|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Jade Constantine
   |
Posted - 2008.07.15 22:09:00 -
[1]
very good stuff.
Star Fraction | Dare to Dream!
|
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.08.01 20:19:00 -
[2]
Edited by: Jade Constantine on 01/08/2008 20:19:25
 Originally by: HCIChicken
Point this out if I missed it by why is this getting priority over other discussions when it's from the corp one of the CSM's and he has less than 30 supports most of them from his own corp and his own alts?
CCP asked us for vision, this is vision. And remember there is no obligation for CSM delegates to ensure that X levels of support are present in the threads they advocate whatsoever. All it needs is that the issue thread must have stood for public debate for 7 days and that a delegate is prepared to document the issue and present it the rest of the CSM for a formal vote. I think you'll find this weekend a couple of other issues with similar levels of support on the "vision" tag - such as Bane's titan concept/carrier discussion. Neither of them have overwhelming public support but they are vision issues and Bane has a perfect right to bring them up for vote to see if they go on the agenda.
End of the day Darius and I will probably be disagreeing on the sovereignty revamp proposal but thats cool, its why we have delegates from all sides of the community and it'll come down to voting on sunday to see if the CSM is prepared to collectively endorse or not.
So lets quit it with questioning the "right" for CSM delegates to advocate issues as they see fit please. Ultimately its what we were elected to do (promote issues from our parts of the community and specialist experience) and the safety valve is that we need to convince 5/9 fellow CSMs to get this stuff further.
I'm personally very happy with the discussion that has gone on in this thread so far and consider the proposal represents a positive direction for sovereignty warfare in Eve and I'd love to present it to the development team in its current form for further discussion and detailed balancing.
Star Fraction | Dare to Dream!
|
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.08.01 20:23:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Aprudena Gist
Originally by: Jade Constantine
Edited by: Jade Constantine on 01/08/2008 20:19:25
Originally by: HCIChicken
Point this out if I missed it by why is this getting priority over other discussions when it's from the corp one of the CSM's and he has less than 30 supports most of them from his own corp and his own alts?
CCP asked us for vision, this is vision. And remember there is no obligation for CSM delegates to ensure that X levels of support are present in the threads they advocate whatsoever. All it needs is that the issue thread must have stood for public debate for 7 days and that a delegate is prepared to document the issue and present it the rest of the CSM for a formal vote. I think you'll find this weekend a couple of other issues with similar levels of support on the "vision" tag - such as Bane's titan concept/carrier discussion. Neither of them have overwhelming public support but they are vision issues and Bane has a perfect right to bring them up for vote to see if they go on the agenda.
End of the day Darius and I will probably be disagreeing on the sovereignty revamp proposal but thats cool, its why we have delegates from all sides of the community and it'll come down to voting on sunday to see if the CSM is prepared to collectively endorse or not.
So lets quit it with questioning the "right" for CSM delegates to advocate issues as they see fit please. Ultimately its what we were elected to do (promote issues from our parts of the community and specialist experience) and the safety valve is that we need to convince 5/9 fellow CSMs to get this stuff further.
I'm personally very happy with the discussion that has gone on in this thread so far and consider the proposal represents a positive direction for sovereignty warfare in Eve and I'd love to present it to the development team in its current form for further discussion and detailed balancing.
How about you leave 0.0 warfare to those who actually participate in 0.0 warfare.
How about you leave this thread to discuss the topic in the op?
Star Fraction | Dare to Dream!
|
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.08.01 20:40:00 -
[4]
Course by that logic only people talking about nano ship nerfs should be those that fly nano ships or know how to fight them right ? 
Star Fraction | Dare to Dream!
|
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.08.03 20:04:00 -
[5]
Was rejected at the CSM meeting. There were some calls for a generalized "change to sovereignty" issue to be re-submitted but since we already did that first time round for the Iceland agenda its probably time to drop the aspiration for formal CSM submission.
I think its unlikely we'll see any significant proposed change to 0.0 warfare pass through the current composition of the CSM.
I would encourage Kelsin and other commentators to keep working on the proposal though and consider submitting it to CCP directly since it is a very good proposal and definitely deserves to be seen by the teams looking at 0.0 sovereignty.
Sorry it failed chaps. Hopefully we'll have better luck in the future.
Star Fraction | Dare to Dream!
|
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.08.03 21:07:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Darius JOHNSON
Well that's an awfully negative way of looking at it. You'd think CCP would set up some method of receiving proposals such as this. A COUNCIL perhaps?
To be honest, the current CSM IS good at some things, I think we've had some excellent small issues and such. But I do get the sense we won't be able to come to consensus on any significant change to 0.0 sovereignty because it simply treads on too many toes and too many entrenched interests. I didn't feel we had a very fruitful discussion today over these sovereignty changes because it was too much dogma and too little actual flexibility or objectivity. I guess 0.0 sovereignty is one of those areas that CCP will need to look at independently of organized player feedback in the future and until then we can concentrate on smaller issues we can find common ground on.
End of the day the CSM wasn't introduced to be the be all and end all of player/CCP communication and if we find areas where we cannot function correctly then we should just be wise enough to leave well alone and get on with the stuff we can do well. My 2cents anyways.
Star Fraction | Dare to Dream!
|
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.08.03 21:45:00 -
[7]
Originally by: facialimpediment
Originally by: Jade Constantine
Originally by: Darius JOHNSON
Well that's an awfully negative way of looking at it. You'd think CCP would set up some method of receiving proposals such as this. A COUNCIL perhaps?
To be honest, the current CSM IS good at some things, I think we've had some excellent small issues and such. But I do get the sense we won't be able to come to consensus on any significant change to 0.0 sovereignty because it simply treads on too many toes and too many entrenched interests. I didn't feel we had a very fruitful discussion today over these sovereignty changes because it was too much dogma and too little actual flexibility or objectivity. I guess 0.0 sovereignty is one of those areas that CCP will need to look at independently of organized player feedback in the future and until then we can concentrate on smaller issues we can find common ground on.
End of the day the CSM wasn't introduced to be the be all and end all of player/CCP communication and if we find areas where we cannot function correctly then we should just be wise enough to leave well alone and get on with the stuff we can do well. My 2cents anyways.
Can we impeach you?
Thats one of those things you weren't very good at
Star Fraction | Dare to Dream!
|
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.08.05 16:13:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Matrixcvd
All that needed to be done to "revamp 0.0 SOV" was to lower HP across the board and increase fuel bay capacity, and possibly move cynojammers away from POS towers.
Lag is the death in all fleet fights. Lag comes from large gangs. Large gangs come from the necessity to shoot mindless objects for long periods of time. Everything must be done to limit Lag, and Boredom
If you reduce POS HP/Anchorables/Station Services, there is less to take down, less time to rep it back up. More targets can be hit at the same time requiring moar attention paid to your home systems and valuable POS installations. Moar time at home, means failure alliances won't be able to napfailtrain all over the place because they might be hit next.
You increase the fuel bays, to reduce logistic runs, which are boring, but providing moar assets and isk into each tower.
You move the Cynojammer away from teh tower and it becomes a becon of contesting, this negates lag for being on the side of the defender as it is now with the POS getting free kills to desynched pilots.
With this, no major changes to SOV need to take place. 0.0 becomes a constant battle ground. All is good.
Please write up your proposal as an ISSUE matrixcvd and I'll support it and add it to the agenda once its stood for 7 days. (deadline for public discussion prior to august 17th meeting means you'd need your ISSUE post up on the assembly hall by sunday 10th 16:00 hours at the latest.
Star Fraction | Dare to Dream!
|
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 03:17:00 -
[9]
Edited by: Jade Constantine on 07/08/2008 03:18:43
Originally by: Darius JOHNSON
Sorry the minutes are incorrect and you wasted your time. They are open to mini-games in ambulation. I'm sure you could cook up something original, interesting and not at all game breaking to propose there.
0018 0.0 Sovereignty Issues
CCP has been discussing 0.0 and sovereignty internally for the past year and discussed many issues already. They found that Player Owned Station (POS) warfare is a very limited mechanic, and that it revolves around the amount of dreadnoughts and other capital ships in the fleet, while small ships only serve as support instead of being able to accomplish small objectives on their own. The long-term plan for 0.0 warfare is to have multiple layers of goals and objectives instead of all fighting occurring over stations. This would allow small groups to have an impact on the game, instead of needing hundreds of ships to have influence in 0.0.
Nathan (CCP) said that he does not believe that current large-scale fleet combat is interesting for the participants, mainly due to focus fire.
Andrew (CSM Jade Constantine) commented that current 0.0 PVP is siege warfare, people stick to established fortresses and do not venture beyond the gates. His suggestion was to include mechanics that encouraged sovereignty holders to patrol their space, and have ways for roaming gangs to peck at undefended systems and steal resources there.
The issue of logistics was also discussed. Alex stated that current POS logistics required an alliance to have powergamers that managed them around the clock. He proposed to make 0.0 appeal to a wider audience by removing these repetitive activities that required powergaming. Shayne urged CCP to consider mechanics that would provide more synergy between the industrial and combat aspects of 0.0.
CCP said that they would have to balance short term achievements to the long term empire building. If people could easily destroy in a day what took months to build up, this would be unfair. But on the other hand, it should not be too hard to smoke out established entities. They agreed however, that the current time sinks in POS warfare are too long.
This issue has been put on the rolling agenda, and CCP asked the CSM and the players to come up with concrete suggestions how to improve 0.0 warfare and sovereignty.
***
Thats the minutes on the 0.0 Sov topic. If you had an issue with this you should have said something during the review sequence. As it is we reviewed it. CCP reviewed it. It was officially signed off and it certainly reflects my memory of the discussion.
Star Fraction | Dare to Dream!
|
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 03:45:00 -
[10]
Originally by: NanDe YaNen
How about instead of having a slap-fight over what was said in minutes reading what I just posted. I handed you a solution to these issues on a silver platter.
Easier logistics? Check.
Split up objectives where smaller ships can play a role? Check.
Go post it as an Issue in its own right and lets get people debating it. If it looks good to go after a decent discussion I'll be happy to get it up on the agenda.
Star Fraction | Dare to Dream!
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|