Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Mynxee
|
Posted - 2010.09.11 22:56:00 -
[1]
CSM5 Meeting 009 will take place Sunday 26 September 2010 at 17:00 EVE time. All CSM5 Delegates and Alternates are invited to attend.
Deadline for Delegates to submit issues for the agenda is Saturday 25 September 2010 at 20:00. To get an issue added to the agenda, CSM Delegates must post the issue title in this thread and link it to the the issue's CSM wiki page (NOT its thread in these forums). 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 further notice.
=============================
Agenda
A. Introduction -- Roll Call -- Reminders
B. Issues
TBD
C. Other Business
TBD
Life In Low Sec |
Zothike
Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2010.09.20 08:06:00 -
[2]
nothing so far ? only 2 thingy last meeting, are we eve players running out of suggestions
|
Dierdra Vaal
|
Posted - 2010.09.21 10:13:00 -
[3]
actually, maz's items from last meeting should be on the agenda this time. That said, after 2.5 years of bringing up issues it's not that weird for agenda's to get shorter.
* * * Director of Education :: EVE University * * * CSM1 delegate, CSM3 chairman and CSM5 vice-chairman
|
Mynxee
|
Posted - 2010.09.22 15:17:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Mynxee on 22/09/2010 15:23:53 Mazz's issues not raised in the prior meeting (due to absence) added to this meeting's agenda.
Players who raise issues in AH should do all they can to rally support for them. Just posting in AH is no guarantee of getting supports and comments that will indicate player interest or opposition to a proposal--both of which are useful metrics for CSM when selecting which issues to raise in our meetings.
Life In Low Sec |
mazzilliu
|
Posted - 2010.09.25 20:13:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Mynxee Edited by: Mynxee on 22/09/2010 15:23:53 Mazz's issues not raised in the prior meeting (due to absence) added to this meeting's agenda.
Players who raise issues in AH should do all they can to rally support for them. Just posting in AH is no guarantee of getting supports and comments that will indicate player interest or opposition to a proposal--both of which are useful metrics for CSM when selecting which issues to raise in our meetings.
yes thanks for this. I'm going to just bring the post from last meeting so i have it saved somewhere
Quote:
Edited by: mazzilliu on 10/09/2010 20:08:14 http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/CCP_commit_to_excellence%2C_no_toppings_left_behind_%28CSM%29 http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Self_destruct_and_logoff_timer_mechanics_%28CSM%29 http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Fix_blasters_%28CSM%29 http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Covert_Reconfiguration_Offensive_Subsystems_%28CSM%29 http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Csm_issue_about_gms_and_bans_%28CSM%29 http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/List_of_Sov_Complaints_%28CSM%29 http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Allow_remote_jumpclone_removal_%28csm%29 http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Better_Account_status_notification_%28csm%29
running headlong into the meeting limit this time around. if someone else brings up issues bump the ones on my list starting from the bottom as listed here
keeping the un-addressed assembly hall threads here that i will make writeups for and raise next meeting
Quote:
have we had our destroyers whine this csm term yet? i know we spoke of this during csm 3. i will bring it up again if not. http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1108442
http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1347339
http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1348624 - im pretty sure i already raised this one. but its really late and im sleepy, i will look at this again during daytime.
i'm going to write these wikis someday
|
TeaDaze
|
Posted - 2010.09.26 19:53:00 -
[6]
Raw logs on the Wiki
Voting results on the csmDB
TeaDaze.net Blog | CSM Database |
Extreme
Eye of God Black Star Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.09.27 02:29:00 -
[7]
Now i feel like wanting pizza :/ . .
|
Melissa Stormborn
|
Posted - 2010.09.27 12:48:00 -
[8]
You do realize that all of you who voted no for the pizza are not get re-elected right?
|
Trebor Daehdoow
|
Posted - 2010.09.27 19:39:00 -
[9]
What you don't know is that we checked with CCP and the reply was "Implementing Pizza delivery would halt all development on EVE".
The reason for this is that CCP devs, as part of their campaign for Excellence, would insist on exhaustive testing of the Pizza delivery mechanics, to ensure that they, and the toppings, were properly balanced. Given the number of possible pizza permutations (even if we exclude pineapple as just plain wrong), it would take years to properly test, and would cause a tripling of the coronary disease rates in Iceland.
After much internal debate, most of us realized that the vast majority of EVE players have already demonstrated the ability to overpay for bad, cold pizza, and so the feature wasn't really needed.
Confessions of a Noob Starship Politician The most expensive free trip to Iceland you'll ever win!
|
mazzilliu
|
Posted - 2010.09.27 21:35:00 -
[10]
Only me and deidra vaal had the pepperonis to stand up to the health food lobby and vote for what we believe in. and what we believe in, is pizza. for we know what is in the hearts of the players. What is in their hearts, are in their stomach. This CSM has exposed itself as corrupt and compromising, that it will bend to any smallest pressure, like so many congresses and home owner's associations. No pizza for you, EVE players, for the CSM majority has ruled instead, "Let them eat cake". Also, condemning pineapple users as "wrong" is plain racist and not acceptable in a family friendly institution such as EVe online.
also i lolled
Quote: [ 18:03:56 ] ElvenLord > As for sov warfare not being fun, its not all the time, but then again its not supposed to be. Fights are fun on the other hand but then again, opponent can always choose not to give you one and that is something you can not control.
|
|
wr3cks
Reliables Inc Majesta Empire
|
Posted - 2010.09.28 22:00:00 -
[11]
Originally by: mazzilliu
also i lolled
Quote: [ 18:03:56 ] ElvenLord > As for sov warfare not being fun, its not all the time, but then again its not supposed to be. Fights are fun on the other hand but then again, opponent can always choose not to give you one and that is something you can not control.
broken as intended
|
Camios
Minmatar Insurgent New Eden Tribe
|
Posted - 2010.10.02 20:31:00 -
[12]
Edited by: Camios on 02/10/2010 20:34:07 About sov warfare et simila
I actually agree with Elven Lord on many things he said, but there is something wrong with this way of thinking.
- Dreads becoming useless is not a good thing. Why? When a ship becomes useless a piece of gameplay goes away, and EVE becomes less diverse.
- The current sov mechanics are good because a system can really feed many pilots now. But they can be more complex. More deep. With more kind of objectives, placed in different systems, to hit at once.Eve's spectacular metagame deserves something more complex as a game itself.
- In the end, territorial 0.0 warfare has very few strategy options. There's the assault option, where you need as much supercapitals as you can, or the guerrilla option, that consists in placing a cloaker in an enemy system. If you look at real life warfare, there is a lot more to break and steal.
- Right now, what can I break in an enemy system?
- Sov related stuff (for fleets and capitals/supercapitals)
- Pos related stuff, outpost services (fleets and capitals)
- General Ganking of ratters and miners (small gangs, cloakers or blackops gangs). And of course they can dock.
- So there are no actual targets for small gangs, they have no direct influence of any kind on the infrastructure and value of a system and sovereignty is only decided by supercapital battles.
- Moreover, the advantage of the defender in Dominion is just obvious. He sets all the reinforcement timers. He needs to win just one battle over 5. We all agree that the defender should have some advantage, but hell:
- They fight at home, with little logistic effort (compared to the attacker)
- They have the Cynojammer-JB combo
- If they win a battle of 5, they save the system.
It's definitaly a too long list of advantages, that makes the game so static and frustrates the attacker.
- Please note that in EVE the gameplay content is created by other players. The content created by an aggressive entity is much more than the content created by a peaceful one, of course. Attacking should just be encouraged. And if you want to keep your systems, you must fight for it, nothing is free in EVE.
Conclusions
While battles in Dominion can be fun (without lag), I think that the father of all EVE gameplay (that is sovereignty warfare) deserves much more diversity and depth. Thus I think CCP should iterate on it with priority over other things (like PVE for example).
Small gang warfare is fun but it hasn't any real consequence. I'm not sayng that it should have the same consequences of fleet warfare, but hell, between all and nothing something exists.
|
Seth Ruin
Minmatar Ominous Corp Circle-Of-Two
|
Posted - 2010.10.03 19:38:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Camios This sounds really really bad to my ears. If the opponent is not there when I fire my guns, I must be able to fire on something else that belogs to him. Active participation in this game should be encouraged, while saving the players from timezone problems.
(emphasis mine)
I've always wondered about this... Why should we continue to encourage single-continent alliances?
|
Lykouleon
Trust Doesn't Rust
|
Posted - 2010.10.04 01:37:00 -
[14]
mazz is on a roll
Quote: Lord Makk > Be warned, Lykouleon is akin to the love-child of a Goon and a Maru'Kage, with just a touch of Butter Dog for bitterness
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |