| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Vuk Lau
   |
Posted - 2009.01.29 18:40:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Vuk Lau on 29/01/2009 18:40:18
2nd CSM Formal Meeting 6 - Sunday 1st of February 16:00 hours Eve Time.
Agenda:
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
1.
2.
CSM Raised ISSUEs - (CSM Delegates must 1. Reply to this thread listing the ISSUE name and Assembly Hall thread they wish to advocate AND 2. Supply the ISSUE in templated form to CSM wiki)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
POPULAR Issue (Biggest unaddressed Assembly Hall Issue – will be added after CSM raised ISSUEs.)
1.
AOB (Any other business)
1.
2.
***
All CSM delegates and Alternates are invited to attend.
Can I ask the moderation team to pay special attention to this thread please and ensure that it is kept free of trolling, flaming and personal attacks and is able to serve its intended purpose of allowing CSM delegates to list the ISSUEs they wish to be heard in the next meeting and for members of the Eve public to ask questions in a respectful and civil tone.
Thank you
|
LaVista Vista
|
Posted - 2009.01.29 18:46:00 -
[2]
Shinify my S&I Interface
And I'll likely also be the raising T1 meta 0 loot issue. It depends on a request I have made towards CCP.
|
evilphoenix
Beyond Divinity Inc
|
Posted - 2009.01.29 22:30:00 -
[3]
I'd like to request that my proposal for character name change be brought up for discussion.
I have eve mailed most of you asking your thoughts. Some have stated they would consider it, but it appears no one is going to 'champion' the topic.
I have 54 supports, and a few who stated they support it but didn't check the box.
Proposal Link
If necessary I can write up something more official or whatever is required for it to make it to discussion.
Thanks for your time,
evilphoenix |
Omber Zombie
|
Posted - 2009.01.30 01:35:00 -
[4]
evil - I'm somewhat on the fence on your proposal, and so is the playerbase it seems. While you do have 54 supports, you also have 135 replies in total, of which about 20 are you bumping the thread and most of the rest against it. Basically a 50/50 split after you take into account the people who also supported without a thumbs up. Convince more people to give it a thumbs up and I'll consider backing it. |
LaVista Vista
|
Posted - 2009.01.30 06:22:00 -
[5]
I already gave my opinion in the thread. I will also vote no for such suggestion should anybody from the CSM pick it up.
|
Pattern Clarc
|
Posted - 2009.01.30 12:45:00 -
[6]
Please add Minmatar & Balance to the issues list, will write document when I get home
____
My Blog Is Awesome
|
Ankhesentapemkah
|
Posted - 2009.01.30 22:53:00 -
[7]
I haven't had time to brush up the mission timer topic nor work out further details and integrate player feedback so I rather pass it till next meeting, as the reactions have shown quite a few good suggestions but also a bit of criticism which I need to find a solution for. |
Ignition SemperFi
Private Nuisance
|
Posted - 2009.01.31 01:33:00 -
[8]
is someone going to take up the missile nerf complaint?
----
People Say Im paranoid because I have a gun, I say I dont have to be paranoid because I have a gun.
 Quote:
They already did introduce a counter to missiles, it's called Quantum Rise
|
eliminator2
Gallente
Annihilate.
|
Posted - 2009.01.31 07:58:00 -
[9]
Originally by: evilphoenix
Edited by: evilphoenix on 30/01/2009 03:04:35
I'd like to request that my proposal for character name change be brought up for discussion.
I have eve mailed most of you asking your thoughts. Some have stated they would consider it, but it appears no one is going to 'champion' the topic.
I have 54 supports, and a few who stated they support it but didn't check the box.
Proposal Link
If necessary I can write up something more official or whatever is required for it to make it to discussion.
*edit, my rebuttal to Omber Zombie: Linkage
Thanks for your time,
evilphoenix
sorry to post this here guys but
i have an idea for CCP on this matter with the problem u quoted in your post
CCP could give each character a certain code so even if you change the name of your character the buddy list and stuff will automaticly change it to the right name so you wount get any misleads in your buddy list, allso if someone was to change that name how would it still exist as a charater when it doesnt belong to anyone? :D
just my 2 cents for help towards the character name change |
Vuk Lau
|
Posted - 2009.01.31 13:06:00 -
[10]
Due to RL commitments of several delegates meeting will be postponed for next sunday, 8th of February.
|
Ankhesentapemkah
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 21:49:00 -
[11]
Changes to tracking formula on the agenda please.
I don't think I'll be doing the mission topic, either it'll have to be split up into several or it'll wait till march 10 so I can analyze the epic mission arc game mechanics and integrate them into my proposal, I think the quality of the issue is better served by delaying it for that last month. |
Omber Zombie
|
Posted - 2009.02.06 11:56:00 -
[12]
As per CCP request, Alliance Executor Mechanics to be added to the agenda.
----------------------
My Blog |
Omber Zombie
|
Posted - 2009.02.09 12:10:00 -
[13]
Council of Stellar Management
Meeting Minutes
Download: PDF | raw log PDF
Sunday 9th February 2009
Present: Ankhesentepemkah, Bunyip, Darius JOHNSON, Extreme, Issler Dainze, LaVista Vista, Meissa Anunthiel, Omber Zombie, Scagga Laebetrovo, Sophie Daigneau, Tusko Hopkins, Vuk Lau
Apologies: Pattern Clarc
I. Announcements / Elections
none
II. Popular Issue
none
III. Discussion
I)UI S&I Interface Improvements
in raw text from [ 2009.02.08 16:18:06 ]
LaVista introduced the issue.
Bunyip thought that introducing batch jobs would result in an all-or-nothing case of success/failure occurring with invention jobs.
Oz and LaVista pointed out that it was batch jobs in the sense that it installed them all in one go rather than installing them all as one job. The Batch process is a time saving measure not a mechanic change.
Meissa wanted it to go further in not requiring confirmation of ingredients.
Ankhe wanted it noted that the interface is currently very unintuitive and unfriendly to newer players.
Vote: 9-0 pass
II) Tracking Formula Changes
in raw text from [ 2009.02.08 16:26:20 ]
Ankhe introduced the issue.
Bunyip thought it would help boost long range weapons while still providing a good avoidance mechanic for small ships using transversal.
Ankhe thought Bunyip meant close range weapons.
Bunyip pointed out that no, due to the mechanic change it would mean long range weapons would have less penalty for their minimum range.
Tusko questioned the point of the issue, wondered if it was just another æboost my shipÆ issue, and then pointed out heÆs never had issues hitting a battleship at close range. He went on to wonder whether if it really was an issue or just someone wanting to æfixÆ EVE physics.
Ankhe answered that it was several things; being able to hit battleships with mid/long range weapons, blasters/autocannons losing damage due to web changes, and the EVE physics û she doesnÆt think they are realistic and would be more fun if they were.
Tusko asked why we should be looking at boosting long range weapons as that would reduce the value of blasters even more. He doesnÆt see why making long
range guns work at close range would help the game. He followed by asking if anyone had issues tracking battleships with close range guns.
Ankhe answered that she had missed an NPC Machariel with her blasters.
Bunyip commented that blasters still put out more DPS, this change would allow you to hit more often for closer targets, so it boosts blasters too.
Vuk noted that even with his skills he has trouble doing a lot of damage with his blasters since the web changes.
Issler noted she hadnÆt had much issue with the current system and thinks the issue is just a balance issue in disguise.
Ankhe conceded that since it did change weapons stats that it was a balance thing.
Tusko asked if these changes meant that the way sig radius was calculated that the larger the ship the easier they would be to hit?
Ankhe answered that yes, it should make them easier to hit the larger they are.
continued in next post
----------------------
My Blog |
Omber Zombie
|
Posted - 2009.02.09 12:12:00 -
[14]
...
Oz wondered if the changes meant that if a battleship was close to any ship smaller than it, pretty much every shot against it would hit meaning higher chances of wrecking shots.
Ankhe wasnÆt sure how wrecking shots were calculated, Tusko thought it was chance based, and that they shouldnÆt be wrecking all the time.
Oz thinks that the Tracking Formula doesnÆt need changing and that the proposed change would break PvP. This proposal changes the fundamental way that tracking works and if there is a tracking issue it should be raised as that as this fix will not accomplish the proposed goal.
Ankhe did not think it would have anywhere near the impact Oz thought.
Tusko pointed out that the threads had 2 proposed solutions, the one that changed signature radius had no real merits as it was not causing the stated issue. He was still not sure if the change was needed at all as those that know the mechanics work around the æissueÆ without mechanic changes.
Vote: 3-6 Fail (yes votes were Vuk, Ankhe and Bunyip)
III) Alliance Mechanic Changes
CCP asked CSM to discuss them due to recent events.
CSM generally agreed that the mechanics needed fixing and the following solutions were proposed
Vuk: Thinks that actions should be voted upon by Executor CEO and Shareholders.
Tusko: Partially agrees with Vuk, actions should be voted on, however without a strict 24hour timer. If the vote achieves a 50% majority it should immediately go into effect.
Issler: a full director vote should be required.
Darius: is happy for all mechanics to be moved to CEO of Executor corp only, no directors.
Oz: Alliance should come in 2 flavours, Dictatorial or Democratic/Communist (call it whatever you like)
Dictatorial
CEO of Executor corp
* can add/remove member corps - 24 hours from button being pressed to take effect, can be cancelled at any time within that 24hours
* can disband alliance - 24 hours from button being pressed to take effect, can be
cancelled at any time within that 24hours
* can set standings of Alliance Directors of Executor Corp
* same abilities as CEO, but also requires at least 1 other director to approve the button click or the CEO to do so too. If more than 2 directors, the yes/no situation comes into effect that if you have more no's than yes's, the action doesn't go into effect. Yes/no votes can occur anytime in the 24hour period after the action is started. CEO has overriding vote on any action.
Democratic/Communist/Whatever it's called
All actions bar standings require greater than 50% agreement from all CEO's in the alliance corps.
Meeting End.
----------------------
My Blog |
Extreme
Eye of God
Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2009.02.09 19:24:00 -
[15]
Oz: Alliance should come in 2 flavours, Dictatorial or Democratic/Communist (call it whatever you like)
Note:That was in addition of my input (just 4 the record that alternates also help out)
.
.
|
Caleb Ayrania
Gallente
TarNec
|
Posted - 2009.02.09 21:31:00 -
[16]
Just a minor comment..
Would the whole alliance and corp issue be solved with stocks of vote and no vote types?
One for deciding things, and the other type to pay out dividends and sell on scc soon(tm)...
|
Omber Zombie
|
Posted - 2009.02.10 02:34:00 -
[17]
sorry ex, thought you were commenting more in general terms about the options rather than giving a specific way of doing it, and yup, the alternates were extremely (see what I did there  ) helpful for this meeting. |
retro mike
|
Posted - 2009.02.13 10:35:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Ignition SemperFi
is someone going to take up the missile nerf complaint?
this
I havent read any official response on this one
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |