Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Mynxee
|
Posted - 2010.07.31 22:17:00 -
[1]
CSM5 Meeting 006 will take place Saturday 14 August 2010 at 17:00 EVE time. All CSM5 Delegates and Alternates are invited to attend.
Deadline for Delegates to declare issues for the agenda is 12 August 2010 at 18:00. To get an issue added to the agenda, CSM Delegates must post in this thread linking the issue name to its CSM wiki page. A maximum of 9 issues will be considered in the meeting. Delegates are encouraged to post multiple issues; issues will be addressed in rotating order, 1 per delegate, until the max is reached.
Note to Community: CSM working meetings will rotate between 2nd Saturday/4th Sunday dates until the December Summit.
=============================
Agenda
A. Introduction -- Roll Call -- Reminders
B. Issues
C. Other Business -- CCP deliverables status update -- Progress reports
Life In Low Sec |
Marcus Vorenius
Caldari Citadel Enterprise
|
Posted - 2010.07.31 22:44:00 -
[2]
there can only be one agenda item: the CSM needs to decide if it's part of the problem or part of the solution. If you guys have information that's privy to you only, then you need to inform us about it e.g. "chill out guys we are talking with CCP about it and we will give you an update soon" _______________________ P3T Blog: Lessons Learned from New Eden |
Hairy Bum
|
Posted - 2010.08.02 03:59:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Marcus Vorenius Edited by: Marcus Vorenius on 01/08/2010 05:17:54 nvm
You should run for the CSM - all of their posts get created, then edited over with "nvm" when they remember the futility of it all.
|
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.08.02 05:49:00 -
[4]
Can I suggest some of you read this:
missing EVE economy discussion in it the CSM 5 meeting?
|
Marcus Vorenius
Caldari Citadel Enterprise
|
Posted - 2010.08.02 15:21:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Hairy Bum
Originally by: Marcus Vorenius Edited by: Marcus Vorenius on 01/08/2010 05:17:54 nvm
You should run for the CSM - all of their posts get created, then edited over with "nvm" when they remember the futility of it all.
I deleted my post because it provided zero information. I'm quite sure that the CSM is busy enough championing our issues, so I don't want them to waste time on replying to my BS ______ Blog: "Lessons Learned from New Eden" - why you should add EVE to your CV/resume |
Hairy Bum
|
Posted - 2010.08.02 22:49:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Marcus Vorenius I deleted my post because it provided zero information. I'm quite sure that the CSM is busy enough championing our issues, so I don't want them to waste time on replying to my BS
Your admiration to a lost cause is to be admired. I'm sure though that they are championing their own perks and game status more than anything else. Self-centredness and player abuse seems to be the hallmark of CSM5 in this (and many others) humble opinion.
|
Trebor Daehdoow
|
Posted - 2010.08.05 10:56:00 -
[7]
Two items from me this time:
Modify or Remove Learning Skills
User Interface - Big Wins, Fan Favorites and Low Hanging Fruit
Confessions of a Noob Starship Politician Spending Hours blogging the Minutes
|
Yeay Fritg
Caldari Confrerie de Kaedri Cluster Of Rebirth
|
Posted - 2010.08.05 15:14:00 -
[8]
May I please ask CSM members who will present the most wanted Backlog issues ?
http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1362966&page=9
And the Commit to excellence one ?
Item Count Score Popular Issue Name ---- ----- ----- ------- ----------- 34 115 114.90 53.99% Commit to excellence (CSM) 39 87 86.86 40.85% Corporation Bookmarks (CSM) 14 76 75.86 35.68% Allign to Bookmarks (CSM) 40 71 71.00 33.33% Corporation and Alliance tool overhaul (CSM) 19 67 66.69 31.46% Assault Frigates 4th Bonus (CSM) 108 61 60.90 28.64% Overhaul of roles and grantable roles system (CSM) 33 60 59.86 28.17% Commit to Fixing the UI (CSM) 38 56 56.00 26.29% Corp Hangar Audit Logs (CSM) 69 54 54.00 25.35% Fix rockets (CSM)
|
Trebor Daehdoow
|
Posted - 2010.08.05 20:05:00 -
[9]
Those are all passed CSM issues. We will prioritize them this weekend as part of the CCP release planning process. Hopefully some of them will be allocated dev time.
Confessions of a Noob Starship Politician Spending Hours blogging the Minutes
|
Mashie Saldana
BFG Tech
|
Posted - 2010.08.09 10:38:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Trebor Daehdoow Two items from me this time:
Modify or Remove Learning Skills
Too bad you did the math wrong in that suggestion, this would be much more suitable:
Increase the base attributes by 12 and increase the lowest number of attributes you can assign in a remap from 5 to 17. This will more or less compensate for the lack of the 10% boost provided by the learning skill.
End result: Min/maxed char without implants: 27/21 (2250SP/h) compared to 27.5/20.9 (2277SP/h). Min/maxed char with +5 implants: 32/26 (2700SP/h) compared to 33/26.4 (2770SP/h).
In other words we are talking about a max SP reduction of 613k SP/year for a +5 implant char and 236k SP/year for no implants. Another thing to consider is that before the neural remaps the highest speed you could reach in game was 2739SP/h.
|
|
Trebor Daehdoow
|
Posted - 2010.08.09 13:04:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Mashie Saldana Too bad you did the math wrong in that suggestion, this would be much more suitable:
Increase the base attributes by 12 and increase the lowest number of attributes you can assign in a remap from 5 to 17. This will more or less compensate for the lack of the 10% boost provided by the learning skill.
End result: Min/maxed char without implants: 27/21 (2250SP/h) compared to 27.5/20.9 (2277SP/h). Min/maxed char with +5 implants: 32/26 (2700SP/h) compared to 33/26.4 (2770SP/h).
In other words we are talking about a max SP reduction of 613k SP/year for a +5 implant char and 236k SP/year for no implants. Another thing to consider is that before the neural remaps the highest speed you could reach in game was 2739SP/h.
Hmm... I think you may be right. It's been a while since I've had to compute training speeds (for the EViE tool I wrote a few years back).
If someone can confirm Mashie's numbers, I'll amend the proposal. And is there a way to get closer to the current numbers? I'm a bit of a SP-***** and don't want to gyp my +5 implant empire logistics alt...
Confessions of a Noob Starship Politician Spending Hours blogging the Minutes
|
Mashie Saldana
BFG Tech
|
Posted - 2010.08.09 14:01:00 -
[12]
Edited by: Mashie Saldana on 09/08/2010 14:04:18 Ok, I just redid the the math slightly to make it even less of a SP drop compared to current levels:
Increase the base attributes by 12 so the lowest value in a remap is 17. Keep the 15 distributable points but change the max assignable from 15 to 16.
######## +5 clone with max/min attributes ########
Base DistributeImpsTotal 1216533 129526 125522 125522 125522
New max speed 33+26/2 = 2760 SP/h Old max speed 33+26.4/2 = 2772 SP/h
Effective change -0.43% or -105120 SP/year.
######## Empty clone with max/min attributes ########
Base DistributeImpsTotal 1216028 129021 125017 125017 125017
New max speed: 28+21/2 = 2310 SP/h Old max speed: 27.5+20.9/2 = 2277 SP/h
Effective change +1.4% or +289080 SP/year
Now before everyone is going OMG we lose speed with these attributes in +5 clones you have to remember that it is still 192720 SP/year faster than was possible before the neural remapping was introduced.
|
Richard Christy
|
Posted - 2010.08.09 16:13:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Hairy Bum
Originally by: Marcus Vorenius Edited by: Marcus Vorenius on 01/08/2010 05:17:54 nvm
You should run for the CSM - all of their posts get created, then edited over with "nvm" when they remember the futility of it all.
lol
|
Yeay Fritg
Caldari Confrerie de Kaedri Cluster Of Rebirth
|
Posted - 2010.08.11 10:50:00 -
[14]
May I please ask the CSM members to publish/link here the proposal their will submit to CCP ?
CCP, please don't come at the meeting and say 'Oh, we haven't noticed players wanted these points !' we will not trust you !
CCP, you had plenty of time to prepare a mature reaction like 'Ok guys we can allocate x weeks of Dev for this point...' or 'We will not do it !'.
CCP, avoid also 'We are aware of it we are investigating...' we aren't IT idiots.
Cheers, Yeay
|
Trebor Daehdoow
|
Posted - 2010.08.11 13:16:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Mashie Saldana Ok, I just redid the the math slightly to make it even less of a SP drop compared to current levels:
I have updated the proposal page to incorporate your suggestion. Please check it and confirm I got it right.
Best, Trebor
Confessions of a Noob Starship Politician Spending Hours blogging the Minutes
|
Santiago Fahahrri
Galactic Geographic
|
Posted - 2010.08.12 16:59:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Trebor Daehdoow
Originally by: Mashie Saldana Ok, I just redid the the math slightly to make it even less of a SP drop compared to current levels:
I have updated the proposal page to incorporate your suggestion. Please check it and confirm I got it right.
Best, Trebor
You should really update the Cons section of that proposal to accurately and fairly reflect a lot of the feedback provided in the Assembly Hall thread - that this change removes a level of choice/consequence/depth/planning from the character development process that many players feel is a positive aspect of the learning skills (and the loss of that choice/consequence/depth planning is undesirable).
I posted this suggestion in the main thread some time ago.
|
eliminator2
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.08.13 21:33:00 -
[17]
soooo a Q about the learning skills
whats so bad about them? will we get the SP trained in them spread between skills we want?
-----------------------------------------------
I met Eliminator1..... I chewed it up, and spat it out. Now, he is my minion.
I kill miners and mission runners people say, I call them target pra |
Ackbarre
Minmatar GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2010.08.13 22:14:00 -
[18]
If we get a refund on skill points already trained in learning skills. I would get a whopping 442,040 SP back to reallocate ala the server downtime recently.
|
eliminator2
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.08.13 22:38:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Ackbarre If we get a refund on skill points already trained in learning skills. I would get a whopping 442,040 SP back to reallocate ala the server downtime recently.
and what about the ones that put a couple months to train them to lv5 I'd like that sp put into something else if CCP is gunna **** up the attribute system like the rest of stuff the change -----------------------------------------------
I met Eliminator1..... I chewed it up, and spat it out. Now, he is my minion.
I kill miners and mission runners people say, I call them target pra |
Xorv
|
Posted - 2010.08.14 01:05:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Santiago Fahahrri
You should really update the Cons section of that proposal to accurately and fairly reflect a lot of the feedback provided in the Assembly Hall thread - that this change removes a level of choice/consequence/depth/planning from the character development process that many players feel is a positive aspect of the learning skills (and the loss of that choice/consequence/depth planning is undesirable).
I posted this suggestion in the main thread some time ago.
None of those "cons" have come supported by reasoned argument. The notion that Learning Skills add any kind of real depth to EVE was seen as absurd by most posters. It would be accurate to say there is a significant minority opposed to changing the learning skills, but they've yet to come up with much in defense of that position. However, I welcome CSMs or better yet CCP staff to read that Assembly thread and see for themselves the arguments for and against the removal of learning skills.
|
|
Mashie Saldana
BFG Tech
|
Posted - 2010.08.14 01:10:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Trebor Daehdoow
Originally by: Mashie Saldana Ok, I just redid the the math slightly to make it even less of a SP drop compared to current levels:
I have updated the proposal page to incorporate your suggestion. Please check it and confirm I got it right.
Best, Trebor
That looks about right yes.
Originally by: eliminator2
Originally by: Ackbarre If we get a refund on skill points already trained in learning skills. I would get a whopping 442,040 SP back to reallocate ala the server downtime recently.
and what about the ones that put a couple months to train them to lv5 I'd like that sp put into something else if CCP is gunna **** up the attribute system like the rest of stuff the change
Then you get however many SP you have in the Learning skill tree to use on other skills.
|
Qwert0
|
Posted - 2010.08.14 04:57:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Mashie Saldana
Originally by: eliminator2
Originally by: Ackbarre If we get a refund on skill points already trained in learning skills. I would get a whopping 442,040 SP back to reallocate ala the server downtime recently.
and what about the ones that put a couple months to train them to lv5 I'd like that sp put into something else if CCP is gunna **** up the attribute system like the rest of stuff the change
Then you get however many SP you have in the Learning skill tree to use on other skills.
PLUS whatever extra SP you earned by having higher attributes compared to a peer that didn't train them, so it's not like you lose anything in the process.
|
FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc. RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.08.14 06:36:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Xorv
None of those "cons" have come supported by reasoned argument.
All of them have. They've been handwaved away with "nuh unhhh!!!" (like you just did) but that doesn't change their support. The fact is that the 'pro' arguments not only lack support, the fact that they lack support is noted.
Quote:
* Easier initial career paths for new players. (needs facts to verify) * Improved new player retention. (needs facts to verify)
Claiming something that you don't know is true as a "pro" point and then saying "oh yeah, and we need some facts to prove that this even exists" is... odd. As for simplifying skill planning by removing variables, seriously? In EVE? We can also simplify training by cutting three races out of the game. Or maybe just take away the long/short weapon dynamic and give each race one generic weapon. After all it's confusing having to choose which to put SP's into and when, to say nothing of how much time it takes to specialize in multiple weapon systems, and as we all know complexity, specialization and more-choices-than-time are all totally against the core nature of EVE. Eh? Eh?
Removing complexity and choice that leads to varying development paths is a pro, in EVE? Since when?
And, of course, the 'cons' section does not include the very real fact that removing learning skills removes depth and choice as well as the tradeoff between short and long term profit. It's a solution in search of a problem and hopefully CCP ignores that specific proposal. ------------------------------------------------
Hohohoho, Mister Finn, you're going to be Mister Finnagain! |
eliminator2
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.08.14 08:30:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Qwert0
Originally by: Mashie Saldana
Originally by: eliminator2
Originally by: Ackbarre If we get a refund on skill points already trained in learning skills. I would get a whopping 442,040 SP back to reallocate ala the server downtime recently.
and what about the ones that put a couple months to train them to lv5 I'd like that sp put into something else if CCP is gunna **** up the attribute system like the rest of stuff the change
Then you get however many SP you have in the Learning skill tree to use on other skills.
PLUS whatever extra SP you earned by having higher attributes compared to a peer that didn't train them, so it's not like you lose anything in the process.
not our fault that people didnt train these skills we learnt about them did the math and worked it it would be better to train them so we did others maybe new about them but put it off and didnt train now in relity the person who didnt train the learning skills now are better off or gunna be because they spent all sp on other skills and are gunna get better/equal attributes to the ones that did train them so they infact lost no time and gain quite abit of time
now the ones that did train em sure we gained time from training them but thats because we put the few months into training them to get sometyhing out of it now that specail reward of training the skills will be taken away from us depending how they change it and they are taking a big choice out of the game which is to train or not to train so basicly we loose that 1-2 months of training + specail prize we get for training them (as in shorter time for skills) so yes we are at a loss and i demand my SP put into other stuff if they change it -----------------------------------------------
I met Eliminator1..... I chewed it up, and spat it out. Now, he is my minion.
I kill miners and mission runners people say, I call them target pra |
Xorv
|
Posted - 2010.08.14 10:27:00 -
[25]
Edited by: Xorv on 14/08/2010 10:27:40
Originally by: FinnAgain Zero
Originally by: Xorv
None of those "cons" have come supported by reasoned argument.
All of them have.
What utter rubbish, maybe you need to reread that thread.
Quote:
* Easier initial career paths for new players. (needs facts to verify) * Improved new player retention. (needs facts to verify)
How is removing Learning Skills and replacing the lost stats (or at least most of them) not a huge boost to new players pursuit of their first "career path" in EVE?
No one can accurately empirically prove something like the causes of new player retention or departure from EVE. That said there's a great abundance of anecdotal evidence that it is the case, but obviously that alone doesn't prove the point. Still we can logically surmise that a great many players would be put off playing EVE because they essentially are pushed into not playing for the first few months of their subscription. Don't deny that's the case there's even video footage of a CCP employee saying he played Counter Strike for the first few months of EVE while he trained these skills, and said words to the effect that it was terrible game design.
Originally by: FinnAgain Zero
As for simplifying skill planning by removing variables, seriously? In EVE? We can also simplify training by cutting three races out of the game. Or maybe just take away the long/short weapon dynamic and give each race one generic weapon. After all it's confusing having to choose which to put SP's into and when, to say nothing of how much time it takes to specialize in multiple weapon systems, and as we all know complexity, specialization and more-choices-than-time are all totally against the core nature of EVE. Eh? Eh?
Removing complexity and choice that leads to varying development paths is a pro, in EVE? Since when?
This ******ed argument has been slammed over and over again. There's little choice involved in learning skills. Saying there is a choice is like saying we have a choice to either Fly in a plane or Swim from New York to London... sure there's a choice of a kind, but when everyone chooses the one choice it's no longer a choice of any meaning. Learning skills are rather simple actually, complexity is neither their problem nor an attribute of Learning Skills, just a rather feeble myth propagated by posters like you. I don't think I'll respond to the rest of your nonsense in the quote as anyone with half a brain knows it has no relevance to removing Learning Skills.
Originally by: FinnAgain Zero
And, of course, the 'cons' section does not include the very real fact that removing learning skills removes depth and choice as well as the tradeoff between short and long term profit. It's a solution in search of a problem and hopefully CCP ignores that specific proposal.
Learning Skills add Depth???? This is a "very real fact" is it? How so? There maybe a choice in whether you take them to 5, but other than that what is this depth you speak of? Maybe you mean depth in terms of game time? It adds more time sink that's the only "depth" I see...
Hate to break it to you (well actually I kind of enjoy telling you), but CCP already agrees with those of us that think Learning Skills should be removed. It's only their sluggish pace at fixing long standing issues and fear of the rage of lamers like you that has prevented Learning Skills being dumped long ago.
To the CSMs presenting this to CCP:
Let CCP know they're going to get anger either way, so just do what they think is right for the game. It annoys me far more that they would cave into players like FinnAgain and his ilk based on fear of their negative reaction than the actual prospect of Learning Skills remaining. The later just means I won't encourage friends and family to play EVE, not that any likely would in it's current form. The former tells me that game is pretty much doomed due to developer attitudes, and I should consider canceling.
|
FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc. RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.08.14 12:15:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Xorv
What utter rubbish
Ahhh, the Argument By Nuhn Unnnhh! Convincing.
Originally by: Xorv
How is removing Learning Skills and replacing the lost stats (or at least most of them) not a huge boost to new players pursuit of their first "career path" in EVE?
Other things that would boost new players: -Give new players [racial] Titan V and their own titan. Give them several replacement titans if they lose those, too. It's essential for EVE that some players not have an advantage over others if it's the result of their investment of resources that earns them that bonus. -Give new players all 800 billion ISK. If they spend it, give them more in increments of 100 billion. After all, there is really no choice between making ISK and doing other things, since everybody makes ISK to some degree or another, and so it's not a choice at all. Free ISK for all new players. -Make them all Jedis (or has that been done before?)
Originally by: Xorv
Don't deny that's the case
Of course I'll deny that that's the case as it's stupid. How long does it take to train warp disruptors and AB's? (Hint: not long) Bonus points for "but a dev did something so that proves that nobody can play the game without waiting for MONTHS!!!"
Originally by: Xorv
This ******ed argument has been slammed over and over again.
I think you mean that tards have flailed at it again and again while actually doing nothing to debunk it. Is there choice involved? Yes. Do the choices allowed balance long and short term rewards and expenses? Yes. Is there anything you've said which rebuts that? No. Using your same 'logic', we also must do something about having tacklers in fleets, since all fleets have them if they don't want their enemies to warp off. And DPS, since all fleets have DPS if they want to shoot folks. And mining lasers/drones, since all miners have them. And ISK, since all traders use that, and...
And train Analogies to at least lvl II (unless that's too hard. If so just get CCP to give you that skill). Swimming the Atlantic is a physical impossibility, but training skills without SP's in LS's is not, at all. It'd be a choice between, say, spending $100 on a train between New York and LA versus spending $1,000 on a commercial jet airliner between New York and LA. And then some muppets demanding that everybody be given free airfare since, after all, there must be no choice at all involved since almost nobody takes Amtrak these days.
Originally by: Xorv
Learning Skills add Depth????
Ahhh, the Argument By Excessive Punctuation. Also a classic. Yes, learning skills add depth to a character's profile, as the degree they are taken to govern how quickly SP's are gained. Just like implants. But there is less rage over +4's... and ~gasp!~ you even need to train a skill to be able to use +4's as opposed to +3's. Why, that's no choice at all. Right, eh? Or maybe all new players should be given Cybernetics V and OVER 9000 +5 implants for each stat. I mean, that'd probably help new player retention, right?
Originally by: Xorv The later just means I won't encourage friends and family to play EVE
If there are learning skills in the game, which are totally optional and completely unnecessary to having an enjoyable and rewarding time playing EVE, you'll still refrain from encouraging family and friends from playing EVE. A game that you've been playing for nearly half a decade, during which time learning skills have existed for 100% of the time and which haven't stopped you from playing the game year, after year, after year, after year. Kind of a "do what I say, not what I do" kind of a tack.
Because we all know that the quality of EVE is determined by how fast you can amass SP's. But it'd totally be much cooler if every new player could start as a Jedi. How could that go wrong?
------------------------------------------------
Hohohoho, Mister Finn, you're going to be Mister Finnagain! |
Xorv
|
Posted - 2010.08.14 20:06:00 -
[27]
Rather than wasting my time responding to all that trash I'll simply ask you a question or two.
If Learning Skills are so great for EVE and should be kept, why not add Learning Skills for Learning Skills? Lets call these new skills "childhood development", they would be a series of skills CCP adds to the game that takes 6 months to fully train, both prerequisites for basic learning skill and that without which all other training time is doubled.
It would add "depth" and "choice" to EVE wouldn't it?
The new "Child Development" Skills wouldn't really be necessary skills to train surely?
Not having "Child Development" skills might mean CCP is about to give Cybernetics and Titan V to new players right?
Jedi's will be introduced into the game
Originally by: FinnAgain Zero
[..]A game that you've been playing for nearly half a decade, during which time learning skills have existed for 100% of the time and which haven't stopped you from playing the game year, after year, after year, after year. Kind of a "do what I say, not what I do" kind of a tack.
Was this your attempt at digging up dirt on me for some lame ad hominem attack to add to the rest of your nonsense. Aren't you sneaky... Unfortunately, you forget that a player's character creation date or first post does not mean they've been playing all that time.
|
FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc. RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.08.14 21:00:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Xorv Rather than wasting my time responding to all that trash
Ahhh, the Argument by Sure You Showed That Every Single Point I Made Was Full of Crap, But... Nuhn Unnnnhhh! Highly cogent.
Originally by: Xorv
If Learning Skills are so great for EVE and should be kept, why not add Learning Skills for Learning Skills?
Learn about EVE, yes? There are learning skills that effect other learning skills. Memory and intelligence effect the tier 1 skills, tier 2 have other skills. and Learning effects them all. Interesting fallacy you're falling back on now, though. If there is a good level of depth and choice involved, why, we must need to add even more! Of course, it wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing, but your example of skills that only effect learning is ******ed as all learning skills effect the totality of SP acquisition. Pretending that something new not being added is the same as a long-standing game feature being removed for absolutely no good reason is part for the course for your argument.
Speaking of the rationalizations that you are using in the place of actual reasoning, you seem to have accidentally forgotten each and every single one and coincidentally tried to handwave away the refutations once your rationalizations were shown to be total bull... that was pretty lucky.
Originally by: Xorv Was this your attempt at digging up dirt on me for some lame ad hominem attack
Yet another bit of fail, eh? Please learn the definition of ad hominem. It doesn't, in fact, mean pointing out that you're full of crap and engaging in blatant hypocrisy and that you don't even believe your own nonsense about how people shouldn't play the game due to learning skills (which, let's face it, is a total tard claim even if you weren't trolling anyways).
Of course, your evasion is even lamer then the claim that showing you were trolling is an "ad hominem". Whether or not you played continually is hardly relevant to the fact that after nearly half a decade you are still playing EVE, despite your bluster about how horrible EVE is due to having the option to increase your rate of acquiring skillpoints and how people shouldn't play EVE. ------------------------------------------------
Hohohoho, Mister Finn, you're going to be Mister Finnagain! |
Sokratesz
|
Posted - 2010.08.14 21:21:00 -
[29]
Edited by: Sokratesz on 14/08/2010 21:21:49
Having skills just for the sake of skills is stupid and poses an unnecessary barrier for new players.
I hated doing them on my main and did so for all of my alts. Yes they are a choice, but not a very voluntary one if you want to be able to compete so I will vote for whatever measure is taken to remove them or diminish their influence. į
I think CSM is a pretty cool guy. eh creates e-drama and doesnt afraid of anything. |
FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc. RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.08.14 22:16:00 -
[30]
They're not skills for the sake of skills, they're skills for the sake of time. Time is the only real resource that's inelastic in EVE; with time you make ISK, complete missions, kill sov structures, whatever, but the amount of time in a day cannot be modified. Learning skills are essentially no different than implants. should those be removed from the game too?
Nor does the objection about 'extra time' for noobs hold water. No matter how fast skills train with a 'boosted attributes' '"fix", it will still take a significant amount of time for new players to, say, fly fully T2 fit battleships. And those who can afford implants will have an advantage over those who cannot. And those who can afford better implants....
There's no barrier to playing. If you're new to the game and want to get into a profession immediately, then train for that. If you want to keep your SP's/hour as high as possible, then train for Learning. It's 100% volitional, and not a necessity at all. You can have exactly as many skills as a player with maxed learning skills, it just takes a bit longer. In point of fact, it takes years until a full investment in learning skills sees the time invested rewarded by time savings. There is no actual barrier, just a perceptual one. I started the game and barely trained any skills, found a lowsec corp, got into 0.0 PvP, participated in an alliance that built and lost an outpost... all without putting more than a few 10's of thousands of points into the Learning group. ------------------------------------------------
Hohohoho, Mister Finn, you're going to be Mister Finnagain! |
|
Mashie Saldana
BFG Tech
|
Posted - 2010.08.15 01:44:00 -
[31]
Originally by: FinnAgain Zero They're not skills for the sake of skills, they're skills for the sake of time.
They are a waste of time and doesn't add any enjoyment for anyone. Yes I have over 10.5 million SP in learning skills spread across my chars and I can't wait to see them removed.
|
eliminator2
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.08.15 12:27:00 -
[32]
i guess the implants that give you more attributes are a waste of time eh lets remove them as well hell for sake of it why not remove cap skills as well they help alot but i cba to actually train em... on second thought remove all skills cause i cba to train em -----------------------------------------------
I met Eliminator1..... I chewed it up, and spat it out. Now, he is my minion.
I kill miners and mission runners people say, I call them target pra |
Sokratesz
|
Posted - 2010.08.15 16:01:00 -
[33]
Edited by: Sokratesz on 15/08/2010 16:00:59
Originally by: eliminator2 i guess the implants that give you more attributes are a waste of time eh lets remove them as well hell for sake of it why not remove cap skills as well they help alot but i cba to actually train em... on second thought remove all skills cause i cba to train em
Wow, look how dumb your character is.
Implants I consider OK - there's quite a few people who would disagree, but they have an associated cost and active risk of losing them (provided you undock..) so I don't see much of a problem there.
Other skills have associated benefits as well - improvements left and right, ability to fit certain modules etc, and therefor aren't just there for the sake of skills. į
I think CSM is a pretty cool guy. eh creates e-drama and doesnt afraid of anything. |
DontMindMe JustPassnThru
|
Posted - 2010.08.15 17:20:00 -
[34]
Originally by: FinnAgain Zero They're not skills for the sake of skills, they're skills for the sake of time.
Don't spread this secret around or anything, but in EVE skills are trained over periods of time. The learning grind is spending time training skills, in order to save you time training skills. Its a bizarre circle of tedium which pushes new players into stupid un-fun nonsense ("Hey, newbie, be sure to spend the first two weeks in your Ibis not getting better at killing things or flying your ship, but on training skills that will grant you a training payback in 6 months (if you don't get bored and quit by then)!") at the very time when they should be at their most wide-eyed and enthusiastic about this exciting new world they've entered.
|
FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc. RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.08.15 21:06:00 -
[35]
Originally by: DontMindMe JustPassnThru EVE skills are trained over periods of time.
... which is why being able to train the exact same skills as anybody else, but being able to do it quicker saves time. There is no real difference between implants and skills other than the fact that you need implants for each jump clone and they're a good bit easier to lose since losing skills is generally pretty rare as long as you're not a total tard.
Originally by: DontMindMe JustPassnThru
Its a bizarre circle of tedium which pushes new players into stupid un-fun nonsense
No, it doesn't. This is just simple. If you do not want to train learning skills at first and want to get into a fast tackling Rifter... then do that. If new players can't figure that out for themselves or if they listen to bad advice, well, that's part of EVE too. Should we remove Exhumers because some new players will be convinced that they have to train right to a Hulk the very first thing they do, and forget everything else?
Yet-a-gain, there is absolutely no reason that a new pilot cannot pretend that learning skills don't exist (which is what everybody arguing against them wants anyways) and train for whatever they want. If learning skills are eliminated... players will do the exact same thing they can choose to do now, except there will be no choice and it will be mandatory. And this because some folks claims that the degree of choice offered right now is really an interdict because there are potential advantages to some choices.
Meh. |
Yeay Fritg
Caldari Confrerie de Kaedri Cluster Of Rebirth
|
Posted - 2010.08.16 10:49:00 -
[36]
Hello,
When are planned the Meeting Minutes ?
May we have the CCP purged version and the CSM version ?
Cheers, Yeay
|
Gilgamesh1980
The Black Rabbits The Gurlstas Associates
|
Posted - 2010.08.16 12:49:00 -
[37]
how about having a SINGLE skill 'learning'
with this each level of learning will grant you 5 points you can allocate to your attributes, meaning that in total you can have 25 point for remap each year
I am sure the numbers can be figured out but to me it seems to be the most easily executable and woudl update the system more to be in line of the remap functions
Federic 'Gilgamesh1980' Chopin
Supreme Commander and Diplomat of the Black Rabbits and Gurlstas associates |
Trebor Daehdoow
|
Posted - 2010.08.16 13:02:00 -
[38]
Originally by: FinnAgain Zero No, it doesn't. This is just simple. If you do not want to train learning skills at first and want to get into a fast tackling Rifter... then do that. If new players can't figure that out for themselves or if they listen to bad advice, well, that's part of EVE too. Should we remove Exhumers because some new players will be convinced that they have to train right to a Hulk the very first thing they do, and forget everything else?
Bitter old vets like you and I understand this, Finn. But noobs do not, and they also typically do not understand the tradeoffs involved -- all they see is "WTF? I've got to train these skills in order to not waste time training the rest of the skills?".
CCP has stated during a previous CSM that they would like to dump learning skills, but were unsure of how to do so. They want to do it because it hinders noob retention. Keep in mind that the typical noob quits playing EVE; we are all non-typical noobs.
The recent addition of the skillpoints bonus code gives them a clear way to implement something. It wasn't something they just whipped together during the Summit to address the long downtime; they'd already programmed it.
This makes it pretty obvious to me that they will do something about learning skills at some point. Therefore, I felt it was important to get a proposal on the table that ensured that current players who were patient and long-term focused and trained the skills didn't get screwed. That's why I raised the issue with CSM.
Confessions of a Noob Starship Politician Spending Hours blogging the Minutes
|
TeaDaze
|
Posted - 2010.08.16 13:23:00 -
[39]
Raw logs available from the Wiki or via the CSM Database.
Summary versions of the minutes are in progress and will be caught up as soon as possible.
TeaDaze.net Blog | CSM Database |
Yeay Fritg
Caldari Confrerie de Kaedri Cluster Of Rebirth
|
Posted - 2010.08.16 14:25:00 -
[40]
Thanks a lot :-)
|
|
FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc. RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.08.16 16:51:00 -
[41]
Originally by: Trebor Daehdoow
Bitter old vets like you and I understand this, Finn. But noobs do not, and they also typically do not understand the tradeoffs involved -- all they see is "WTF? I've got to train these skills in order to not waste time training the rest of the skills?". CCP has stated during a previous CSM that they would like to dump learning skills, but were unsure of how to do so. They want to do it because it hinders noob retention. Keep in mind that the typical noob quits playing EVE; we are all non-typical noobs.
I grok that, honestly and truly. And if CCP is going to scrap LS's, there might as well be a CSM proposal for how to do that, but... The reason that most noob subscribers leave the game isn't some fault of the game, it's because EVE is inherently a niche product.
EVE is a PvP MMO where most other such titles are FPS games. EVE has a tremendously harsh death penalty and a player-driven economy to support (and take advantage of) the use and loss of ships. It revolves around a harsh and unforgiving universe where players fight for everything from market share to viable trade routes to control of hundreds of star systems in 0.0 space. It's got a famous learning curve.
The reason most noobs don't stick around is because EVE is not their kind of a game. That won't ever change unless and until CCP changes EVE enough that it's no longer what we've all known as EVE; that is, if CCP decides that rather than being a quality niche product they want real market share, and kill the game in order to get it. That does not seem like a good path for the playerbase, although I'm sure CCP's accountants would love it.
I understand that it looks like CCP may implement something like that at some point... and if they're going to they might as well be given some hints so they don't totally **** it sideways. But far better would be simply not fixing it since it's not actually broken. ------------------------------------------------
Hohohoho, Mister Finn, you're going to be Mister Finnagain! |
Trebor Daehdoow
|
Posted - 2010.08.16 21:16:00 -
[42]
Originally by: FinnAgain Zero I understand that it looks like CCP may implement something like that at some point... and if they're going to they might as well be given some hints so they don't totally **** it sideways. But far better would be simply not fixing it since it's not actually broken.
I appreciate your perspective, and with my purist hat on, I might even agree with it. But when I put my game-designer hat on, I don't like learning skills so much, and when I put my business hat on, I like then even less.
EVE will, of course, always be a game with a learning cliff. But from a business perspective, raising the noob retention rate even 1% is a huge win in the long term.
In any case, the ball's in their court now, it will be interesting to see what happens.
Confessions of a Noob Starship Politician Spending Hours blogging the Minutes
|
Cearain
Caldari The IMPERIUM of LaZy NATION
|
Posted - 2010.08.16 21:37:00 -
[43]
If they do away with learning skills they should reimburse players for the sp. This will actually benefit newer players more than older players. While an older player may be able to throw that 45 days of training into 2 or 3 skills they have at level 4 and immediately get them to level 5 (@ +5% gain in each skill for a total of @ +10%-15%) a newer player will be able to throw that 45 days of training into 2 or 3 skills bringing them from level 0 to level 4. (@ plus 20% per skill for a total of = @40 -60% improvement) -Cearain
Make fw occupancy pvp instead of pve: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1329906 |
Yeay Fritg
Caldari Confrerie de Kaedri Cluster Of Rebirth
|
Posted - 2010.08.17 11:42:00 -
[44]
Edited by: Yeay Fritg on 17/08/2010 11:49:24 Edited by: Yeay Fritg on 17/08/2010 11:42:11 Hello,
What about the Dev blog in the resume ?
' Plucking the harp one more time
I wanted to bring up the CSM again, before signing off on this blog. Mass-testing is not just about data, or testing fixes, it is about involving the EVE community in assessing the overall quality of EVE. We feel very strongly that EVE's players must be involved, at some level, in the discussion about the quality of the game. You folks are, after all, the ones who play it day in and day out. You spend your free hours in the universe which we've built, so you should always have a say in how good, or bad, you think that universe is working. Obviously, it isn't feasible for us to have one-on-one discussions with everyone, so we have to find some more workable middle ground. We believe we've found a very appropriate one in the CSM. These are the people whom you all elect to represent you to CCP. These are the people who will carry your issues, your gripes, and your kudos to us.
We have struck up a new commitment with the CSM to build a sustainable and open dialog between CCP and the players about the quality and performance of EVE. This means that the CSM will be able to bring concerns to us more readily and that we can, in return, work together to ensure that we effectively communicate about those issues with all of you. This isn't limited to just the current causes of lag, but any issue that may crop up later that makes EVE run poorly, or limits the ability for people to have amazing 1000+ fleet fight once again. We feel this is a very positive change and look forward to working more closely with the CSM towards more effective communication and better mass-tests. '
Waiting Backlog point with impatience.
If it's somewhere, please, link me the page.
Cheers, Yeay
|
Sinister Dextor
|
Posted - 2010.08.18 09:10:00 -
[45]
A problem with Learning skills, they put noobs off the game? The problem was the idiots in the noob help channel spamming 'TRAIN LEARNING SKILLS FIRST!!!'' at all the new players, when better advice was to encourage them to train up what skills they needed to make a start in game, and get on playing and enjoying themselves, then to train Learning as they went along.
This situation has unfortunately been compounded by the present character creation system, which lets face it, is more geared to the creation of Alts than for completely new players. This, I believe is where you should be focusing your attention.
Why are people supporting the idea of removing Learning skills? Simple, self-interest, everyone has their eye on the bundle of skill points that they hope and expect to receive to re-allocate. They want to escape the consequences of choice they made in game, always he worst impulse in Eve.
This whole endeavour is misdirected, in my opinion, what needs addressing is the present Character creation system, and we would be better served by discouraging CCP from implementing the trend towards skillpoint re-allocation.
|
Santiago Fahahrri
Galactic Geographic
|
Posted - 2010.08.18 13:01:00 -
[46]
Originally by: Sinister Dextor Why are people supporting the idea of removing Learning skills? Simple, self-interest, everyone has their eye on the bundle of skill points that they hope and expect to receive to re-allocate. They want to escape the consequences of choice they made in game, always he worst impulse in Eve.
This whole endeavour is misdirected, in my opinion, what needs addressing is the present Character creation system, and we would be better served by discouraging CCP from implementing the trend towards skillpoint re-allocation.
Yep. The best thing we can do now is take note of the 4 CSMs that spoke out and voted against this proposal and make sure they get our votes next time and the others don't. This issue, more than any other, probably decided where my CSM vote will go next round.
|
Vilgan Mazran
Aperture Harmonics K162
|
Posted - 2010.08.18 14:08:00 -
[47]
As someone who has tried to get friends into this game, I'm a big fan of removing learning skills. The 3 main problems I've had: 1) Tutorial very boring, 2) They make it through the tutorial but do the math and start doing learning skills and interest is gone when they are done, 3) No customizeable avatar that they can identify with (female friends for this one). I'd love to see something done about #2, as its hard to maintain interest in eve in those initial stages and realizing that the best thing they can do long term is to not play the game for a few days/weeks at the start certainly doesn't help things. Sure, they could not train learning skills. However, the typical gamer who might be interested in Eve is typically going to be the type that tends to min/max to some degree and telling them not to train learning skills conflicts with what seems to be the best "long term" plan.
I also disagree with any notion that learning skills add something to the game. What do they add? There is no long term customization since you need them all except maybe charisma. Its not like you can train 1 learning skill to 6 and the others only to 5 or something. When I make choices training in Eve, I need to choose between different ships or specializing more in 1 ship or learning a new one. There is no similar choice w/ learning skills because I need perc/will for ALL the ship/weapon skills and I need int/mem for ALL the support skills. All they seem to add is a patience test for how long can you wait to train real skills in order to benefit long term. I personally think we've got enough patience tests in Eve, and removing the learning skill one will be a nice improvement to the game.
|
Stethane
|
Posted - 2010.08.18 22:00:00 -
[48]
Hi,
I'm one of those unfortunate noobs who recently created an account, focused on my learning skills, and I'm now working toward others. (Actually I created the account several months ago on a trial, real life came up, and I just got back to the game last week, but still: new player.)
After reading the minutes of the meeting, I would like to offer some feedback as a new player.
1. There was some concern in the minutes that refunding SP to everyone would hurt new players more than help them because of the amount of SP the veteran players would recieve.
I offer this as a possible solution--though I understand it could be quite the headache from the coding side. Perhaps refunded points from Learning Skills could only be reallocated to skills with the same Training Time Multiplier.
For example: points that have been refunded to me from Analytical Mind (x1 multiplier) could be invested in mining, or other low multiplier skills. But not Deep Core Mining (x6 multiplier.)
It would minimize the negative effects on newer characters that invested their initial time in Learning Skills, while giving veteran players who may have chosen to ignore certain skill groups a chance to invest them, and at the same time not 'widen the gap' as it were.
2. Offer characters a different avenue for increased skill progression that does not slow down initial game progression and exploration.
My 'problem' with skill progression as a new player is that by investing the time to max out learning skills I create a lull in my game play where I have zero motivation to play my character until other skills 'catchup'. The inflated game economy has made it so I have already purchased a bigger, better, ship for mining--one whose hold size makes it the equivalent of 23 mining trips on my current frigate. It seems kind of silly to mine anything in my frigate for the next 4 days while I want for my ship flying skills to catch up. So: I've done my starter missions, I have my newer, better ship waiting for me, and my skill progression is on a static time table, what can I do? No much. So I don't log into the game.
So I suggest two very different ways to replace the Learning Skills that would make character development a bit faster, and a bit more player orientated:
a) Implement primary/secondary stat increases from capping out skills with lower multipliers in their respective disciplines. Example: Taking 3 Ranks of Industry before learning 1 rank in Mass Production, vs: Taking 5 Ranks of Industry before learning 1 Rank in Mass Production. Taking the time to gain 5 ranks of industry first would shorten the time it takes to learn 1 rank Mass Production. (Obviously it would still take longer overall learning 5 ranks + 1 rank, vs. 3 ranks + 1 rank 1, but that that 1 rank in Mass Production--and subsequent ones, would be faster. The character increases their stats/learning speed of higher skills by completing the ranks of their lower ones.
Or
b) Grant bonus skill points from completing missions related to the discipline you are training in. If I'm waiting 10 days for Strip Mining to finish, it'd be nice if I could speed up the process by doing mining missions in the game. Maybe work towards removing a day or two off the clock. It's not much, but it gives me an excuse to play the game.
I know most of you vets don't need that, you have other skills that allow you to do other things while your current skills are training. However as a new player in a Frigate, you're a bit limited in your choices, and it'd be nice to have missions increase the rate you learn your desired skills.
Thank you for your time!
|
Cearain
Caldari The IMPERIUM of LaZy NATION
|
Posted - 2010.08.19 02:52:00 -
[49]
Originally by: Stethane Hi,
I'm one of those unfortunate noobs who recently created an account, focused on my learning skills, and I'm now working toward others.....
1. There was some concern in the minutes that refunding SP to everyone would hurt new players more than help them because of the amount of SP the veteran players would recieve.
This concern is simply unfounded. Any time you give players a lump sum of skill points it will benefit newer players more than older players. The gap between older and newer players is always decreased when this happens.
You are not the only one who trained allot of learning skills when you started. So you will not be the only new player who will have the opportunity to dump those sp into different areas. That sp dump won't mean that much to a player who has years of training behind him.
-Cearain
Make fw occupancy pvp instead of pve: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1329906 |
Trebor Daehdoow
|
Posted - 2010.08.19 13:29:00 -
[50]
Originally by: Cearain
Originally by: Stethane Hi,
I'm one of those unfortunate noobs who recently created an account, focused on my learning skills, and I'm now working toward others.....
1. There was some concern in the minutes that refunding SP to everyone would hurt new players more than help them because of the amount of SP the veteran players would recieve.
This concern is simply unfounded. Any time you give players a lump sum of skill points it will benefit newer players more than older players. The gap between older and newer players is always decreased when this happens.
I personally agree with you, Cearain, but in light of the controversial nature of the proposal and the close vote, I felt it was important to amend the proposal to reflect the concerns of the CSMs who were opposed. As you will see from the minutes, I proposed doing this after the vote.
Confessions of a Noob Starship Politician Spending Hours blogging the Minutes
|
|
Yeay Fritg
Caldari Confrerie de Kaedri Cluster Of Rebirth
|
Posted - 2010.08.20 14:14:00 -
[51]
Hello,
Just to know.
Are CSM making alone the meeting Minutes or CCP want to see the content and adapt it to be 'marketingly in line' prior publication ?
Cheers, Yeay
|
Trebor Daehdoow
|
Posted - 2010.08.20 17:44:00 -
[52]
Originally by: Yeay Fritg Are CSM making alone the meeting Minutes or CCP want to see the content and adapt it to be 'marketingly in line' prior publication ?
The regular bi-weekly minutes are created and edited by CSM without CCP input.
The most recent summit minutes were originally created by CCP, edited and expanded by CSM, and then reviewed and released with minor edits by CCP. However, the final draft was not as broadly distributed within CCP for comment as some, in retrospect, would have liked.
Confessions of a Noob Starship Politician Spending Hours blogging the Minutes
|
Dariah Stardweller
Gallente Gung-Ho
|
Posted - 2010.08.22 11:15:00 -
[53]
Originally by: Trebor Daehdoow
I appreciate your perspective, and with my purist hat on, I might even agree with it. But when I put my game-designer hat on, I don't like learning skills so much, and when I put my business hat on, I like then even less.
Tbh I quite like the CSM a lot less when they start prefering business hats to purist hats on.
Yes, the learning skills are a pain to train, so is Gallente Battleship lvl 5. No, you don't need to train them the first 2 months of your EVE career. I honestly don't understand why anyone would do such a thing.
That being said: I wouldn't mind if they were removed if it does not slow down my training speeds and I can reinvest the skill points I have in them instantly, in whatever I like for an indefinate ammount of time, like the free points we got recently due to the long down time.
Inappropriate signature removed. Zymurgist |
Larkonis Trassler
Neo Spartans Laconian Syndicate
|
Posted - 2010.08.22 15:23:00 -
[54]
I personally think that learning skills are one of the biggest turn offs for new players (and, indeed, those of us who indulge in training an alt). You could argue that CCP have made the game too noob friendly with accelerated learning and two free remaps right off the bat (back in my day you started with 40k SP and had to WT15 through 5 feet of snow etc etc).
If learning skills were removed and the SP added to a pool to redistribute then everyone wins. Older players who have trained learning skills get a pool to spend on what they like AND they have benefited over the years from the increased training times compared to some of their peers. Those who haven't trained learning skills to a reasonable level are now on a par with vets but with nothing to show for it otherwise. New players aren't put off by the tedium of training learning skills for several weeks in total in order to get ahead.
Yes, this is a harsh universe where your choices may or may not have an otherwise unforseen knock on effect further down the line (as a hardcore Caldari mission runner I knew found to his dismay when he made his way into Gallente space) and not everyone is cut out for this game. But through the SP reimbursement system CCP have an opportunity to get rid of perhaps the biggest bone of contention amongst new and old players alike.
|
Yeay Fritg
Caldari Confrerie de Kaedri Cluster Of Rebirth
|
Posted - 2010.08.23 11:22:00 -
[55]
CSM,
You talk about CSM7 but still no news from CSM 6 ?
My priority interest is :
- Did you presented the Backlog player priority list to CCP ? - Do you wait a Backlog resolution planning from CCP? - Will CCP add developers to solve the Backlog ?
Please, I will be happy with Yes/No/Don't know answers.
There is no answer from your side and CCP just tell us 'looks gives we have a good carbon engine' and we know about lag again...
Are you all waiting us to get out of the game and let the people that don't see the bug playing ?
Yeay
|
Trebor Daehdoow
|
Posted - 2010.08.23 11:48:00 -
[56]
Originally by: Yeay Fritg 1) Did you presented the Backlog player priority list to CCP ? 2) Do you wait a Backlog resolution planning from CCP? 3) Will CCP add developers to solve the Backlog ?
1) Yes (see this wiki article for details)
2) We have received some information from CCP, have some clarification requests in, and are preparing a report we hope to issue shortly.
3) We don't know.
Confessions of a Noob Starship Politician Spending Hours blogging the Minutes
|
Yeay Fritg
Caldari Confrerie de Kaedri Cluster Of Rebirth
|
Posted - 2010.08.23 14:57:00 -
[57]
Trebor Daehdoow,
Thank you.
Now it's clear that the point is 100% on CCP side.
There is a clear post on the point.
CSM does it's part of the job as Player Concil.
Yeay
|
Yeay Fritg
Caldari Confrerie de Kaedri Cluster Of Rebirth
|
Posted - 2010.08.26 12:40:00 -
[58]
Hell,
May i please ask about a date yet ?
Shortly means ?
What's the point that stop the publication right now ?
CCP don't want to tell anything about Bug Resolution. I hope CSM will give us some information.
CCP, stop flashing us with pseudo Lag Dev blog please. Give us a backlog Dev Blog.
Regards, Yeay
|
Trebor Daehdoow
|
Posted - 2010.08.26 16:06:00 -
[59]
Originally by: Yeay Fritg May i please ask about a date yet ?
Shortly means ?
What's the point that stop the publication right now ?
I am currently writing (and rewriting... and re-rewriting) a CSM devblog (CSMblog?) that gives some details about what happened during the release planning meetings.
The reason it is taking so long is that we've been working with CCP in order to provide as much information as possible while still staying inside their comfort zone. That should be finished today.
Then after I finalize the blog posting (this weekend?) it will have to be reviewed by CCP and published. Hopefully this time next week, though we will push for it to be expedited.
We know everyone wants to know what we think you ought to know. And we think you ought to know what we know. And CCP thinks they want you to know what the CSM thinks you ought to know.
In fact, part of the reason for the delay is that we keep getting updates that go "You know, you might want to let the players know that..."
Confessions of a Noob Starship Politician Spending Hours blogging the Minutes
|
Borgh Brainbasher
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
|
Posted - 2010.08.27 10:42:00 -
[60]
Originally by: Trebor Daehdoow
Originally by: Yeay Fritg May i please ask about a date yet ?
Shortly means ?
What's the point that stop the publication right now ?
I am currently writing (and rewriting... and re-rewriting) a CSM devblog (CSMblog?) that gives some details about what happened during the release planning meetings.
The reason it is taking so long is that we've been working with CCP in order to provide as much information as possible while still staying inside their comfort zone. That should be finished today.
Then after I finalize the blog posting (this weekend?) it will have to be reviewed by CCP and published. Hopefully this time next week, though we will push for it to be expedited.
We know everyone wants to know what we think you ought to know. And we think you ought to know what we know. And CCP thinks they want you to know what the CSM thinks you ought to know.
In fact, part of the reason for the delay is that we keep getting updates that go "You know, you might want to let the players know that..."
♥ you __________
|
|
Yeay Fritg
Caldari Confrerie de Kaedri Cluster Of Rebirth
|
Posted - 2010.08.27 12:04:00 -
[61]
Trebor Daehdoow,
Thank you !
That's the point with enough detail we need Ithink.
Please make a distinct post for that point.
I think all the guys/girls taht signed the Quality Issue thread should now know what you are doing.
At the moment CCP is just giving us technicalpoints about lag but no information about Baclog/Quality.
Please advert this work more !
Yeay
|
Trebor Daehdoow
|
Posted - 2010.08.27 17:45:00 -
[62]
I finished my second draft last night; 1600+ words.
I will be gathering and incorporating comments from my fellow CSMs and CCP staff over the next few days.
Once it is in the pipeline for release and we have a release date, I'll post something more conspicuous.
Confessions of a Noob Starship Politician Spending Hours blogging the Minutes
|
Yeay Fritg
Caldari Confrerie de Kaedri Cluster Of Rebirth
|
Posted - 2010.08.31 15:51:00 -
[63]
Dear CSM members,
You can take a break and make some paper planes with the meeting Minutes.
CCP answered not here but in the media and without your review in my understanding...
http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1327362&page=91
Interviez
18 month prior anything and nothing will change cause they have their plan to refactor bugs and half finished features.
Yeay
|
Syn Callibri
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2010.09.01 20:02:00 -
[64]
..." I donĘt think players want to lose their "Excel in Space."
Some one tell me this is a joke!
Syn Callibri Mistress of the Blood Pact "Naut-elghinyrr" of Vulkor-Khaine
|
Valeronx
Celestial Horizon Corp. United Corporate Ventures
|
Posted - 2010.09.08 07:24:00 -
[65]
Any news on a release date?
|
Trebor Daehdoow
|
Posted - 2010.09.08 11:18:00 -
[66]
The current draft of the report of on the August planning meetings was discussed during the Sep-05 CSM meeting; you can read the raw logs of the meeting for the details of the discussion.
A vote on whether to release the report was called; it failed 3-6.
At present, we are working on a revised draft, which will be discussed at the next meeting, which is this weekend.
Confessions of a Noob Starship Politician Spending Hours blogging the Minutes
|
Ban Doga
|
Posted - 2010.09.08 12:13:00 -
[67]
Originally by: Trebor Daehdoow The current draft of the report of on the August planning meetings was discussed during the Sep-05 CSM meeting; you can read the raw logs of the meeting for the details of the discussion.
A vote on whether to release the report was called; it failed 3-6.
At present, we are working on a revised draft, which will be discussed at the next meeting, which is this weekend.
I find this voting result to be really saddening.
It makes me wonder why you go all the way to create such a list, ask players for input and cycle it through CCP when the reason for not releasing the result is "because it might change before release".
That is always the case and can never be excluded. Following that reasoning you should never release any information of any kind until it is released by CCP themselves.
You weren't afraid to show that CCP was unwilling to commit any resources to your suggestions during the summit, but now you are afraid to show what CCP was willing to consider from this list because "it might look bad". What has changed?
|
Yeay Fritg
Caldari Confrerie de Kaedri Cluster Of Rebirth
|
Posted - 2010.09.08 13:07:00 -
[68]
Edited by: Yeay Fritg on 08/09/2010 13:07:33 Trebor Daehdoow,
Thank you for your job.
Don't you think that CCP is now using this point to discredit your work ?
We all wait from this report. If we can't have CCP view it's not a problem but we want to know your view. Even if there is blank line where stated : CCP don't give information.
CCP is now a Fat real Life ISK company we can't expect them to listen to their customer anymore.
But more CSM Meeting Notice I see without Meeting Minutes less I trust in your work.
Even if just point, please 1 meeting = 1 minutes.
Yeay
|
Major Rocks
|
Posted - 2010.09.08 14:11:00 -
[69]
Originally by: Yeay Fritg Edited by: Yeay Fritg on 08/09/2010 13:07:33 Trebor Daehdoow,
Thank you for your job.
Don't you think that CCP is now using this point to discredit your work ?
We all wait from this report. If we can't have CCP view it's not a problem but we want to know your view. Even if there is blank line where stated : CCP don't give information.
CCP is now a Fat real Life ISK company we can't expect them to listen to their customer anymore.
But more CSM Meeting Notice I see without Meeting Minutes less I trust in your work.
Even if just point, please 1 meeting = 1 minutes.
Yeay
More likely then CCP getting in the way, is other CSM members not getting the bigger picture. At this point it doesn't matter how much detail or content, what matters is that we see progress. If y'all want to wait for big stuff or deliverables, you can wait 18 months, this still is CCP. They are improving tho, but yeah those two interviews from Mr. Ward and Mr. Carriers really bleeds that at that level they just don't get the troubles. I still can't see CCP getting in the way tho. But yeah, if some CSM vote against because they want to see stuff complete, they are delusional. This is step by step, and you can't leave gaps.
Maybe some CSM members are just wanting to put the pieces in order for their campaigning that will probably start to begin again at the end of the fall. That is more likely, combined with at least a few of them being caught in awareness of "omg but this isn't fun, there is no drama"
Just put it on a blog or something. Do like Hilmar does, sidestep chokepoints, you know he wants you to.
|
Trebor Daehdoow
|
Posted - 2010.09.08 15:11:00 -
[70]
First of all, when I said "we" are working in my previous post, I should have made it more clear that "we" = "the CSM". Several of the delegates who voted against the release of the current draft are contributing to a revision.
So, while I totally understand the concerns being expressed here, I would counsel patience until after our meeting this Sunday. I am hopeful that this will all be resolved by then.
I recognize that sometimes the pace of events is frustratingly slow, but this is in part a consequence of the fact that CSM is an evolving institution, and in particular now that we have Stakeholder status (because of the hard work of CSM 1-4), there are process issues we are having to work through -- which is a good thing, if you think about it in a long-term perspective.
With respect to the minutes, doing edited minutes for these bi-weekly meetings was a fairly big undertaking; I did the first pass on several of them, and it's multiple hours of work. Given that relatively few people read the edited minutes, and instead prefer to just browse the raw logs, TeaDaze decided that it wasn't worth the effort, and TBH I agree with him. I for one would rather spend the time researching AH proposal threads and massaging them into shape for discussion at a future meeting.
If there is a particular thing in the raw minutes that you need clarification on, I am sure that I or another CSM will be happy to oblige.
Confessions of a Noob Starship Politician Spending Hours blogging the Minutes
|
|
Yeay Fritg
Caldari Confrerie de Kaedri Cluster Of Rebirth
|
Posted - 2010.09.08 15:27:00 -
[71]
Thank you.
Personally a Meeting minutes like this would be good for me:
- Point - Topic Summary - Decision Summary - CSM Next Action + Date - CCP Next Action + Date
The points, I feel the ones I'm interested are the harder ones : - CCP official answer on the Backlog priority and a planning of Bug resolution. - Is CCP confirming after your Prioritisation Exercice that they don't resolve any bug or focus on quality prior 18 month ? (Means the forum voice is not judged relevant.)
Yeay
|
TeaDaze
|
Posted - 2010.09.09 23:16:00 -
[72]
Originally by: Trebor Daehdoow With respect to the minutes, doing edited minutes for these bi-weekly meetings was a fairly big undertaking; I did the first pass on several of them, and it's multiple hours of work. Given that relatively few people read the edited minutes, and instead prefer to just browse the raw logs, TeaDaze decided that it wasn't worth the effort, and TBH I agree with him. I for one would rather spend the time researching AH proposal threads and massaging them into shape for discussion at a future meeting.
If there is a particular thing in the raw minutes that you need clarification on, I am sure that I or another CSM will be happy to oblige.
Originally I was spending about 5-6 hours a meeting editing the minutes (though with later meetings of CSM4 the number of issues under discussion dropped and so there was less to edit).
Officially only the raw logs are required to be published but I aimed to provide a meeting summary as well as TL:DR type results. Due to changes at work, I've had far less free time to spend on CSM and what time I have has been taken up with the increase in communication with CCP since the summit. Robert has helped prepare some of the minutes, but he is currently busy editing our CSM "dev blog" (which is taking shape nicely thanks to the time he has put in).
But enough of my excuses
Because the raw logs alone are not a very quick overview of the meetings, I provide voting results on the CSM Database as a replacement to the old TL:DR minutes. I plan to back-fill the missing summary minutes in December when I'll be unemployed and thus have lots of time to spend on this stuff, but for now the priority is voting summary and raw logs for context.
TeaDaze.net Blog | CSM Database |
Yeay Fritg
Caldari Confrerie de Kaedri Cluster Of Rebirth
|
Posted - 2010.09.14 08:33:00 -
[73]
Thank you,
May I please ask a CSM confirmation about the vote point stated in this post ?
I think it's best to link it with the Meeting point.
Strange CSM position
When do you release us something ? Fix date possible ?
Yeay
|
Dierdra Vaal
|
Posted - 2010.09.15 12:28:00 -
[74]
Originally by: Yeay Fritg When do you release us something ? Fix date possible ?
As trebor pointed out in the thread, we sent it to CCP on monday. From there on, publication is out of our hands so we cant give you a fixed date.
* * * Director of Education :: EVE University * * * CSM1 delegate, CSM3 chairman and CSM5 vice-chairman
|
Katy Ling
Gallente Crimnson Concept Flame Care Factor
|
Posted - 2010.12.01 15:11:00 -
[75]
Originally by: FinnAgain Zero ... Time is the only real resource that's inelastic in EVE;...
... In point of fact, it takes years until a full investment in learning skills sees the time invested rewarded by time savings. ...
Originally by: Mashie Saldana
Originally by: FinnAgain Zero They're not skills for the sake of skills, they're skills for the sake of time.
They are a waste of time and doesn't add any enjoyment for anyone. Yes I have over 10.5 million SP in learning skills spread across my chars and I can't wait to see them removed.
it is a good move from ccp to remove the Learning skills, in the aspect that new players will be able to invest the time in more usefull skills, to learn about the game and have fun.
it is also good that players that trained those skills a long time ago, have the skill points back and may invest on some LVL 5 specialisation.
but what about people that spend a considerable time training the learning skills to LVL 5, having no fun and no sense of going anywhere, and now can't have they're time returned !? because you can surely return the skill points, yes ... but not the extra advantage that it would give, in relation to people that chose not to painfully train them to that extra LVL 5's.
and way only +12 points over the base attributes ? why not +13 for example !? there are so many interesting activity's in eve, surely people should have better chances of trying more of them.
|
Trebor Daehdoow
|
Posted - 2010.12.02 11:11:00 -
[76]
Originally by: Katy Ling but what about people that spend a considerable time training the learning skills to LVL 5, having no fun and no sense of going anywhere, and now can't have they're time returned !? because you can surely return the skill points, yes ... but not the extra advantage that it would give, in relation to people that chose not to painfully train them to that extra LVL 5's
I understand and appreciate this aspect of the issue, and have raised it in the CSM internal forums. The problem is that there is no obvious way, given that learning skills are going away, and given the limitations that CCP is working under while removing learning skills, to address it. The people who trained to 5/5 are losing a long-term edge that they expected to have, so in that respect, it is a nerf relative to other players.
I have argued for, at a later date, tweaking remaps so they are slightly more extreme, bringing the max rate up to 2760, but this does not address the relative advantage issue.
The only consolation I can provide at this point is to point out that the people who trained to 5/5 were clearly thinking about the long-term -- you wouldn't train them if you didn't intend to play the game for years -- and the whole point of removing learning skills (from CCP's point of view) is to make the infamous learning cliff a bit less daunting for new players, thus improving the long-term health of the game.
Confessions of a Noob Starship Politician The most expensive free trip to Iceland you'll ever win!
|
Mashie Saldana
Minmatar Veto Corp
|
Posted - 2010.12.02 11:54:00 -
[77]
Originally by: Katy Ling but what about people that spend a considerable time training the learning skills to LVL 5, having no fun and no sense of going anywhere, and now can't have they're time returned !? because you can surely return the skill points, yes ... but not the extra advantage that it would give, in relation to people that chose not to painfully train them to that extra LVL 5's.
It was a choice (pretty stupid one considering Presence 5 never could repay itself due to lack of enough charisma based skills). But anyways, the people going 5/5 did enjoy a higher SP accumulation speed while it lasted and they will have more reimbursed SP now to use for skills they aren't min/maxed for. So all in all fair. And yes I do train at 2772SP/h on this char at the moment, I just didn't take all skills to 5/5 for various reasons.
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |