EVE Search - CSM Log posted (august 27th)

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

CSM Log posted (august 27th)

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Taurar	Posted - 2003.08.28 00:15:00 - [1] i've just finished editing and posting today's csm chatlog at eve gate you can reach it via the url below http://www.evegate.net/exclusives/council009.php most memorable answer of the day::: TomB > tech 2, when? = ? TomB > isn't tech 2 out there? TomB > i think that all tech 2 owners are just keeping their mouths shut and keeping tham away from other players TomB > the only item so far was the miner ii, others will now start falling in TomB > next week, hopefully this weekend? enjoy Malachlite incognito
Molly	Posted - 2003.08.28 00:24:00 - [2] So the Carebear Support Mob revealed that ore in containers has to be protected by a criminal flag and that carebears are free to mail Pann if they need a game mechanic changed in order to be more carebearish. Fine, then rename jettison to something else then.
j0sephine	Posted - 2003.08.28 00:26:00 - [3] "TomB > The ability to warp on top of the gate will also be prevented." ... oh, my. :s
Molly	Posted - 2003.08.28 00:31:00 - [4] "Pann > Tom, what about corps that have a war branch and a non-warring branch. Would they be able to specify whether or not they wanted to be included in wars? Pann > For example, the town that Camp & I had in UO, we had an elite fighting group and a separate group of craftsmen that did not fight. Pann > It would seem to me that Q-Tech would not want to be involved in TTI's battles, but would like access to shared hangars and wallets - if I understand Eldariel correctly. Pann > Is a system like that possible?" ROFL. Pann is the uber carebear. Craftsmen do the uber armor e.g. for the elite fighting group. Kill the craftsmen to weaken the elite fighting group. It is always about killing the weakest link of a chain.
Mitch Taylor	Posted - 2003.08.28 00:33:00 - [5] Does that mean if someone killed you the gene pool would take a dive molly? You being a weak link and all
Jash Illian	Posted - 2003.08.28 00:50:00 - [6] Quote: Does that mean if someone killed you the gene pool would take a dive molly? You being a weak link and all Actually Molly is correct. Going after the soft underbelly isn't just a valid tactic. It's a smart one. Being able to hide from retribution is one of the chief complaints among both pirates and normal corporations. Yet because Molly points it out, it's suddenly something worth flaming? I like her end of the gene pool better than the one that would rather drown instead of climbing in a boat with someone they don't like. That's called the Stupid End of the Gene Pool I mean its like you want corporations to oblige each other like its sex or something. Pffft I would rather *** my enemy.- Rohann Be careful out there. That other guy waiting in the queue for the gate MIGHT be a baby-munching frock-burner, YOU JUST DON'T KNOW!*- Lallante
Jash Illian	Posted - 2003.08.28 00:55:00 - [7] Okay (props to Grymwulf for a nice try)... When did this Quote: Grymwulf > Many of the recent changes have focused on the balance of risk vs reward for Pirate-type activities. With harsh penalties for anyone violating the no PVP rules in high-security areas, players are prevented from dealing with disruptive players (ore-stealers, players with NPC names, etc...) in a proper pvp manner. Also, this also affects the other spectrum of the sec status with Pirates having a hard time in playing their chosen profession either through the trading/selling of bookmarks, the inability to track through warp... also the in-ability to impose some sort of non-gatecamping type blockade. In what direction does the developement team intend to take this? (Also some of this affects those seeking to collect bounties on players with -0.0 to -5.0 sec status, and newbies seeing bounties on people and trying to collect only to be shot down by Concord?) translate into a question only about frellin ore thieves, which should be so far down on the PvP Priority Ladder you should hit dinosaur fossils far before seeing it? TomB, I normally like your attitude towards combat (make things go boom better). But the answer given compeltely dodged the core question: What the frell is the direction of PvP in Eve? And yes, Pann should be podded repeatedly for the stuff about ore thieves. I mean its like you want corporations to oblige each other like its sex or something. Pffft I would rather *** my enemy.- Rohann Be careful out there. That other guy waiting in the queue for the gate MIGHT be a baby-munching frock-burner, YOU JUST DON'T KNOW!*- Lallante
Mitch Taylor	Posted - 2003.08.28 01:02:00 - [8] Now ya see jash, thats whats called a "joke", if you could manage to sift around inside that grumpy, bored old codger your brain calls home for a sense of humour, you might have caught it......
Jash Illian	Posted - 2003.08.28 01:13:00 - [9] Quote: Now ya see jash, thats whats called a "joke", if you could manage to sift around inside that grumpy, bored old codger your brain calls home for a sense of humour, you might have caught it...... Sorry. My sense of humor was last seen floating in a cargo can surrounded by a bunch of fur-clad battleships marked "Concord". I mean its like you want corporations to oblige each other like its sex or something. Pffft I would rather *** my enemy.- Rohann Be careful out there. That other guy waiting in the queue for the gate MIGHT be a baby-munching frock-burner, YOU JUST DON'T KNOW!*- Lallante
Gan Howorth	Posted - 2003.08.28 01:17:00 - [10] Hmm well that was erm... Why hasn't TomB heard about corp wars being totally knackered. Listen carefully devs: Wars aren't Pringles. Also what's with all the stuff about ore thieves AGAIN, and worse still, talking about only being allowed to attack those that are combatants. Er.. not only is this *******s but its totally open to exploitation. And yes l do mean "Exploitation". I can't even be arsed to go into how utterly out of touch with anything that whole idea is, and l'm disappointed it took up so much of the CSM. Thanks for your efforts Eladriel (seriously), but l'm kinda glad your tour of duty has now finished. Some of your questions were starting to make me feel like a tramp listening to royalty discussing the finer points of polo. bah!
Eldariel	Posted - 2003.08.28 01:22:00 - [11] Edited by: Eldariel on 28/08/2003 01:22:36 Quote: Some of your questions were starting to make me feel like a tramp listening to royalty discussing the finer points of polo I'm at a loss quite how to take that Gan A change of delegates will be good though ... be good to see a different slant on things
Gan Howorth	Posted - 2003.08.28 01:31:00 - [12] hehe, no malice intended but you were getting less and less representative of the playerbase with each passing week. You were angling to exert influence on the games direction in ways that were entirely related to how TTI operates and to this end ignoring issues that are more immediate and more important to the vast majority of players (imho). No ill will chap! The stuff about being part of the same company, but allowing manufacturing sub-divisions to be immune to war didn't really do it for me. It just means that you can neglect the protection of your supporting structure and benefits the larger corps only. In any case, you want sub-division/umbrella company distinctions, simply set up another corp. Trust would play a large part but l would guess that the CEO would be handpicked so it would work pretty well right?
Jash Illian	Posted - 2003.08.28 01:38:00 - [13] Quote: hehe, no malice intended but you were getting less and less representative of the playerbase with each passing week. You were angling to exert influence on the games direction in ways that were entirely related to how TTI operates and to this end ignoring issues that are more immediate and more important to the vast majority of players (imho). No ill will chap! The stuff about being part of the same company, but allowing manufacturing sub-divisions to be immune to war didn't really do it for me. It just means that you can neglect the protection of your supporting structure and benefits the larger corps only. In any case, you want sub-division/umbrella company distinctions, simply set up another corp. Trust would play a large part but l would guess that the CEO would be handpicked so it would work pretty well right? Personally speaking, so long as Corp Offices/Sales/Purchases/Taxes/Hangar Access Logging aren't addressed I could give 2 cowpies about subsidiary corps. Subsidiary Corporations affect megacorps. Those issues I mentioned affect ALL corps. I mean its like you want corporations to oblige each other like its sex or something. Pffft I would rather *** my enemy.- Rohann Be careful out there. That other guy waiting in the queue for the gate MIGHT be a baby-munching frock-burner, YOU JUST DON'T KNOW!*- Lallante
Eldariel	Posted - 2003.08.28 01:40:00 - [14] Edited by: Eldariel on 28/08/2003 01:49:03 Edited by: Eldariel on 28/08/2003 01:44:48 Actually I was thinking the subcorp structure could be useful to lots of other corporations, not just TTI... TTI was just a good example since we are structured like that internally. Any corporation that uses the current hangars as "divisions" (or separate corps) is going to find organising items a struggle in the not too distant future. Subcorps structure as I was suggesting would allow each division to have their own set of 7 hangars ;) That was what I was getting at. The taxation ties etc would be the icing on the cake... Quote: The stuff about being part of the same company, but allowing manufacturing sub-divisions to be immune to war didn't really do it for me. Re-read the log and you'll notice I was against this ... Quote: Eldariel > in the above scenario I was presenting a declaration of war on the parent (e.g. TTI) would register as war with all sub-corps as well (bi-directional) TomB > So guess we will be looking at this closer from now on Eldariel > i.e A would be at war with B and all its subsidiaries Eldariel > and vice-versa (for reference) i.e I wanted subcorps to be at war as soon as the parent company was at war (they are, after all, the same organisation)... I'm not in favour of certain divisions being exempt from war declarations for the reasons already outlined by others above - they are part of the money generating machine and hence should be a target to reduce operational effectiveness
Jash Illian	Posted - 2003.08.28 01:46:00 - [15] Quote: Actually I was thinking the subcorp structure could be useful to lots of other corporations, not just TTI... TTI was just a good example since we are structured like that internally. Any corporation that uses the current hangars as "divisions" (or separate corps) is going to find organising items a struggle in the not too distant future. Subcorps structure as I was suggesting would allow each division to have their own set of 7 hangars ;) That was what I was getting at. The taxation ties etc would be the icing on the cake... But discussing subdivisions before corp income and security is fully straightened out is jumping the gun...A lot. For example, how is the parent corporation going to keep the books straight for the entire corporation when it doesn't know what the gross/net profit of the subsidiary corporation is because there's no record? Tracking hangar usage is impossible for any corporation beyond 2 man corps. Add in the third man and it's all He Said/She Said. So while you admitted the questions were TTI-Centric, I'm sorry but that doesn't absolve you. And that's where CCP keeps going wrong in general: They don't finish the core before rushing off the attach the enhancements. I mean its like you want corporations to oblige each other like its sex or something. Pffft I would rather *** my enemy.- Rohann Be careful out there. That other guy waiting in the queue for the gate MIGHT be a baby-munching frock-burner, YOU JUST DON'T KNOW!*- Lallante
Gan Howorth	Posted - 2003.08.28 01:52:00 - [16] Quote: Edited by: Eldariel on 28/08/2003 01:49:03 Quote: The stuff about being part of the same company, but allowing manufacturing sub-divisions to be immune to war didn't really do it for me. Re-read the log and you'll notice I was against this ... Quote: Eldariel > in the above scenario I was presenting a declaration of war on the parent (e.g. TTI) would register as war with all sub-corps as well (bi-directional) TomB > So guess we will be looking at this closer from now on Eldariel > i.e A would be at war with B and all its subsidiaries Eldariel > and vice-versa (for reference) i.e I wanted subcorps to be at war as soon as the parent company was at war (they are, after all, the same organisation)... I'm not in favour of certain divisions being exempt from war declarations for the reasons already outlined by others above - they are part of the money generating machine and hence should be a target to reduce operational effectiveness Ok my bad Eladriel. Must have been Pann going on about OU in a rather scary PvP avoidance daydream l was thinking about. Jash you are totally right. Fix the core before the glitter.
Fester Addams	Posted - 2003.08.28 01:53:00 - [17] Sadly only one part of the whole meeting catered to the average player. Aparently we will be seeing tech II items realy entering the game this weekend. The most odd thing to me is that they ask about advanced ecconomy setups when the basic skills havent even been implemented yet, it boggles the mind.
Eldariel	Posted - 2003.08.28 01:58:00 - [18] Quote: So while you admitted the questions were TTI-Centric, I'm sorry but that doesn't absolve you Only one of the questions was stated as TTI-centric.... The first question I asked was on corp warfare. This was raised as a question several times in the CSM question post thread currently stickied in this forum. I won't deny it affects TTI - but then it also affects a lot of other corporations as well ... I agree that there are core issues that need to be addressed, but if that were the entire focus of the meetings people would get the impression there was nothing to look forward to. A mix of current issues and future development is good in my opinion. Still - you won't have to listen to me drone on in CSM chats anymore anyway. Who know's Jash - maybe you'll be a delegate in the near future. Then you'll be able to set the world of Eve to rights ...
Jash Illian	Posted - 2003.08.28 02:08:00 - [19] Quote: Quote: So while you admitted the questions were TTI-Centric, I'm sorry but that doesn't absolve you Only one of the questions was stated as TTI-centric.... The first question I asked was on corp warfare. This was raised as a question several times in the CSM question post thread currently stickied in this forum. I won't deny it affects TTI - but then it also affects a lot of other corporations as well ... I agree that there are core issues that need to be addressed, but if that were the entire focus of the meetings people would get the impression there was nothing to look forward to. A mix of current issues and future development is good in my opinion. Still - you won't have to listen to me drone on in CSM chats anymore anyway. Who know's Jash - maybe you'll be a delegate in the near future. Then you'll be able to set the world of Eve to rights ... Sarcasm makes me reach for sharp objects. Seriously, I'd have to say that it's not a CSM's job to force future developments out of the devs. That should be Pann. When the CSMs make TomB say something like "Huh? I didn't know..." that's a lot closer to the purpose in my eyes. They're supposed to be so the developers remain in touch with the playerbase. Anyone with eyes on these forums (or looking at the pooch screw in Yong today) should already know the playerbase is slavering for info on future developments. Actually it should be common sense as "What's next and when?" has been asked since Lars Pensj÷ released LPMud in '89 and people began bugging wizards about it. I mean its like you want corporations to oblige each other like its sex or something. Pffft I would rather *** my enemy.- Rohann Be careful out there. That other guy waiting in the queue for the gate MIGHT be a baby-munching frock-burner, YOU JUST DON'T KNOW!*- Lallante
SISQO	Posted - 2003.08.28 02:50:00 - [20] Quote: i've just finished editing and posting today's csm chatlog at eve gate you can reach it via the url below http://www.evegate.net/exclusives/council009.php most memorable answer of the day::: TomB > tech 2, when? = ? TomB > isn't tech 2 out there? TomB > i think that all tech 2 owners are just keeping their mouths shut and keeping tham away from other players TomB > the only item so far was the miner ii, others will now start falling in TomB > next week, hopefully this weekend? enjoy Your **ting me, they better not be ***** handouts or easter egg hunts.
Ctaesis	Posted - 2003.08.28 02:51:00 - [21] Edited by: Ctaesis on 28/08/2003 02:58:15 Doesn't matter. ________________ "Warp to Desktop" -- American PCGamer
Endureth	Posted - 2003.08.28 03:41:00 - [22] TomB > "warping on top of a jumpgate" = warping to a bookmark TomB > we will do this by not allowing anyone to get closer than X km away from a jumpgate TomB > incoming from warp I mean I will not be forced to fight pvp if I don't want to. I will not be forced to spend an hour or more to get around a blockade. I'm tired of doing things in this game that eat up time and give me no pleasure. Pirates who are allowed to camp gates WILL kill players, there's no ifs, ands or buts about it. And they will make sure they have the ability to kill any player that comes along, does CCP think this is not true? If this is implemented, I'm outta here and yes, you can have my stuff, look for it on ebay. -E
Jash Illian	Posted - 2003.08.28 04:02:00 - [23] Quote: TomB > "warping on top of a jumpgate" = warping to a bookmark TomB > we will do this by not allowing anyone to get closer than X km away from a jumpgate TomB > incoming from warp I mean I will not be forced to fight pvp if I don't want to. I will not be forced to spend an hour or more to get around a blockade. I'm tired of doing things in this game that eat up time and give me no pleasure. Pirates who are allowed to camp gates WILL kill players, there's no ifs, ands or buts about it. And they will make sure they have the ability to kill any player that comes along, does CCP think this is not true? If this is implemented, I'm outta here and yes, you can have my stuff, look for it on ebay. -E How to respond to this? I could be a smartass but I'll actually be nice and ask: Don't you think it's about time someone in the CSM meetings asked CCP to pick a side? Somebody's going to quit regardless of which side they pick: Overprotective Mother or Sadistic Stepfather. Riding the fence it just making people from both sides quit I mean its like you want corporations to oblige each other like its sex or something. Pffft I would rather *** my enemy.- Rohann Be careful out there. That other guy waiting in the queue for the gate MIGHT be a baby-munching frock-burner, YOU JUST DON'T KNOW!*- Lallante
Archemedes	Posted - 2003.08.28 04:11:00 - [24] Reread that part about non-combat corps and wars... it was talking about alliances. The idea being that if someone declares war on a member of an alliace, it doesn't let them also attack all OTHER members of the alliance unless those members declare war back (which won't take up one of the normal 3 slots)... So if Space Invaders, TTI, and Q-Labs are in the Venal Alliance after the formal alliance system is introduced, then if RUS declares war on Space Invaders it will let TTI and Q-Labs declare war for free on RUS if they WANT to, but ONLY if they want to. As long as Q-Labs doesn't declare war on RUS, RUS won't be able to attack them freely even though they are allied with Space Invaders (and Q-Labs can't attack RUS either). That means non-combat corps can belong to alliances without being automatically at war with anyone who's at war with any of their allies. Of course, most alliances are in 0.0 space anyway so formal wars are largely meaningless to them...
Serak Tur	Posted - 2003.08.28 04:37:00 - [25] Edited by: Serak Tur on 28/08/2003 04:49:10 The upcoming changes to using bookmarks to warp close to gates is very disturbing to me. Yes, I use them. I use them because it is the only safe way to mine profitable ores. Taking away that ability (and I have little confidence in any new items that are introduced to counter this)gives pirate corps, large corporations and alliances a monopoly on mega and zyd. These two minerals are already hard enough to get. I can see how this makes life hard for pirates but right now its the only feasable way for me to get through the choke points. I truly hope that the new items TomB alluded to really will make blockade running possible, otherwise smaller corporations will truly be locked out of quality ore mining all together. And if they are introduced like the miner2's I might as well hang my hat:)
Jash Illian	Posted - 2003.08.28 04:49:00 - [26] Quote: Reread that part about non-combat corps and wars... it was talking about alliances. The idea being that if someone declares war on a member of an alliace, it doesn't let them also attack all OTHER members of the alliance unless those members declare war back (which won't take up one of the normal 3 slots)... So if Space Invaders, TTI, and Q-Labs are in the Venal Alliance after the formal alliance system is introduced, then if RUS declares war on Space Invaders it will let TTI and Q-Labs declare war for free on RUS if they WANT to, but ONLY if they want to. As long as Q-Labs doesn't declare war on RUS, RUS won't be able to attack them freely even though they are allied with Space Invaders (and Q-Labs can't attack RUS either). That means non-combat corps can belong to alliances without being automatically at war with anyone who's at war with any of their allies. Of course, most alliances are in 0.0 space anyway so formal wars are largely meaningless to them... Which, I have to say, is Pann's influence. Quote: TomB > If an true alliance was created, all corporations within the alliance would have to deal with a war if it brakes out. TomB > It is impossible in politics to ask for peace if you support someone's foes. That's from the 8/13/03 CSM log on the topic of Alliances. This is also from the same CSM log. Quote: ProphetGuru > u could go to war against the undercutters? Pann > PG, a lot of these corps are not prepared for war. They are not fighters, they are manufacturers. Note the coating of short, fine hairs covering one quote over the other. If people want to call themselves an Alliance, then all members better be fair game during a war. That goes doubly so for Corporations and their Subsidiaries. I mean its like you want corporations to oblige each other like its sex or something. Pffft I would rather *** my enemy.- Rohann Be careful out there. That other guy waiting in the queue for the gate MIGHT be a baby-munching frock-burner, YOU JUST DON'T KNOW!*- Lallante
EveJunkie	Posted - 2003.08.28 04:53:00 - [27] Not being able to warp on top of jumpgates would be a good thing not just for the pirates. Remember this works both ways. Far too often we've been unable to stop pirates running our own blockades because of instajumping. Rather than complaining about pirates at jump gates start hiring escorts and blockade breakers with some of the profits of your trade runs/mining ops.
NGRU Rix	Posted - 2003.08.28 05:09:00 - [28] But what is the XX distance to the gates? 20 km, 30km, 50km? This does not make the job or pirate gate camping fullproof by any means, but it does give them another distinct advantage in this area since the nerfing of the MWD out of warp thing - which was a good call for the sake of continuty. If this is truly implemented, then coming out of warp should be a 10km - 15km trip MAX until jumping is possible. If the technology is there to move a ship 2 AU a second, why can't the navigational computer calculate the ending point to within 10km of the destination? It gives the pirates 10 km of time with which to work and, let's be honest, not everyone will have an MWD on them. This must also hold true for all other bodies in space, call it a Collision Detection System for Warp Navigation Computers. There must be a physical object as the destination for the Warp Drives to work at all; a rock, a gate, another player - anything physical.
ProphetGuru	Posted - 2003.08.28 05:21:00 - [29] Bah, I haven't asked another question since that time. What a freaking joke. The whole CSM turned me off, as all it turned into was a bunch of "My ore got stolen, cuz i'm to lazy to make 300 trips to the station like everyone else used to..whaaaaaa" and a silly selfimportant tti rep butting in every 5seconds with a comment regardless of what was being spoken about. Panns response about... well they are manufacturers, not greared for war yada yada yada was imho WHAT IS WRONG with this game. It's a lack of floowing thru on what the game is supposed to be. If I sell m0o hides for 10isk, and the dude 2 systems away starts selling em for 5isk... I either work something out, blow his ass back to an ibis, or PAY someone to do it for me if I haven't the skills. DUH that is what I thought this game was about? Bah, it's sad I have more fun on chaos then tq..... Evolution..... Just when you thought you were winning.
Jash Illian	Posted - 2003.08.28 05:31:00 - [30] Quote: ... If this is truly implemented, then coming out of warp should be a 10km - 15km trip MAX until jumping is possible. If the technology is there to move a ship 2 AU a second, why can't the navigational computer calculate the ending point to within 10km of the destination? ... Are you trying to enforce realism on science fiction? Or generate your own science fiction to fit your purposes? Why? Because it's a game. And apparently the developers don't want you escaping pirates too easily. Don't worry though. Given CCP's past performance with issues like these, they're likely to implement something like Sentry Autocannons with a max optimal range 10km on the wrong side of where you can make a bookmark I mean its like you want corporations to oblige each other like its sex or something. Pffft I would rather *** my enemy.- Rohann Be careful out there. That other guy waiting in the queue for the gate MIGHT be a baby-munching frock-burner, YOU JUST DON'T KNOW!*- Lallante

Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.