not combat oriented.
Gate timers I think are fine. You can have someone on the other side of a gate, you can not have someone on the other side of a station. (Yet)
I like this solution a lot better, however there will still be complaints that this allows bait-and-hot-drop tactics without giving the cap a free pass on consequences of falling for the easy gank carrot.
...
|
Razin
The xDEATHx Squadron
Legion of xXDEATHXx
|
Posted - 2010.03.08 23:59:00 -
[49]
Originally by: 1oldspacedude
I would support aggression timers based on mass or even RR getting flagged but not this. Would the point also stop you from jumping though gates or entering POS shields? where do you stop?
How would a meaningful aggression timer that prevents re-docking change what you are describing? What kind of timer would you suggest for a cap?
...
|
Reptzo
Channel 4 News Team
Forbidden Domain
|
Posted - 2010.03.09 00:04:00 -
[50]
One good way to fix docking games, just make it so if you agro, you can only dock if you leave grid (means you got away anyways) or your 15 minute agro time runs out (means you won, or they just are not going to kill you).
That should solve it. Also, remote repping/boosting/whatever should flag you.
|
|
|
1oldspacedude
|
Posted - 2010.03.09 01:23:00 -
[51]
Originally by: Razin
How would a meaningful aggression timer that prevents re-docking change what you are describing? What kind of timer would you suggest for a cap?
That's actually a very good question that would take some research, testing and tweaking.
Ruff guess frigs and dessy about 30 seconds after aggression 1 min or so for cruisers and maybe bc's, 2 Min on BS and 4-5 min on Caps. This would have to be tested out on the test sever and have community feedback on timers.
This also could be very difficult to learn and understand for young players also so i would put under your aggression timer a orange timer that says redock timer or somthing and have it count down.
Another idea if you don't like this one is change the docking radius of stations and how you eject from them. People have complained about this a long time and standardizing them and making it so you have to get back to station would be simple for smaller ships but caps even if they stopped as soon as they tried to undock were 500m (not to far) off station will actually put them at a risk of a small bumps.
Just some ideas that i think are better then point and no dock which i think could royalty screw up the game.
|
Zastrow
|
Posted - 2010.03.09 03:17:00 -
[52]
I wrote a bunch of words somewhere not public about this, but I felt past CSMs (even csm3 of which I was a part) were hideously ineffective. The CSM was a good idea but we had really bad communication and internal processes. I came to iceland for CSM4 with a bit of a chip on my shoulder and did some table-pounding and voice-raising but I think through my (and the other csm's) nerd rage we were able to get through to CCP on many issues about both the CSM process and also EVE gameplay and mechanics. Even if you aren't satisfied with past CSMs, trust me when I say that the future CSMs will be much more effective.
Please resize image to a maximum of 400 x 120, not exceeding 24000 bytes. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
Alice Silversong
|
Posted - 2010.03.09 06:49:00 -
[53]
So you guys talked about hybrid turrets but not rockets?
|
Jim Luc
Caldari
Rule of Five
|
Posted - 2010.03.09 08:08:00 -
[54]
I really hope they don't bury the battle-recorder, I LOVE that idea!! If enough people speak up, they'll spend the money and time on it.
|
Aineko Macx
|
Posted - 2010.03.09 11:48:00 -
[55]
Originally by: 1oldspacedude
"Noah asked what the CSM thought of a feature where ships that were scrambled or under other module effect could not dock."
Maybe a certain ship or point is need for this i.e use the infinite point but not ever scram
Yes, that would make the problem of afk cloaky cyno recons even worse. I'd much prefer it to be HICs + focusing scripts. Nice side effect to this would be the increased usefulness of HICs.
Originally by: 1oldspacedude
Originally by: Razin
How would a meaningful aggression timer that prevents re-docking change what you are describing? What kind of timer would you suggest for a cap?
That's actually a very good question that would take some research, testing and tweaking.
Ruff guess frigs and dessy about 30 seconds after aggression 1 min or so for cruisers and maybe bc's, 2 Min on BS and 4-5 min on Caps. This would have to be tested out on the test sever and have community feedback on timers.
Yes.
Those two suggestions + having remote reps give the repper a timer would be a pretty good fix to docking games.
|
Elementatia
Caldari
Sev3rance
|
Posted - 2010.03.09 15:47:00 -
[56]
Best CSM Meeting Minutes ever !
This is the first CSM-Meeting that does what i do expect from the CSM and CCP !
I am glad you now see this the same way and found a good way to do it.
Move on that way !
yours
Elementatia
|
No Mauk'Ob
Minmatar
Murientor Tribe
|
Posted - 2010.03.09 18:11:00 -
[57]
Quote:
CCP prefers to use development resources on improving nullsec warfare rather than on factional warfare, but is still committed to fixing existing exploits and views it as a high priority.
very disappointing
for those of us who would like some consequence to our game and a wee bit of internal logic from time to time anyway...
for a game that purports to let me do whatever I want to do it sure does spend a lot of effort trying to herd me away from what I want to do....
------------------------------------------------
Captain No Mauk'Ob
Murientor Tribe Navy 1st MCW
MURIE is Recruiting! |
Fade Toblack
|
Posted - 2010.03.10 12:04:00 -
[58]
Originally by: Venkul Mul
It would be even worse.
Everytime the same majority of voters will win and the CSM would be a direct representation of the major power blocks without even one different voice.
I think you've misunderstood what I suggested. All the other rules about elections can still be in place. So if you want a single Goon at once rule, then once a Goon gets onto the CSM the rest of them are not eligible for election until that first Goon's time period has been served.
|
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.03.10 13:34:00 -
[59]
Originally by: Fade Toblack
Originally by: Venkul Mul
It would be even worse.
Everytime the same majority of voters will win and the CSM would be a direct representation of the major power blocks without even one different voice.
I think you've misunderstood what I suggested. All the other rules about elections can still be in place. So if you want a single Goon at once rule, then once a Goon gets onto the CSM the rest of them are not eligible for election until that first Goon's time period has been served.
I think I haven't misunderstood you.
The problem, as I see it is this (numbers can be imprecise):
Current situation
- CSM has 9 members, there are 30 candidates, 15K voters, average 500 votes for candidate.
- a candidate need to gather at least 750 votes for a good chance to be elected.
- a power group to be sure that his candidate get elected will gather at least 1.200 votes
- so unless a power block is very large it will have a hard time electing more than 2 CSM members
- the last positions could be get by "independent" candidates without a power block backing them.
With a mid term election for 53 candidates:
- CSM has 5 open positions, there are still 30 candidates, 15K voters, average of 500 per candidate.
- a candidate need to gather at least 1.000 votes for a good chance to be elected (first 5 positions of current CSM).
- a power group to be sure that his candidate get elected will gather at least 1.500 votes
- In this situation the 3 largest power groups will almost certainly get all the open seats and independent candidates will have almost no chance.
The US system work because the candidates are linked to a area and the same people don't vote for both the mid term and main election (or so i gather, I am not a US citizen).
There are no rules about "more than 1 Goon/Bob/whatever in the CSM" and there should be not such rules (and they will be useless too).
Note that power groups aren't necessarily an alliance, but mostly they linked by a common interest in the game and (often) by a willingness put aside whatever don't touch that interest.
|
ThorTheGreat
Caldari
GoonWaffe
SOLODRAKBANSOLODRAKBANSO
|
Posted - 2010.03.10 20:06:00 -
[60]
Edited by: ThorTheGreat on 10/03/2010 20:06:57
Originally by: Fade Toblack
Originally by: Venkul Mul
It would be even worse.
Everytime the same majority of voters will win and the CSM would be a direct representation of the major power blocks without even one different voice.
I think you've misunderstood what I suggested. All the other rules about elections can still be in place. So if you want a single Goon at once rule, then once a Goon gets onto the CSM the rest of them are not eligible for election until that first Goon's time period has been served.
This doesn't solve a thing. You can't even keep people from gaming the tournament with alts where there's significantly less at stake. If I want 2 people on the CSM I'll get beyond any ridiculously arbitrary restrictions.
I have consistently seen a small number of people lament the representation of "power blocks" when the actual makeup of the CSM going back to CSM1 is the complete opposite. Do more reading, then talk.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |