CSM Meeting Minutes 3.002 raw log

From sdeevelopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

All this data is potentially out of date, and should be taken with a truckload of salt

[ 2009.06.07 17:00:52 ] Dierdra Vaal > ==== CSM meeting 02 started at  17:00:00 ===
[ 2009.06.07 17:00:52 ] Omber Zombie > no, that's wrangler's job
[ 2009.06.07 17:00:59 ] Dierdra Vaal > please cut the chatter dudes
[ 2009.06.07 17:01:04 ] Dierdra Vaal > dont make me mute you, Jade style
[ 2009.06.07 17:01:05 ] Dierdra Vaal > :P
[ 2009.06.07 17:01:11 ] Issler Dainze > so theree looks to be csm members not present?
[ 2009.06.07 17:01:21 ] Zastrow J > mazz said she couldnt make it last time
[ 2009.06.07 17:01:27 ] Omber Zombie > mazz sent apols
[ 2009.06.07 17:01:44 ] Dierdra Vaal > ok attendance, as people point out, Mazz has excused herself, meaning the 1st alt (Issler) will step in in her place
[ 2009.06.07 17:01:48 ] Issler Dainze > K, so i guess that makes me 'active" in place of then
[ 2009.06.07 17:01:59 ] Dierdra Vaal > otherwise, all other CSM members are present
[ 2009.06.07 17:02:01 ] Serenity Steele > Evening all
[ 2009.06.07 17:02:14 ] Omber Zombie > vuk is absent atm, he will be back tho
[ 2009.06.07 17:02:18 ] Omber Zombie > lo ss
[ 2009.06.07 17:02:19 ] Dierdra Vaal > before continueing, have all new CSM members signed their NDA?
[ 2009.06.07 17:02:34 ] Erik Finnegan > Positive
[ 2009.06.07 17:02:43 ] Dierdra Vaal > if not, get it done ASAP
[ 2009.06.07 17:02:49 ] Avalloc > signed but have to email/mail it
[ 2009.06.07 17:02:54 ] Dierdra Vaal > ya thats cool
[ 2009.06.07 17:02:55 ] Zastrow J > what he said
[ 2009.06.07 17:03:03 ] Vuk Lau > BACK
[ 2009.06.07 17:03:03 ] Shatana Fulfairas > same as Avalloc
[ 2009.06.07 17:03:13 ] Dierdra Vaal > I suggest emailing CCP a scanned copy just to be sure
[ 2009.06.07 17:03:16 ] Zastrow J > go away vuk nobody likes you
[ 2009.06.07 17:03:17 ] Dierdra Vaal > ahead of snailmailing it
[ 2009.06.07 17:03:25 ] Larkonis Trassler > signed and snailmailed
[ 2009.06.07 17:03:31 ] Dierdra Vaal > right then
[ 2009.06.07 17:03:34 ] Vuk Lau > btw
[ 2009.06.07 17:03:39 ] Vuk Lau > I never signed NDA
[ 2009.06.07 17:03:42 ] Vuk Lau > but dont tell anyone
[ 2009.06.07 17:03:47 ] Omber Zombie > hush you terrorist
[ 2009.06.07 17:03:50 ] Dierdra Vaal > next up we have a reasonably full agenda so I hope we can get through the items fairly quickly
[ 2009.06.07 17:03:51 ] Shatana Fulfairas > lol
[ 2009.06.07 17:04:11 ] Dierdra Vaal > one thing, a few issues have not been wikified - or at least their wiki links have not been submitted to the agenda
[ 2009.06.07 17:04:33 ] Erik Finnegan > Errr.....ok, my fault. They're on the wiki. But I didn't post the link :-(
[ 2009.06.07 17:04:36 ] Dierdra Vaal > for next meeting, please make sure you wikify your issues BEFORE the deadline. We'll handle them this time but next time make sure they're wiki'd
[ 2009.06.07 17:04:50 ] Omber Zombie > BURN THE INFIDELS!
[ 2009.06.07 17:04:56 ] Meissa Anunthiel > +1
[ 2009.06.07 17:05:02 ] Erik Finnegan > Silence ! Or he'll kill you....
[ 2009.06.07 17:05:19 ] Dierdra Vaal > now since a few people are new to this process I'll quickly go over the procedure and we'll get started :)
[ 2009.06.07 17:05:27 ] Dierdra Vaal > 1) when your issue comes up you become chairman and give a short introduction of it.
[ 2009.06.07 17:05:31 ] Dierdra Vaal > 2) People will then put their !'s in chat if they wish to comment/ask questions, you moderate the !'s.
[ 2009.06.07 17:05:40 ] Dierdra Vaal > (As chairman)
[ 2009.06.07 17:05:45 ] Dierdra Vaal > 3) Once the subject is discussed (I'll cut off discussions if they start becoming circular/repetitive) we put the item to a vote. The vote is for either sending the issue to CCP (yes) or not sending the item to CCP (no).
[ 2009.06.07 17:06:02 ] Dierdra Vaal > any questions at this point?
[ 2009.06.07 17:06:06 ] Erik Finnegan > !
[ 2009.06.07 17:06:12 ] Dierdra Vaal > erik
[ 2009.06.07 17:06:21 ] Erik Finnegan > Sending to CCP means compiling the list for the Iceland meeting ?
[ 2009.06.07 17:06:35 ] Omber Zombie > yup
[ 2009.06.07 17:06:42 ] Meissa Anunthiel > or for the online meetings, later
[ 2009.06.07 17:06:42 ] Dierdra Vaal > yup
[ 2009.06.07 17:06:48 ] Dierdra Vaal > ^^
[ 2009.06.07 17:07:12 ] Vuk Lau > are we all for stickam
[ 2009.06.07 17:07:13 ] Vuk Lau > I am naked
[ 2009.06.07 17:07:25 ] Omber Zombie > .me mutes vuk
[ 2009.06.07 17:07:57 ] Dierdra Vaal > and please take stickam to eve-csm, there's more people there :)
[ 2009.06.07 17:08:02 ] Dierdra Vaal > right then lets begin
[ 2009.06.07 17:08:14 ] Dierdra Vaal > issue 1 is me, so I'll be chairman for this issue
[ 2009.06.07 17:08:24 ] Dierdra Vaal > 1: Remote repping and aggression
[ 2009.06.07 17:08:27 ] Dierdra Vaal > http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Remote_repping_and_aggression
[ 2009.06.07 17:08:40 ] Dierdra Vaal > Currently, remote repairing ships do not incurr a docking/jumping delay, even if the target they are repairing has such a delay. This creates very unbalanced pvp situations
[ 2009.06.07 17:08:55 ] Dierdra Vaal > further encourages the completely un-fun docking games...
[ 2009.06.07 17:09:12 ] Dierdra Vaal > and means there is 0 risk to the repper as they never have to commit to a fight. which is quite un-eve like.
[ 2009.06.07 17:09:51 ] Dierdra Vaal > It is suggest that repairing someone who has a jump/docking delay also sets a jumping/docking delay on the repper, similar to how aggression works. [end]
[ 2009.06.07 17:09:55 ] Dierdra Vaal > questions/comments?
[ 2009.06.07 17:10:00 ] Larkonis Trassler > !
[ 2009.06.07 17:10:02 ] Omber Zombie > !
[ 2009.06.07 17:10:05 ] Dierdra Vaal > lark, then OZ
[ 2009.06.07 17:10:06 ] Erik Finnegan > !
[ 2009.06.07 17:10:08 ] Avalloc > !
[ 2009.06.07 17:10:27 ] Dierdra Vaal > (then erik then avalloc)
[ 2009.06.07 17:11:00 ] Larkonis Trassler > I'm pretty much in favour of this, as it would cut a lot of the bullshit regarding neutrals rr'ing and then buggering off either by docking or jumping during empire wars
[ 2009.06.07 17:11:02 ] Dierdra Vaal > and please type out your replies/questions before hand if possible, for rapid copy/pasting :)
[ 2009.06.07 17:11:02 ] Larkonis Trassler > however
[ 2009.06.07 17:12:34 ] Vuk Lau > ?
[ 2009.06.07 17:12:41 ] Larkonis Trassler > If something like this were introduced the dock/jump timer should be tied to the recipient of the RR, as currently spider tanking is used as a way of deagroing and escaping to reduce losses within gangs, should it be a blanket, agro timer for rr'ing
[ 2009.06.07 17:12:50 ] Larkonis Trassler > it may make folks slightly more risk averse
[ 2009.06.07 17:13:07 ] Meissa Anunthiel > !
[ 2009.06.07 17:13:09 ] Larkonis Trassler > {end}
[ 2009.06.07 17:13:19 ] Omber Zombie > what lark said, and can this also apply to remote energy too please. Also, shouldn't they just start an agression timer just like shooting rather than have a blanket timer? (end)
[ 2009.06.07 17:13:44 ] Dierdra Vaal > ok I'll adjust the issue to include all forms of remote boosting - unless there are objections to that
[ 2009.06.07 17:14:14 ] Dierdra Vaal > OZ what do you mean with a blanket timer?
[ 2009.06.07 17:14:34 ] Dierdra Vaal > my issue proposes that it is a timer similar to regular aggression - perhaps I need to clarify this more?
[ 2009.06.07 17:14:55 ] Omber Zombie > yup, from the text it just reads as if they get a 1min blanket agression window
[ 2009.06.07 17:15:00 ] Omber Zombie > (end0
[ 2009.06.07 17:15:11 ] Dierdra Vaal > ok I'll adjust that
[ 2009.06.07 17:15:14 ] Dierdra Vaal > erik?
[ 2009.06.07 17:15:28 ] Erik Finnegan > I like that concept. And I agree to applying it all forms of "entering into a fight". It should spread the consequences to that Capsuleer. He is not neutral anymore.And speaking of repping consequences : is this issue related to issue #5 from La...
[ 2009.06.07 17:15:34 ] Erik Finnegan > Lark ?
[ 2009.06.07 17:15:40 ] Erik Finnegan > We might want to discuss these two things as one concept. (but keep them two issues)
[ 2009.06.07 17:15:45 ] Erik Finnegan > FIN
[ 2009.06.07 17:16:02 ] Dierdra Vaal > its not directly related to lark, so its best to keep the issues seperate.
[ 2009.06.07 17:16:09 ] Dierdra Vaal > avalloc
[ 2009.06.07 17:16:45 ] Avalloc > I agree with this concern, save for 0.0 repping on stations. Whoever owns the Outpost shouldn't get a remote aggression flag in that circumstance.
[ 2009.06.07 17:16:59 ] Omber Zombie > ^^
[ 2009.06.07 17:17:28 ] Avalloc > otherwise people repping station services would be screwed
[ 2009.06.07 17:17:43 ] Avalloc > if hostiles shot at said service, granting a flag
[ 2009.06.07 17:17:56 ] Avalloc > then they'll be bumped out of dock range
[ 2009.06.07 17:17:59 ] Dierdra Vaal > just being shot doesnt incurr a dock/jump timer though
[ 2009.06.07 17:18:00 ] Avalloc > (fin)
[ 2009.06.07 17:18:13 ] Dierdra Vaal > only shooting back does
[ 2009.06.07 17:18:26 ] Avalloc > hostle shoots service being repped, flag would be given
[ 2009.06.07 17:18:37 ] Larkonis Trassler > !
[ 2009.06.07 17:18:44 ] Dierdra Vaal > you make a good point, I'll add that :)
[ 2009.06.07 17:18:59 ] Avalloc > "he's repping cloning, tag it so he can't redock!"
[ 2009.06.07 17:19:02 ] Dierdra Vaal > meissa?
[ 2009.06.07 17:19:35 ] Meissa Anunthiel > Larkonis, if by "tying the remote repping to that of the repped" you mean "no more than that of the person being repped", then it still doesn't penalize the repper. If you mean "extend that of the repped person as well", then this could be used by the a
[ 2009.06.07 17:19:51 ] Meissa Anunthiel > against the target. For instance, by using the attacker's alt to use a small remote rep on the target to prevent him from jumping. So I agree with the proposal. But not to any tie.
[ 2009.06.07 17:20:08 ] Meissa Anunthiel > Avalloc. This would give whoever owns the station free repping, so station owner gets free right to play docking games? I don't favour expetions personally. People repping at a station deserve to get shot at, in the viewpoint of the attacker ;-)
[ 2009.06.07 17:20:16 ] Meissa Anunthiel > [/end]
[ 2009.06.07 17:20:18 ] Vuk Lau > !
[ 2009.06.07 17:20:23 ] Dierdra Vaal > lark
[ 2009.06.07 17:20:36 ] Larkonis Trassler > Just to clarify here dierdra...
[ 2009.06.07 17:21:15 ] Larkonis Trassler > The agro timer only applies to the repper if the reppee is at that point in time agressed to something
[ 2009.06.07 17:21:36 ] Dierdra Vaal > yes, just repping someone who doesnt have a dock timer wouldnt be considered aggression
[ 2009.06.07 17:21:50 ] Serenity Steele > !
[ 2009.06.07 17:21:59 ] Avalloc > !
[ 2009.06.07 17:22:01 ] Larkonis Trassler > as soon as the reppee ceases hostile actions, ie recalls his drones etc etc, the 60 second dock/jump timer counts down as normal for both
[ 2009.06.07 17:22:24 ] Larkonis Trassler > hence repping station services and whatnot would not incurr a docking timer
[ 2009.06.07 17:23:11 ] Dierdra Vaal > (remember to type "end" or something similar when finished)
[ 2009.06.07 17:23:21 ] Larkonis Trassler > and even if the repper is engaged in hostile actions of his own, it does not increase any docking timer incurred upon the reppee
[ 2009.06.07 17:23:24 ] Larkonis Trassler > [end]
[ 2009.06.07 17:23:32 ] Meissa Anunthiel > !
[ 2009.06.07 17:23:46 ] Larkonis Trassler > that's how i read it anyway
[ 2009.06.07 17:24:09 ] Dierdra Vaal > that would be what I had in mind but in all honesty - instead of nitpicking here over the details its more important for us to identify a problem for CCP. We've seen in the past they usually come up with their own solutions anyway
[ 2009.06.07 17:24:17 ] Dierdra Vaal > vuk?
[ 2009.06.07 17:24:21 ] Vuk Lau > I agree with Meissa. if u r repping the station you should get agro for that aswell. Or to put things simplified - remote modules should have the same status as offensive modules when it comes to agro mechanics.
[ 2009.06.07 17:24:24 ] Vuk Lau > end
[ 2009.06.07 17:24:35 ] Dierdra Vaal > ok
[ 2009.06.07 17:24:37 ] Dierdra Vaal > serenity
[ 2009.06.07 17:24:38 ] Serenity Steele > Consider that this will also effect the repping of POS, not only stations, also consider how you want the rule if it is only technially solveable by "one size fits all". [end]
[ 2009.06.07 17:25:13 ] Dierdra Vaal > avalloc
[ 2009.06.07 17:25:23 ] Avalloc > Meissa: Only in terms of aggression for repping modules on Outpost. The problem is I don't know if ccp can code a very specific aggression system in, so leaving 0.0 exempt from the repping aggression might be more realistic for code
[ 2009.06.07 17:26:27 ] Avalloc > actively assisting combat is one thing but if you're repping an outpost you'll get the agression forced on you by quick hostiles
[ 2009.06.07 17:26:31 ] Avalloc > (fin)
[ 2009.06.07 17:26:44 ] Dierdra Vaal > meissa
[ 2009.06.07 17:27:00 ] Meissa Anunthiel > In essence we're redefining an "aggression act" (as far as jumping/docking is concerned) to include "assisting someone with an agression timer". That's it. Same penalties as shooting someone. No more, no less.
[ 2009.06.07 17:27:19 ] Dierdra Vaal > yes, that is a very good way of putting it. thank you
[ 2009.06.07 17:27:28 ] Erik Finnegan > agreed
[ 2009.06.07 17:27:28 ] Meissa Anunthiel > Avalloc. If there's an agression timer for shooting Outpost modules, repping said modules should be as straightforward (or convoluted :p) as giving an aggro timer. (I'm unsure of the current state, never having docked after shooting station services)
[ 2009.06.07 17:27:29 ] Meissa Anunthiel > end
[ 2009.06.07 17:27:53 ] Meissa Anunthiel > sorry, wrong wording
[ 2009.06.07 17:28:23 ] Dierdra Vaal > we've worked through all the !s, I hope we can put this to a vote?
[ 2009.06.07 17:28:24 ] Meissa Anunthiel > ... modules, giving a penalty for repping said modules should be as straightforward ...
[ 2009.06.07 17:29:34 ] Vuk Lau > lets vote
[ 2009.06.07 17:29:42 ] Meissa Anunthiel > Can we get a "list" of modifications to the original proposal we're voting on, just to be sure?
[ 2009.06.07 17:29:45 ] Dierdra Vaal > the vote is on the remote boosting and aggression mechanic revision. (changes made due to the meeting: all forms of boosting are included). To clarify, this vote issue does not include an exception for 0.0 outposts
[ 2009.06.07 17:30:12 ] Dierdra Vaal > how does the CSM vote?
[ 2009.06.07 17:30:17 ] Dierdra Vaal > yes
[ 2009.06.07 17:30:18 ] Omber Zombie > yews
[ 2009.06.07 17:30:20 ] Vuk Lau > yes
[ 2009.06.07 17:30:27 ] Erik Finnegan > yes
[ 2009.06.07 17:30:30 ] Avalloc > yes
[ 2009.06.07 17:30:31 ] Meissa Anunthiel > yes
[ 2009.06.07 17:30:33 ] Larkonis Trassler > yes
[ 2009.06.07 17:31:03 ] Dierdra Vaal > issler, zastrow?
[ 2009.06.07 17:31:11 ] Zastrow J > yea
[ 2009.06.07 17:31:46 ] Dierdra Vaal > well it passes regardless of isslers vote
[ 2009.06.07 17:31:59 ] Dierdra Vaal > Shantana are you here?
[ 2009.06.07 17:32:02 ] Shatana Fulfairas > yes
[ 2009.06.07 17:32:09 ] Dierdra Vaal > ok you can vote since issler is afk
[ 2009.06.07 17:32:17 ] Shatana Fulfairas > ok will vote yes
[ 2009.06.07 17:32:31 ] Dierdra Vaal > the issue remote boosting & aggression carries with 9 yes and 0 no
[ 2009.06.07 17:32:41 ] Dierdra Vaal > next up is: 2: Factional Warfare, Lack of Development (Erik)
[ 2009.06.07 17:32:48 ] Dierdra Vaal > take it away erik
[ 2009.06.07 17:32:51 ] Meissa Anunthiel > (link)
[ 2009.06.07 17:32:57 ] Dierdra Vaal > http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1082050
[ 2009.06.07 17:33:04 ] Erik Finnegan > ok
[ 2009.06.07 17:33:06 ] Dierdra Vaal > (didnt get a wiki link)
[ 2009.06.07 17:33:12 ] Erik Finnegan > This is about Lack of Development in FW (http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Factional_Warfare_-_Lack_of_Development)
[ 2009.06.07 17:33:58 ] Erik Finnegan > The text in the wiki is pretty short already. :-} And a lot of history sticks to this one.
[ 2009.06.07 17:34:21 ] Issler Dainze > yes
[ 2009.06.07 17:34:27 ] Erik Finnegan > FW hasn't seen any improvements since its launch almost a year ago. This is extremely demoralizing for many pilots which have engaged in FW
[ 2009.06.07 17:34:29 ] Issler Dainze > (sorry)
[ 2009.06.07 17:34:40 ] Vuk Lau > !
[ 2009.06.07 17:35:00 ] Meissa Anunthiel > !
[ 2009.06.07 17:35:25 ] Erik Finnegan > And the boxed version grants easy access to FW. Given the feedback that CCP has already shown, they should finally do somehting. Development is awkwardly slow here.
[ 2009.06.07 17:35:34 ] Erik Finnegan > FIN
[ 2009.06.07 17:35:43 ] Erik Finnegan > Vuk, the Meissa (let's see if i can do this.... :-o)
[ 2009.06.07 17:35:45 ] Vuk Lau > can we use Eva document she sent to CCP as relevant documentation?
[ 2009.06.07 17:35:46 ] Erik Finnegan > then*
[ 2009.06.07 17:35:47 ] Issler Dainze > !
[ 2009.06.07 17:35:51 ] Vuk Lau > end
[ 2009.06.07 17:36:07 ] Omber Zombie > !
[ 2009.06.07 17:36:13 ] Meissa Anunthiel > CCP already aknowledged those issue, in CSM meeting 2.3 (as ankhe, as the author of that thread should know, since she was there). Besides the issue misrepresents CCP's stance on including alliances in FW, they already agreed to that. Just a note
[ 2009.06.07 17:36:16 ] Meissa Anunthiel > [/end]
[ 2009.06.07 17:36:47 ] Erik Finnegan > I attached Eva's document to the wiki entry, Vuk.
[ 2009.06.07 17:36:57 ] Erik Finnegan > Meissa, in which way "misrepresents" ?
[ 2009.06.07 17:37:19 ] Meissa Anunthiel > CCP already agreed to give a way for alliances to join FW
[ 2009.06.07 17:37:35 ] Meissa Anunthiel > (sorry for speaking out of turn, was an easy and short one)
[ 2009.06.07 17:38:00 ] Erik Finnegan > Sure, sure. But didn't they acknowledge to that in last October ?
[ 2009.06.07 17:38:05 ] Erik Finnegan > Issler
[ 2009.06.07 17:38:06 ] Vuk Lau > !
[ 2009.06.07 17:38:07 ] Erik Finnegan > then OZ
[ 2009.06.07 17:38:13 ] Issler Dainze > I think FW is just one of many things that need soem attention and I'm not sure I'd make it hight priority than some of the other, CCP is aware, is looking at alliance participation, so escalation seems unnecassary (end)
[ 2009.06.07 17:38:54 ] Erik Finnegan > OZ
[ 2009.06.07 17:39:04 ] Omber Zombie > i have no problem asking wtf is going on with FW, I'm just not sure that phrasing it as thembreaking promises is correct. They have said they would do most of the things listed, they just never really gave a timeline to when it will be implemented (end)
[ 2009.06.07 17:39:08 ] Meissa Anunthiel > !
[ 2009.06.07 17:39:43 ] Dierdra Vaal > !
[ 2009.06.07 17:39:48 ] Issler Dainze > !
[ 2009.06.07 17:40:07 ] Erik Finnegan > I might want to work on that phrasing. Yes. It still carries Ankhe's anger.... :-} I can rephrase. Generally, Issler, I want CCP to finally commit to something.
[ 2009.06.07 17:40:12 ] Serenity Steele > !
[ 2009.06.07 17:40:18 ] Erik Finnegan > Vuk, then Meissa, Dierdra
[ 2009.06.07 17:40:21 ] Vuk Lau > I know you attched it to the wiki but you cant put that as relevant document for the issue as it was not presented publicly, as relevant documention you can list only threads with proper support and older then 7 days
[ 2009.06.07 17:40:30 ] Vuk Lau > so pls remove it from the issue
[ 2009.06.07 17:40:44 ] Vuk Lau > and wiki
[ 2009.06.07 17:40:58 ] Vuk Lau > end
[ 2009.06.07 17:41:28 ] Meissa Anunthiel > The topic seems to be a general complaint along the lines of "hey guys, FW needs love". That's fine with me, but the last sentence of the wikified link is extremely whiney. I'll agree with the proposal if you just reword that sentence in a
[ 2009.06.07 17:41:28 ] Erik Finnegan > Err.... I am not familiar enough with the proceedings. Vuk, sorry, if I did something wrong there.
[ 2009.06.07 17:41:36 ] Meissa Anunthiel > non-childish manner[/end]
[ 2009.06.07 17:42:15 ] Erik Finnegan > Dierda, before you go with your remark...
[ 2009.06.07 17:42:38 ] Erik Finnegan > ...hasn't Eva's document been presented as part of a previous FW issue ? And is thus "public" ?
[ 2009.06.07 17:42:52 ] Omber Zombie > nope, i've never seenit before, she sent it direct to ccp
[ 2009.06.07 17:43:00 ] Erik Finnegan > meh :-/
[ 2009.06.07 17:43:06 ] Dierdra Vaal > I wasnt in the CSM then, OZ would be a better person to answer this
[ 2009.06.07 17:43:15 ] Omber Zombie > as if it came in here i would have ripped it to pieces
[ 2009.06.07 17:43:40 ] Omber Zombie > (sorry for going offtopic)
[ 2009.06.07 17:43:52 ] Erik Finnegan > grantedDierdra, then Issler
[ 2009.06.07 17:44:03 ] Dierdra Vaal > What OZ said basically. I think its fair to ask ccp about their plans/schedule for FW and possibly even discuss it with them. But as issler says, FW isnt more important than any other area in the game that also needs improving and I'm hestitant to...
[ 2009.06.07 17:44:18 ] Dierdra Vaal > commit to a higher priority for FW than other areas of the game. end
[ 2009.06.07 17:44:31 ] Serenity Steele > If the issues are raised, but there is no specific communication, ask for their relative priority in the product backlog, and which/if any iteration they will come in. [end]
[ 2009.06.07 17:44:43 ] Meissa Anunthiel > !
[ 2009.06.07 17:45:10 ] Erik Finnegan > Hum.... Issler is away ?
[ 2009.06.07 17:45:23 ] Dierdra Vaal > issler?
[ 2009.06.07 17:45:25 ] Issler Dainze > I think it is sad Ank sent the document without CSM review and I agree that asking is fine but the wording is unacceptale and i can't support escalating the priority of FW as an issue (end)
[ 2009.06.07 17:45:44 ] Omber Zombie > !
[ 2009.06.07 17:46:01 ] Dierdra Vaal > !
[ 2009.06.07 17:46:24 ] Erik Finnegan > OK, ok, let's boil it down a little. Basically, we cannot design the game for CCP. I shall skipp Eva's document.
[ 2009.06.07 17:47:03 ] Serenity Steele > /emote disagrees.
[ 2009.06.07 17:47:15 ] Erik Finnegan > A lot of suggestions have been put onto the table. Given that even the lag wasn't solved, it is a genearl priority issue. And I tend to go with Serenities suggestion, and what Meissa said.
[ 2009.06.07 17:47:36 ] Erik Finnegan > Meissa, OZ, Dierdra
[ 2009.06.07 17:47:40 ] Meissa Anunthiel > On prioritisation. Prioritization of the issues comes when we're done collecting them all. The question here is wether we want to discuss this particular topic with CCP, as it is presented, or if we can agree to modifications to
[ 2009.06.07 17:47:52 ] Meissa Anunthiel > the issue before the vote. [/end]
[ 2009.06.07 17:48:12 ] Omber Zombie > i'd suggest changing the issue to read that CSM is asking CCP to explain what is going on with FW development and when those developments will reach the game, similar to what I am asking in the next discussion topic (end)
[ 2009.06.07 17:48:20 ] Dierdra Vaal > I think everyone's just about made their point so I'm hoping we can vote soon but I'd just like you (erik) to clarify. Are we voting on simply asking CCP what is up with FW, or are we voting to commit to put FW development on a higher priority? ....
[ 2009.06.07 17:48:41 ] Dierdra Vaal > the document should be changed to reflect its precise intention (so similar to what OZ said). end
[ 2009.06.07 17:48:50 ] Erik Finnegan > Hum.... help me out here : we cannot really ask CCP to commit to anything, right ?
[ 2009.06.07 17:49:04 ] Dierdra Vaal > we can ask, but they might say no
[ 2009.06.07 17:49:22 ] Dierdra Vaal > we cannot _force_ them, if thats what you mean
[ 2009.06.07 17:49:30 ] Omber Zombie > if we ask what they are doing and when we're going to see it, they don't really have any way of avoiding the question
[ 2009.06.07 17:50:45 ] Erik Finnegan > Well, FW has a lot of RP potential. I want the CSM to vote on "please attribute a higher priority"...
[ 2009.06.07 17:50:57 ] Erik Finnegan > ...(and I will rephrase not to sound childish, as Meissa suggested)
[ 2009.06.07 17:51:01 ] Omber Zombie > ok, vote on that then
[ 2009.06.07 17:51:24 ] Dierdra Vaal > can you please phrase the issue to vote on, Erik? :)
[ 2009.06.07 17:51:36 ] Erik Finnegan > Yes., Dierda. One Sec.
[ 2009.06.07 17:53:27 ] Erik Finnegan > FW has weak points (like other expansions). And they have not been addressed since a year. Not even "Alliances" made it in, which was agreed October 2008. Given the potential of the feature: Please attribute higher priority to FW development.
[ 2009.06.07 17:53:48 ] Issler Dainze > /emote votes no
[ 2009.06.07 17:53:52 ] Dierdra Vaal > /emote votes no
[ 2009.06.07 17:54:24 ] Avalloc > voting no
[ 2009.06.07 17:54:29 ] Omber Zombie > no (more important things are higher priority)
[ 2009.06.07 17:54:31 ] Larkonis Trassler > /emote votes no
[ 2009.06.07 17:54:43 ] Vuk Lau > no
[ 2009.06.07 17:54:47 ] Zastrow J > no
[ 2009.06.07 17:55:23 ] Zastrow J > BOOM Headshot!
[ 2009.06.07 17:55:23 ] Erik Finnegan > yes
[ 2009.06.07 17:55:26 ] Dierdra Vaal > meissa?
[ 2009.06.07 17:55:41 ] Meissa Anunthiel > No for higher priority. (Note to Erik: Would have voted yes for current shortcoming fixes)
[ 2009.06.07 17:55:53 ] Dierdra Vaal > The motion fails 1/8. Sorry erik
[ 2009.06.07 17:56:03 ] Erik Finnegan > No personal offence :)
[ 2009.06.07 17:56:03 ] Dierdra Vaal > next: 3: Industry Expansion (OZ)
[ 2009.06.07 17:56:07 ] Dierdra Vaal > http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Whatever_happened_to_the_industry_expansion
[ 2009.06.07 17:56:20 ] Omber Zombie > Basically, this issue is about asking CCP WTF happened to the industry expansion they promoted, then delayed and has not appeared since. It covers a whole range of things they were going to introduce and never did.
[ 2009.06.07 17:56:20 ] Dierdra Vaal > OZ? :)
[ 2009.06.07 17:56:25 ] Omber Zombie > I listed a few specifics, but is essentially an open question to CCP to answer.
[ 2009.06.07 17:56:30 ] Omber Zombie > questions/comments?
[ 2009.06.07 17:56:55 ] Erik Finnegan > !
[ 2009.06.07 17:57:01 ] Omber Zombie > e
[ 2009.06.07 17:57:31 ] Erik Finnegan > So, in this issue were are going for the moderate version, which I did not agree on for FW. Which is : please tell us, what is going on.
[ 2009.06.07 17:57:32 ] Erik Finnegan > ?
[ 2009.06.07 17:57:46 ] Omber Zombie > pretty much
[ 2009.06.07 17:57:53 ] Shatana Fulfairas > !
[ 2009.06.07 17:57:56 ] Shatana Fulfairas > Industry Patch is over due there is a large player base who love to mine and build in this game i would loe to see some effort come its way (end)
[ 2009.06.07 17:57:56 ] Omber Zombie > shatana
[ 2009.06.07 17:58:12 ] Omber Zombie > cool, anyone else?
[ 2009.06.07 17:58:16 ] Meissa Anunthiel > !
[ 2009.06.07 17:58:21 ] Issler Dainze > !
[ 2009.06.07 17:58:25 ] Omber Zombie > meissa
[ 2009.06.07 17:58:25 ] Dierdra Vaal > !
[ 2009.06.07 17:58:49 ] Omber Zombie > (then issler and dierdra)
[ 2009.06.07 17:59:00 ] Meissa Anunthiel > An industry expansion is definately long due, CCP promised us one, never delivered it. It's a good idea to at least enquire where they're at on that front [/end]
[ 2009.06.07 17:59:14 ] Omber Zombie > issler
[ 2009.06.07 17:59:22 ] Issler Dainze > Mining is really needing some luvin so I think gettin CCP to comment on the status of this undelivered revamp needs to happen (end)
[ 2009.06.07 17:59:32 ] Omber Zombie > bossman
[ 2009.06.07 18:00:01 ] Dierdra Vaal > I basically agree with the rest. Considering we are simply asking CCP for info, I see no problem supporting this. end
[ 2009.06.07 18:00:20 ] Omber Zombie > if no one else - i'm happy to throw up the vote
[ 2009.06.07 18:00:36 ] Omber Zombie > cool - VOTE:
[ 2009.06.07 18:00:37 ] Omber Zombie > yes
[ 2009.06.07 18:00:38 ] Issler Dainze > /emote votes aye
[ 2009.06.07 18:00:40 ] Vuk Lau > yes
[ 2009.06.07 18:00:47 ] Larkonis Trassler > /emote votes yes
[ 2009.06.07 18:00:52 ] Avalloc > yes
[ 2009.06.07 18:00:54 ] Dierdra Vaal > yes
[ 2009.06.07 18:01:18 ] Erik Finnegan > yes
[ 2009.06.07 18:01:22 ] Meissa Anunthiel > yes
[ 2009.06.07 18:01:39 ] Dierdra Vaal > zastrow?
[ 2009.06.07 18:01:41 ] Omber Zombie > zastrow?
[ 2009.06.07 18:02:10 ] Omber Zombie > passed either way, can give a vote later
[ 2009.06.07 18:02:29 ] Dierdra Vaal > the motion carries 8/0 (most likely 9/) Thanks for a very quick issue OZ :)
[ 2009.06.07 18:02:37 ] Omber Zombie > pleasure :p
[ 2009.06.07 18:02:45 ] Vuk Lau > i will try to be faster
[ 2009.06.07 18:02:55 ] Dierdra Vaal > I would like to ask everyone to not go afk, even if you dont really care about the issue at hand. thx
[ 2009.06.07 18:03:03 ] Dierdra Vaal > next up: 4: Logistic drones (Hull repair drones) (Vuk)
[ 2009.06.07 18:03:06 ] Vuk Lau > http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Hull_Maintenance_Drones
[ 2009.06.07 18:03:19 ] Vuk Lau > We have Armor and Shield Maintenance Drones, there is no reason not to have Hull ones.
[ 2009.06.07 18:03:24 ] Vuk Lau > any questions?
[ 2009.06.07 18:03:42 ] Vuk Lau > lets vote :D
[ 2009.06.07 18:03:52 ] Meissa Anunthiel > yes
[ 2009.06.07 18:03:53 ] Omber Zombie > yes
[ 2009.06.07 18:03:54 ] Avalloc > voting yes
[ 2009.06.07 18:03:57 ] Larkonis Trassler > yes
[ 2009.06.07 18:03:59 ] Vuk Lau > yes
[ 2009.06.07 18:03:59 ] Zastrow J > yes
[ 2009.06.07 18:04:03 ] Dierdra Vaal > sure why not. it seems a trivial addition :)
[ 2009.06.07 18:04:10 ] Issler Dainze > yes
[ 2009.06.07 18:04:10 ] Dierdra Vaal > and real men hull-tank, afterall
[ 2009.06.07 18:04:17 ] Shatana Fulfairas > lol
[ 2009.06.07 18:04:25 ] Vuk Lau > 1 min 8 seconds
[ 2009.06.07 18:04:27 ] Vuk Lau > for this issue
[ 2009.06.07 18:04:30 ] Vuk Lau > thanx :D
[ 2009.06.07 18:04:44 ] Issler Dainze > I was thinking of saying something about this really letting the hull tankers get their day in the sun!
[ 2009.06.07 18:04:48 ] Dierdra Vaal > 1 person hasnt voted?
[ 2009.06.07 18:04:52 ] Erik Finnegan > yes
[ 2009.06.07 18:04:54 ] Erik Finnegan > :-}
[ 2009.06.07 18:04:59 ] Dierdra Vaal > ok motion passed 9/0 :)
[ 2009.06.07 18:05:08 ] Dierdra Vaal > 5: Change to Agro Mechanics Rep Outlaws (Lark)
[ 2009.06.07 18:05:13 ] Dierdra Vaal > http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Outlaw_Remote_Repping
[ 2009.06.07 18:05:17 ] Larkonis Trassler > Hi
[ 2009.06.07 18:05:45 ] Zastrow J > oh i forgot to vote on the industry thing, i wanted to vote no on that.
[ 2009.06.07 18:06:04 ] Dierdra Vaal > 8/1 it is for the industry thing then. Dont forget to vote next time
[ 2009.06.07 18:06:05 ] Larkonis Trassler > Basically atm anyone rending remote assistance (reps, remote eccm etc) to an outlaw gains a gcc
[ 2009.06.07 18:06:23 ] Larkonis Trassler > even if the outlaw in question does not have a gcc
[ 2009.06.07 18:06:47 ] Larkonis Trassler > I'd like to change this so that you only incur a gcc if assisting someone with a gcc
[ 2009.06.07 18:07:02 ] Omber Zombie > (just for meeting minutes, can you expand on what GCC stands for)
[ 2009.06.07 18:07:02 ] Larkonis Trassler > enabling gangs of outlaws, or those partially consisting of outlaws
[ 2009.06.07 18:07:16 ] Larkonis Trassler > Global criminal countdown
[ 2009.06.07 18:07:30 ] Larkonis Trassler > basically a 15 minute 'red' aggression timer
[ 2009.06.07 18:07:30 ] Erik Finnegan > Thanks OZ - I felt so stupid.......
[ 2009.06.07 18:07:45 ] Erik Finnegan > /emote will add it to evelopedia's glossary
[ 2009.06.07 18:07:49 ] Larkonis Trassler > weapons free to all players, sentry guns and concord if you jump into hisec
[ 2009.06.07 18:07:52 ] Shatana Fulfairas > !
[ 2009.06.07 18:08:41 ] Omber Zombie > !
[ 2009.06.07 18:08:42 ] Larkonis Trassler > anyway, it will enable gangs of outlaws or those consisting partially of outlaws to engage legitimate war targets and other outlaws in lowsec without worrying about gaining a GCC
[ 2009.06.07 18:08:52 ] Larkonis Trassler > Shat then OZ
[ 2009.06.07 18:09:26 ] Shatana Fulfairas > agree with lark on the "I'd like to change this so that you only incur a gcc if assisting someone with a gcc" i think that works better (end)
[ 2009.06.07 18:09:37 ] Omber Zombie > an odd mechanics question: if you are remote repping someone without a GCC, but while doing so, they get one, would you under the new mechanic get GCC flagged? (end)
[ 2009.06.07 18:09:59 ] Larkonis Trassler > oz, yes
[ 2009.06.07 18:10:15 ] Erik Finnegan > Maybe the auto-cycle should end ?
[ 2009.06.07 18:10:27 ] Larkonis Trassler > erik
[ 2009.06.07 18:10:47 ] Larkonis Trassler > under normal circumstances if you try and rep someone who is an outlaw or who has a gcc you get a little popup
[ 2009.06.07 18:11:18 ] Erik Finnegan > Just wondering : if you are auto-repeat repping, and the reppee acquires the GCC, maybe the repper should have a chance to avoid it ?
[ 2009.06.07 18:11:36 ] Erik Finnegan > ( expanding on OZ's question)
[ 2009.06.07 18:11:51 ] Larkonis Trassler > afaik under normal circumstances if you're repping a non outlaw and he obtains a gcc then on the next cycle you get the popup
[ 2009.06.07 18:11:59 ] Erik Finnegan > ok
[ 2009.06.07 18:12:36 ] Larkonis Trassler > any more questions?
[ 2009.06.07 18:13:19 ] Omber Zombie > /emote thinks we should vote
[ 2009.06.07 18:13:31 ] Larkonis Trassler > Ok voting to change the mechanics so that a player only incurs a GCC if he provides assistance to a player who already has a GCC
[ 2009.06.07 18:13:38 ] Avalloc > voting yes
[ 2009.06.07 18:13:38 ] Dierdra Vaal > yes
[ 2009.06.07 18:13:39 ] Meissa Anunthiel > Yes
[ 2009.06.07 18:13:40 ] Erik Finnegan > yes
[ 2009.06.07 18:13:42 ] Larkonis Trassler > yes
[ 2009.06.07 18:13:44 ] Vuk Lau > yes
[ 2009.06.07 18:13:45 ] Omber Zombie > yes
[ 2009.06.07 18:13:57 ] Zastrow J > yes
[ 2009.06.07 18:14:00 ] Issler Dainze > yes
[ 2009.06.07 18:14:12 ] Larkonis Trassler > the eyes to the right 9, the nose to the left 0
[ 2009.06.07 18:14:20 ] Larkonis Trassler > \o/
[ 2009.06.07 18:14:23 ] Larkonis Trassler > [end]
[ 2009.06.07 18:14:59 ] Dierdra Vaal > motion passes 9/0
[ 2009.06.07 18:15:14 ] Dierdra Vaal > 6: Faction Warfare lag needs fixing now (Erik)
[ 2009.06.07 18:15:20 ] Dierdra Vaal > (dont have a wiki link)
[ 2009.06.07 18:15:35 ] Issler Dainze > !
[ 2009.06.07 18:15:48 ] Dierdra Vaal > wait for eriks intro, please :)
[ 2009.06.07 18:16:02 ] Erik Finnegan > Well, at least I put them to the "Open Issues" cateogry, which OZ has prepared. :-}
[ 2009.06.07 18:16:14 ] Erik Finnegan > Ok, now lag...... Here is the page http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Factional_Warfare_-_Lag_needs_fixing
[ 2009.06.07 18:17:08 ] Erik Finnegan > There have been several threads in the past, where the lag was critizied, and CCP said, they would look into the issue.
[ 2009.06.07 18:17:11 ] Meissa Anunthiel > !
[ 2009.06.07 18:17:30 ] Omber Zombie > !
[ 2009.06.07 18:17:49 ] Erik Finnegan > Again something with lots of emotions attached to.So let's go: Issler
[ 2009.06.07 18:17:53 ] Issler Dainze > LAG needs fixing, CCP knows that, I don't see how bringing up lag related to FW makes any sense at all (end)
[ 2009.06.07 18:18:25 ] Erik Finnegan > Meissa, Omber
[ 2009.06.07 18:18:34 ] Meissa Anunthiel > " Originally by: CCP WranglerWe're looking into this situation and we'll update you as soon as we can."
[ 2009.06.07 18:18:38 ] Larkonis Trassler > !
[ 2009.06.07 18:18:56 ] Meissa Anunthiel > "CCP RyanD : Please don't "daily bump". As we already stated we are aware that users are having problems and we're actively looking into the root cause. As soon as more info comes available, we'll communicate it."
[ 2009.06.07 18:18:59 ] Meissa Anunthiel > nuff said
[ 2009.06.07 18:19:00 ] Meissa Anunthiel > [/end]
[ 2009.06.07 18:19:27 ] Omber Zombie > other than standing there whipping the coders, how exactly do you want ccp to fix this faster than them saying "we're still trying to fix it"? (end)
[ 2009.06.07 18:19:59 ] Dierdra Vaal > !
[ 2009.06.07 18:20:08 ] Erik Finnegan > Well, they did successfully address the lag in much bigger scales, in 0.0. Did they not ?
[ 2009.06.07 18:20:20 ] Omber Zombie > that was a global system upgrade
[ 2009.06.07 18:20:43 ] Erik Finnegan > It did not work for FW systems, apparently.
[ 2009.06.07 18:20:47 ] Erik Finnegan > Dierdra
[ 2009.06.07 18:20:54 ] Issler Dainze > !
[ 2009.06.07 18:20:56 ] Dierdra Vaal > I havent done enough FW to be familiar with this. Is there specific, unexpected lag in certain FW situations, or is it simply a matter of many people being in the same place?
[ 2009.06.07 18:20:56 ] Larkonis Trassler > !
[ 2009.06.07 18:20:58 ] Dierdra Vaal > end
[ 2009.06.07 18:21:05 ] Erik Finnegan > oops, Lark, sorra
[ 2009.06.07 18:21:08 ] Erik Finnegan > y
[ 2009.06.07 18:21:19 ] Avalloc > !
[ 2009.06.07 18:21:53 ] Larkonis Trassler > I think the difference between FW areas and 0.0 is in 0.0 big fights are easier to predict
[ 2009.06.07 18:22:18 ] Erik Finnegan > Issler and Avalloc
[ 2009.06.07 18:22:21 ] Issler Dainze > I don't think it has been solved for 0.0 and they are definitely trying to improve it so again, I don't see this as productive (end)
[ 2009.06.07 18:23:33 ] Shatana Fulfairas > !
[ 2009.06.07 18:23:34 ] Avalloc > Erik: The 0.0 lag issue was addressed by reinforcing node for a system which requires Director of corp submitting a request pre-downtime. In FW I imagine systems are randomly lagged as "blobs" move about. Reinforcing FW stuff would require pre-dt petiti
[ 2009.06.07 18:23:41 ] Avalloc > (end)
[ 2009.06.07 18:24:09 ] Erik Finnegan > As Meissa copied into here, CCP acknowledged they are having difficulties. I want them to be more presice. Yes, Lark and Avalloc, maybe it's a lack of predictability.
[ 2009.06.07 18:24:28 ] Erik Finnegan > Shatana
[ 2009.06.07 18:24:30 ] Shatana Fulfairas > lag is a problem all round in places still and will be and its not predictable so is a hard thing to mamage perfectly (end)
[ 2009.06.07 18:25:29 ] Erik Finnegan > CCP posted "we are looking into it" for months. Can we please ask them to tell us to be more specific ?
[ 2009.06.07 18:26:22 ] Dierdra Vaal > !
[ 2009.06.07 18:26:25 ] Issler Dainze > !
[ 2009.06.07 18:26:32 ] Erik Finnegan > Dierdra and Issler then
[ 2009.06.07 18:26:51 ] Dierdra Vaal > are you looking to adjust your issue to ask them more specific info on their FW lag research/development? Currently its looking to boost development effort in that area.
[ 2009.06.07 18:27:04 ] Dierdra Vaal > (and please answer this time :P) end
[ 2009.06.07 18:28:37 ] Erik Finnegan > To be more specific
[ 2009.06.07 18:28:54 ] Erik Finnegan > I guess the FW pilots would be happier if they had more info about what the problem is.
[ 2009.06.07 18:29:14 ] Omber Zombie > !
[ 2009.06.07 18:29:18 ] Erik Finnegan > Currently the emotions are high also because CCP does not say why they cannot fix it (and they are already taking months for it)
[ 2009.06.07 18:29:19 ] Dierdra Vaal > I can support that, though the issue wiki would need to be adjust to reflect this change. end
[ 2009.06.07 18:29:29 ] Issler Dainze > Not sure what else you are expecting from them, it gets seriously techical almost immediately beyond that (end)
[ 2009.06.07 18:29:54 ] Dierdra Vaal > ok
[ 2009.06.07 18:29:54 ] Erik Finnegan > OZ
[ 2009.06.07 18:30:33 ] Omber Zombie > as has been copied into this, they have already stated they are working on it, in response to the question of "what is the problem". How would CSM asking the same question get a different response that they couldn't make publicly themselves?
[ 2009.06.07 18:30:58 ] Meissa Anunthiel > !
[ 2009.06.07 18:31:09 ] Omber Zombie > if we do get an answer that involves NDA related thigns, we can't tell anyone anything, and if the respnse is, "we don't know, we're still looking" the issue goes unfulfilled. This is a pointless issue. (end0
[ 2009.06.07 18:31:29 ] Vuk Lau > !
[ 2009.06.07 18:31:35 ] Dierdra Vaal > !
[ 2009.06.07 18:31:39 ] Erik Finnegan > CCP has been more precise (also on technical level) in other areas.
[ 2009.06.07 18:31:47 ] Erik Finnegan > Why can't they here ?
[ 2009.06.07 18:31:57 ] Erik Finnegan > I'm not trying to make them look bad
[ 2009.06.07 18:32:33 ] Erik Finnegan > And I surely hope the issue is not sooo worrying as it falls under NDA
[ 2009.06.07 18:32:39 ] Omber Zombie > it's not a question of making them look bad, but have you considred that they haven't actually figured out the problem yet and are still looking for it?\
[ 2009.06.07 18:33:10 ] Omber Zombie > (end)
[ 2009.06.07 18:33:44 ] Erik Finnegan > You, see, asking them on behalf of the CSM would be a nice hint to CCP to eventually increasing their effort - and this time I am not litterally asking for that.
[ 2009.06.07 18:34:16 ] Erik Finnegan > Miessa, Vuk, Dierdra.
[ 2009.06.07 18:34:21 ] Meissa Anunthiel > What if they told you "well, it's somewhere in the way mutual FW flags conflict with GCC or something else, we don't know for sure yet". How would that help you? Or "it looks like a race condition in some DB call". How would that help?
[ 2009.06.07 18:34:53 ] Meissa Anunthiel > The short answer is: "that won't". Devs have replied on at least 5 different occasions to the FW lag threads saying "we're aware of the problem, we're working on it". Harassing won't make it go faster.... [/end]
[ 2009.06.07 18:35:13 ] Vuk Lau > as much I agree that FW needs some love, I must agree here with OZ
[ 2009.06.07 18:35:18 ] Vuk Lau > This issue is pointless
[ 2009.06.07 18:35:35 ] Vuk Lau > but I would be happy to vote for, if u make some general issue for nex tmeeting
[ 2009.06.07 18:35:40 ] Vuk Lau > as OZ did it for ind expansion
[ 2009.06.07 18:35:42 ] Vuk Lau > end
[ 2009.06.07 18:35:44 ] Meissa Anunthiel > !
[ 2009.06.07 18:35:45 ] Dierdra Vaal > I dont entirely agree with OZ. Requests from CSM have resulted in more elaborate explanations/devblogs in the past. If this is JUST a matter of asking ccp for more explanation on the FW issue, I see no reason not to support it.
[ 2009.06.07 18:36:05 ] Issler Dainze > !
[ 2009.06.07 18:36:07 ] Erik Finnegan > Dierdra, thank you. I was about to elaborate that.
[ 2009.06.07 18:36:08 ] Omber Zombie > ^^
[ 2009.06.07 18:36:25 ] Dierdra Vaal > most of the time, a big source of frustration is just a lack of communication, and this frustration is lifted in part even IF the communication just explains what CCP is still not sure what it is.
[ 2009.06.07 18:36:31 ] Dierdra Vaal > people dont like feelign ignored. end
[ 2009.06.07 18:36:34 ] Erik Finnegan > It is valid for the CSM to ask, if the forum didn't bring the desired resposes
[ 2009.06.07 18:37:35 ] Erik Finnegan > Meissa, Issler, but only if you disagree with Dierdra last re-phrase
[ 2009.06.07 18:38:11 ] Meissa Anunthiel > To make it easy and short. It's a bug, they're aware of the bug, it's been reported. They've assigned the resources. They're working on it. FW needs love, we agree. But this is a bug here...
[ 2009.06.07 18:38:30 ] Meissa Anunthiel > Saying people are ignored is stupid. there's dev replies to attest of the contrary. Multiple ones. [/end]
[ 2009.06.07 18:38:40 ] Issler Dainze > What CCP is doing right now is again not going to make much sense to to anyone that isn't a software engineer, and even then you would have to have so much specific knowledge about how Eve is implemented it would still have little value (end)
[ 2009.06.07 18:39:03 ] Erik Finnegan > Guys, it is not about the concrete answer, that CCP might give....
[ 2009.06.07 18:39:34 ] Erik Finnegan > ....this is a signal that the CSM also has pickup that that something in FW isn't right.
[ 2009.06.07 18:40:04 ] Erik Finnegan > Even IF we need to communicate back to the people something cosy because CCP really cannot nail it down.
[ 2009.06.07 18:40:07 ] Issler Dainze > !
[ 2009.06.07 18:40:28 ] Erik Finnegan > At least the pilots woulnd't say that neither the CSM would care.
[ 2009.06.07 18:40:34 ] Erik Finnegan > yes, Issler
[ 2009.06.07 18:40:42 ] Issler Dainze > I don't think the CSM needs to "signal" CCP about FW (end)
[ 2009.06.07 18:41:06 ] Erik Finnegan > Ok, let's vote then. I know you are not too keen on FW. :)
[ 2009.06.07 18:41:19 ] Vuk Lau > no
[ 2009.06.07 18:41:22 ] Issler Dainze > /emote votes no
[ 2009.06.07 18:41:28 ] Larkonis Trassler > no
[ 2009.06.07 18:41:41 ] Meissa Anunthiel > I'll vote yes, just because by the time we get to talk about it (in 2 months), it will either be a real problem or have disappeared
[ 2009.06.07 18:42:04 ] Avalloc > hrmm.. no
[ 2009.06.07 18:42:08 ] Dierdra Vaal > I vote yes, since its just a request for information
[ 2009.06.07 18:42:14 ] Zastrow J > no
[ 2009.06.07 18:42:47 ] Omber Zombie > yes, on the proviso it's just an info request, not a "please do it faster" request, if not, no
[ 2009.06.07 18:43:14 ] Meissa Anunthiel > (dierdra DC'ed), OZ, Vice-chairman?
[ 2009.06.07 18:43:25 ] Omber Zombie > he's rejoinign now
[ 2009.06.07 18:43:26 ] Dierdra Vaal > I am back :)
[ 2009.06.07 18:43:31 ] Dierdra Vaal > did my vote go through?
[ 2009.06.07 18:43:37 ] Meissa Anunthiel > it did
[ 2009.06.07 18:43:40 ] Meissa Anunthiel > one vote missing
[ 2009.06.07 18:43:41 ] Vuk Lau > [18:41:10] Dierdra Vaal > I vote no
[ 2009.06.07 18:43:44 ] Vuk Lau > it did :D
[ 2009.06.07 18:43:50 ] Meissa Anunthiel > Erik's
[ 2009.06.07 18:43:52 ] Dierdra Vaal > liar
[ 2009.06.07 18:44:02 ] Erik Finnegan > yes
[ 2009.06.07 18:44:13 ] Meissa Anunthiel > 5 votes against, 4 for
[ 2009.06.07 18:45:31 ] Dierdra Vaal > motion fails, 5/4.
[ 2009.06.07 18:45:52 ] Dierdra Vaal > 7: Reroll Default Overview Settings to Pre Apoc 1.2 (Lark)
[ 2009.06.07 18:45:58 ] Dierdra Vaal > http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Apocrypha_1.2_Default_Overview_Settings
[ 2009.06.07 18:46:00 ] Larkonis Trassler > hi again
[ 2009.06.07 18:46:22 ] Larkonis Trassler > Basically, ccp dropped the ball a bit with the new overview settings released in apoc 1.2
[ 2009.06.07 18:46:38 ] Vuk Lau > i am going afk 2 mins, I vote yes for this issue...sry
[ 2009.06.07 18:46:59 ] Larkonis Trassler > Outlaws now display above ALL friendly entities in the order of precedence leading to some hilarious friendly fire incidents
[ 2009.06.07 18:47:07 ] Larkonis Trassler > and outlaws are no longer 'blinky'
[ 2009.06.07 18:47:25 ] Meissa Anunthiel > !
[ 2009.06.07 18:47:25 ] Larkonis Trassler > leaving many pirates slightly upset at losing this status symbol
[ 2009.06.07 18:47:31 ] Larkonis Trassler > Meissa
[ 2009.06.07 18:47:43 ] Dierdra Vaal > !
[ 2009.06.07 18:47:52 ] Meissa Anunthiel > I agree about that outlaws should display below the other status
[ 2009.06.07 18:48:18 ] Meissa Anunthiel > But the blinky? I'm not sure. You can be currently sure anything blinky is safe to shoot at
[ 2009.06.07 18:48:24 ] Meissa Anunthiel > and will shoot you
[ 2009.06.07 18:48:42 ] Larkonis Trassler > Well yes
[ 2009.06.07 18:48:49 ] Larkonis Trassler > outlaws are always safe to shoot at
[ 2009.06.07 18:48:58 ] Meissa Anunthiel > currently outlaws can't shoot you, they're a deep deep bloody red, just not blinky
[ 2009.06.07 18:49:13 ] Meissa Anunthiel > I think maybe the difference is justified[/end]
[ 2009.06.07 18:50:15 ] Larkonis Trassler > I understand that point Meissa, that second point is more something of pride for outlaws
[ 2009.06.07 18:50:25 ] Larkonis Trassler > dierdra
[ 2009.06.07 18:50:28 ] Dierdra Vaal > I agree with the rollback, or at least some changes to this default. Its harder now for newbies to identify threats. And I do love my newbies and I want to keep them safe...ish. :P end
[ 2009.06.07 18:51:51 ] Larkonis Trassler > any other questions?
[ 2009.06.07 18:52:01 ] Meissa Anunthiel > hmmm
[ 2009.06.07 18:52:04 ] Meissa Anunthiel > !
[ 2009.06.07 18:52:14 ] Larkonis Trassler > meissa
[ 2009.06.07 18:52:38 ] Meissa Anunthiel > I must reiterate that blinky now unequivocally identifies something that will shoot you rather than something you can shoot at. While the carmin red is something you can shoot at safely too
[ 2009.06.07 18:53:10 ] Meissa Anunthiel > Do you feel the pride is worth the lack of clarity?
[ 2009.06.07 18:53:36 ] Larkonis Trassler > By their very nature if someone is an outlaw then they probably will shoot you
[ 2009.06.07 18:53:40 ] Meissa Anunthiel > I'll support the issue either way, but I'd really rather the blinky be left off[/end]
[ 2009.06.07 18:53:57 ] Larkonis Trassler > Ok
[ 2009.06.07 18:54:57 ] Larkonis Trassler > On the issue of Rerolling default overview settings so Outlaws are below all friendly entities on default order of precedence and to make outlaws blinky again please vote
[ 2009.06.07 18:54:58 ] Larkonis Trassler > yes
[ 2009.06.07 18:55:08 ] Meissa Anunthiel > yes
[ 2009.06.07 18:55:08 ] Erik Finnegan > yes
[ 2009.06.07 18:55:09 ] Vuk Lau > yes
[ 2009.06.07 18:55:12 ] Omber Zombie > yes
[ 2009.06.07 18:55:15 ] Issler Dainze > yes
[ 2009.06.07 18:55:16 ] Dierdra Vaal > yes
[ 2009.06.07 18:55:24 ] Avalloc > yes
[ 2009.06.07 18:55:48 ] Larkonis Trassler > zastrow?
[ 2009.06.07 18:56:37 ] Zastrow J > yes
[ 2009.06.07 18:56:39 ] Zastrow J > :)
[ 2009.06.07 18:56:42 ] Dierdra Vaal > motion passes 9/0
[ 2009.06.07 18:56:50 ] Dierdra Vaal > 8: Give Assault Frigates a 4th Bonus (Erik)
[ 2009.06.07 18:56:58 ] Erik Finnegan > Here is the wiki
[ 2009.06.07 18:57:01 ] Erik Finnegan > http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Assault_Frigates_4th_Bonus
[ 2009.06.07 18:57:19 ] Erik Finnegan > At the moment, Assault Frigates are the only T2 ship which lacks a 4th bonus. They sometimes even lack firepower compared to the T1 version (to the better of Optimal range, in one case, which is contrary to AS's predominant use).
[ 2009.06.07 18:57:25 ] Erik Finnegan > The request is to revisit AS and make them a more viable choice between T1, Interceptors, and HACs
[ 2009.06.07 18:57:46 ] Erik Finnegan > Discussion please.
[ 2009.06.07 18:57:58 ] Omber Zombie > !
[ 2009.06.07 18:58:12 ] Omber Zombie > definately needs to be looked at, not sure the examples given are required tho (end)
[ 2009.06.07 18:58:41 ] Dierdra Vaal > sorry, back
[ 2009.06.07 18:58:50 ] Omber Zombie > [18:57:12] Omber Zombie > definately needs to be looked at, not sure the examples given are required tho (end)
[ 2009.06.07 18:58:55 ] Omber Zombie > is what you missed
[ 2009.06.07 18:59:22 ] Erik Finnegan > For the examples I had to rely on that people on the forums claimed.
[ 2009.06.07 18:59:25 ] Avalloc > brb, voting yes btw
[ 2009.06.07 18:59:29 ] Erik Finnegan > But I'm fine without
[ 2009.06.07 18:59:45 ] Dierdra Vaal > !
[ 2009.06.07 18:59:51 ] Vuk Lau > !
[ 2009.06.07 18:59:51 ] Erik Finnegan > Dierdra
[ 2009.06.07 19:00:01 ] Erik Finnegan > (then Vuk)
[ 2009.06.07 19:00:21 ] Vuk Lau > scrap my !
[ 2009.06.07 19:00:28 ] Erik Finnegan > How ?
[ 2009.06.07 19:00:42 ] Omber Zombie > (ignore him)
[ 2009.06.07 19:00:58 ] Erik Finnegan > (That's what I'm already doing. But what else does he want ?!?!)
[ 2009.06.07 19:01:04 ] Zastrow J > afk a minute making popcorn, my vote will be yes I CANNOT BE SWAYED
[ 2009.06.07 19:01:18 ] Dierdra Vaal > is it my turn?
[ 2009.06.07 19:01:24 ] Omber Zombie > yes
[ 2009.06.07 19:01:28 ] Erik Finnegan > I called your name, sweatheart
[ 2009.06.07 19:01:32 ] Erik Finnegan > sweetheart
[ 2009.06.07 19:01:36 ] Erik Finnegan > omg
[ 2009.06.07 19:01:36 ] Zastrow J > sweat.  heart
[ 2009.06.07 19:01:39 ] Erik Finnegan > just talk
[ 2009.06.07 19:01:49 ] Erik Finnegan > Zastrow -> to the kitchen !
[ 2009.06.07 19:01:53 ] Dierdra Vaal > right, while a lot of AF's leave a lot to me desired - how many do actually need rebalancing?
[ 2009.06.07 19:02:03 ] Dierdra Vaal > the iskhur is already pretty good for example
[ 2009.06.07 19:02:05 ] Larkonis Trassler > !
[ 2009.06.07 19:02:07 ] Vuk Lau > !
[ 2009.06.07 19:02:13 ] Dierdra Vaal > my point is
[ 2009.06.07 19:02:41 ] Dierdra Vaal > while I dont necessarily oppose AFs being boosted, they should be boosted because they're not good enough now. Not because 'all the other T2 ships have 4 bonuses'. end
[ 2009.06.07 19:03:06 ] Shatana Fulfairas > i agree dierdra
[ 2009.06.07 19:03:37 ] Erik Finnegan > ( yeah, I felt uneasy about that remark. We should focus on the "put them in the right line of power with other T2" )
[ 2009.06.07 19:03:46 ] Erik Finnegan > Vuk ?
[ 2009.06.07 19:03:50 ] Vuk Lau > ok
[ 2009.06.07 19:03:52 ] Erik Finnegan > No, sorry Lark
[ 2009.06.07 19:03:56 ] Vuk Lau > ah
[ 2009.06.07 19:04:00 ] Vuk Lau > Lark
[ 2009.06.07 19:04:22 ] Erik Finnegan > /emote tries to ignore Vuk
[ 2009.06.07 19:04:53 ] Larkonis Trassler > Most of the AFs are in need of a little buff
[ 2009.06.07 19:05:15 ] Serenity Steele > Sorry to interject, but I have to go now. Look forward to the logs and minutes.
[ 2009.06.07 19:05:19 ] Larkonis Trassler > and while a 4th bonus shouldn't be added for the sake of it
[ 2009.06.07 19:05:29 ] Larkonis Trassler > i think it's required for most of them
[ 2009.06.07 19:05:32 ] Larkonis Trassler > [end]
[ 2009.06.07 19:05:36 ] Dierdra Vaal > !
[ 2009.06.07 19:05:36 ] Meissa Anunthiel > (should be here soon[TM])
[ 2009.06.07 19:05:43 ] Serenity Steele > /emote logs
[ 2009.06.07 19:05:46 ] Erik Finnegan > Dierdra
[ 2009.06.07 19:05:53 ] Vuk Lau > its me
[ 2009.06.07 19:05:55 ] Vuk Lau > now
[ 2009.06.07 19:06:01 ] Dierdra Vaal > (yup)
[ 2009.06.07 19:06:05 ] Erik Finnegan > But, Vuk, you wanted to be ignored ?
[ 2009.06.07 19:06:08 ] Vuk Lau > yup
[ 2009.06.07 19:06:13 ] Vuk Lau > for the 1st !
[ 2009.06.07 19:06:15 ] Vuk Lau > but then I put another one
[ 2009.06.07 19:06:18 ] Vuk Lau > anyway
[ 2009.06.07 19:06:22 ] Vuk Lau > beside missing 4th bonus
[ 2009.06.07 19:06:31 ] Vuk Lau > and crapy slot layout on some
[ 2009.06.07 19:06:36 ] Vuk Lau > another issue is cap stability
[ 2009.06.07 19:06:42 ] Vuk Lau > prepare for wall of text
[ 2009.06.07 19:06:51 ] Vuk Lau > There are 2 kinds of tanks in eve, passive and active. Currently an AF isn't good with either. This is because of a nice catch-22 situation. If you're dealing with attempting to set up a passive tank you have the following issues:
[ 2009.06.07 19:07:09 ] Vuk Lau > 1. limited slots and 2. Extenders boost sig radius, plates make you slower.
[ 2009.06.07 19:07:22 ] Vuk Lau > those are with apssive tank
[ 2009.06.07 19:07:30 ] Vuk Lau > However, active tanks on an AF, not so great either for the following reasons:
[ 2009.06.07 19:07:45 ] Vuk Lau > #1. If you attempt to set up your ship to boost the passive recharge rate of the boat to run all the modules it is required to possess, you end up monopolizing your low or mid slots (limited in the first place) with them to the extent that you severely
[ 2009.06.07 19:07:48 ] Vuk Lau > #2. The other option is an injected tank. This is difficult on most ships because it takes a midslot, which is either needed for the tank of the ship (shields) or for tackle gear (armor). On armor tanked boats equipped with 3 midslots you can go this ro
[ 2009.06.07 19:08:29 ] Vuk Lau > Adding a role bonus of -50% cap use on reppers would be viable bonus for AFs
[ 2009.06.07 19:08:39 ] Vuk Lau > end
[ 2009.06.07 19:08:40 ] Meissa Anunthiel > !
[ 2009.06.07 19:09:00 ] Erik Finnegan > ( where there words missing in the copied text, Vuk ? )
[ 2009.06.07 19:09:33 ] Erik Finnegan > Meissa, before you post....
[ 2009.06.07 19:09:39 ] Vuk Lau > in my doc
[ 2009.06.07 19:09:48 ] Meissa Anunthiel > I'm not going to destroy your proposal Erik, don't worry :p
[ 2009.06.07 19:09:50 ] Omber Zombie > !
[ 2009.06.07 19:09:59 ] Erik Finnegan > .....I don't think we should point out details in how to rebl
[ 2009.06.07 19:10:07 ] Dierdra Vaal > (actually I was before meissa)
[ 2009.06.07 19:10:22 ] Vuk Lau > [19:08:57] Erik Finnegan > .....I don't think we should point out details in how to rebl - agree, sry for rabble
[ 2009.06.07 19:10:33 ] Vuk Lau > but it was more to point they need buff
[ 2009.06.07 19:10:49 ] Erik Finnegan > Dierdra, yes, sorry, .... the wall of text got the better of me.. :-}
[ 2009.06.07 19:10:57 ] Dierdra Vaal > I support this issue since AFs do seem to be a bit underpowered and I think its fair to ask CCP to evaluate the AFs to see how they can be brought in line with the other T2 ships. However, I feel the current issue focuses a bit too much on...
[ 2009.06.07 19:11:02 ] Dierdra Vaal > the 4th bonus (as the issue seems to be advocating adding a 4th bonus for the sake of it). What I'm trying to say is that I will support this issue, but suggest rewriting it to focus more on a general evaluation of AFs instead of simply adding a bonus.
[ 2009.06.07 19:11:04 ] Dierdra Vaal > end
[ 2009.06.07 19:11:32 ] Erik Finnegan > Definitely.
[ 2009.06.07 19:11:33 ] Erik Finnegan > Meissa
[ 2009.06.07 19:11:41 ] Shatana Fulfairas > gotta say it sounds good to me .. making a genral look at the AF as they are
[ 2009.06.07 19:12:02 ] Meissa Anunthiel > What Dierdra said. Revisit AF, mention lack of 4th bonus, don't focus on it. And to Vuk, speed + shield booster is an option. [/end]
[ 2009.06.07 19:12:14 ] Erik Finnegan > OZ ?
[ 2009.06.07 19:12:17 ] Omber Zombie > what D said (end)
[ 2009.06.07 19:12:30 ] Erik Finnegan > Ok, we shall vote then on :
[ 2009.06.07 19:12:32 ] Meissa Anunthiel > (Shatana, plesae use an exclamation mark if you want to be given voice)
[ 2009.06.07 19:13:24 ] Erik Finnegan > "Revisit AFs, as some of them seem a bit underpowered (even compared to their T1 version). Consider a sensible boost at the right edge."
[ 2009.06.07 19:13:43 ] Larkonis Trassler > yes
[ 2009.06.07 19:13:46 ] Omber Zombie > yes
[ 2009.06.07 19:13:47 ] Vuk Lau > yes
[ 2009.06.07 19:13:57 ] Meissa Anunthiel > yes
[ 2009.06.07 19:13:57 ] Erik Finnegan > yes
[ 2009.06.07 19:13:57 ] Zastrow J > hell yeah assault frigates
[ 2009.06.07 19:14:03 ] Issler Dainze > yes
[ 2009.06.07 19:14:04 ] Avalloc > yesssssssssss
[ 2009.06.07 19:14:08 ] Dierdra Vaal > yes
[ 2009.06.07 19:14:24 ] Dierdra Vaal > motion passes 9/0. grats erik!
[ 2009.06.07 19:14:30 ] Erik Finnegan > ( why am I not flying AFs ?! )
[ 2009.06.07 19:14:36 ] Erik Finnegan > Thank you.
[ 2009.06.07 19:14:40 ] Dierdra Vaal > 9: Factional Warfare Wardec Mechanic (Lark)
[ 2009.06.07 19:14:44 ] Dierdra Vaal > http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Factional_Warfare-_Allow_Counter_Wardec_for_all_Militia_Corps
[ 2009.06.07 19:15:03 ] Larkonis Trassler > Hi
[ 2009.06.07 19:15:33 ] Larkonis Trassler > As stated in the wiki, while the militias are not 'alliances' an alliance dynamic tends to develop amongst them
[ 2009.06.07 19:16:23 ] Larkonis Trassler > however, if an individual corp is decced, other corps within the militia have no way of defending their militia mates unless they pay for a wardec, obviously in such a case the fees can quickly become crippling
[ 2009.06.07 19:16:48 ] Omber Zombie > !
[ 2009.06.07 19:16:54 ] Larkonis Trassler > What I propose is that a free 'counter dec' is offered to all corps within the militia
[ 2009.06.07 19:16:59 ] Meissa Anunthiel > !
[ 2009.06.07 19:17:06 ] Larkonis Trassler > Only to be applicable if the member corp is aggressed
[ 2009.06.07 19:17:47 ] Larkonis Trassler > and a member corp has been a member of the militia for a certain period of time so the militias are not used as an eve-uni style (light) dec shield
[ 2009.06.07 19:17:52 ] Larkonis Trassler > Oz then Meissa
[ 2009.06.07 19:17:56 ] Omber Zombie > this is exploitable: 1. i make an alt corp, 2. I join militia with alt corp. 3 my main corp wardecs alt corp, 4. militia gets a free wardec back on my corp. 5. i just got to wardec most of a militia for the cost of wardeccing a single corp (end)
[ 2009.06.07 19:18:07 ] Dierdra Vaal > !
[ 2009.06.07 19:18:16 ] Larkonis Trassler > Oz
[ 2009.06.07 19:18:31 ] Larkonis Trassler > Obviously the offer is only there if people want to take it up
[ 2009.06.07 19:19:03 ] Omber Zombie > (just pointing out what can happen with this)
[ 2009.06.07 19:19:11 ] Larkonis Trassler > one would hope that corps would not go around counter deccing willy nilly, instead helping out their closest allied corps within the militias
[ 2009.06.07 19:19:17 ] Larkonis Trassler > meissa
[ 2009.06.07 19:19:30 ] Meissa Anunthiel > Militia are not alliance, they're independant from one another. I don't see why they should have a common front.Under your proposal, a corporation wardeccing a FW corp would end up facing 10 or 15 corps with no associated cost to the other FW corps.
[ 2009.06.07 19:19:37 ] Meissa Anunthiel > That'd be a bad surprise for the attacker.I don't get free wardecs when friends of mine who happen to share an objective get wardecced.[/end]
[ 2009.06.07 19:20:24 ] Larkonis Trassler > TBH if it's a surprise for the attacker then he should have done more thourough homework
[ 2009.06.07 19:20:38 ] Larkonis Trassler > But there is no guarentee that a corp will recieve help
[ 2009.06.07 19:21:00 ] Meissa Anunthiel > !
[ 2009.06.07 19:21:07 ] Larkonis Trassler > and should things become too harsh for the aggressors they can always retreat to enemy sovreign space
[ 2009.06.07 19:21:34 ] Shatana Fulfairas > !
[ 2009.06.07 19:21:44 ] Larkonis Trassler > Dierdra
[ 2009.06.07 19:22:02 ] Dierdra Vaal > I resent the implication that our dec shield was undesirable :P Anyway, what do you mean by 'if the member corp is aggressed'. I also believe a 'free' war is not right, but the base fee of the original war may be acceptable...
[ 2009.06.07 19:22:21 ] Dierdra Vaal > (regardless of the fact that most war dec fees are too low).
[ 2009.06.07 19:22:22 ] Dierdra Vaal > end
[ 2009.06.07 19:22:32 ] Larkonis Trassler > Ok
[ 2009.06.07 19:23:07 ] Larkonis Trassler > Corp A wardecs Militia corp (corp M), all other militia corps get a counter dec, either for free or at base cost
[ 2009.06.07 19:23:31 ] Larkonis Trassler > Corp M decs corp A, this option is not available to corps within corp M's militia
[ 2009.06.07 19:23:54 ] Larkonis Trassler > meissa
[ 2009.06.07 19:24:31 ] Meissa Anunthiel > Any reduction of cost increases the odds of a counter dec. The attacker chose to dec one corp, not one + X.[/end]
[ 2009.06.07 19:25:08 ] Larkonis Trassler > shat
[ 2009.06.07 19:25:21 ] Shatana Fulfairas > ignore it i lost my text when i dc'd
[ 2009.06.07 19:25:35 ] Meissa Anunthiel > type it again
[ 2009.06.07 19:27:36 ] Larkonis Trassler > are you typing shat?
[ 2009.06.07 19:27:40 ] Shatana Fulfairas > I was agreeing the point of i dont think they get a free deck but work it they pay a fee if they wish to help out their Militia mate corp
[ 2009.06.07 19:27:58 ] Shatana Fulfairas > it cant be free as it would be a way to flaut it easily
[ 2009.06.07 19:28:04 ] Shatana Fulfairas > end
[ 2009.06.07 19:28:37 ] Larkonis Trassler > any other questions?
[ 2009.06.07 19:29:21 ] Dierdra Vaal > !
[ 2009.06.07 19:29:31 ] Larkonis Trassler > Dierdra
[ 2009.06.07 19:29:37 ] Dierdra Vaal > will you be willing to remove the 'free dec' part?
[ 2009.06.07 19:29:45 ] Larkonis Trassler > yes
[ 2009.06.07 19:30:20 ] Larkonis Trassler > as stated before this isn't a get out of jail free card for anyone, to qualify a corp would have to be in the militia for a set period of time, something which is already quite perilous and restrictive
[ 2009.06.07 19:30:58 ] Larkonis Trassler > This is merely a way to allow militia corps an easier means to render aid to their fellow militia mates
[ 2009.06.07 19:31:17 ] Meissa Anunthiel > !
[ 2009.06.07 19:31:21 ] Larkonis Trassler > meissa
[ 2009.06.07 19:31:25 ] Dierdra Vaal > !
[ 2009.06.07 19:31:46 ] Meissa Anunthiel > Wouldn't counter deccing the normal way be the means to render aid to their fellow militia mates? If they're such good mates, surely paying the normal wardec fee is not too much to ask
[ 2009.06.07 19:31:57 ] Meissa Anunthiel > [/end]
[ 2009.06.07 19:32:32 ] Larkonis Trassler > as already stated these costs quickly mount for all parties involved
[ 2009.06.07 19:32:35 ] Larkonis Trassler > dierdra
[ 2009.06.07 19:32:40 ] Dierdra Vaal > perhaps focus more on the concept/spirit of the solution rather than the implementation? I'm also inclined to agree with meissa. Since they are only corps, the war dec fee is 2mil. Even with 20 corps increasing the fee the cost is minimal. end
[ 2009.06.07 19:33:01 ] Dierdra Vaal > actually no thats not always true sorry
[ 2009.06.07 19:33:08 ] Dierdra Vaal > in the case where an alliance war decs a FW corp
[ 2009.06.07 19:33:15 ] Dierdra Vaal > end (again)
[ 2009.06.07 19:34:28 ] Larkonis Trassler > i believe the cost rises by two mil for each beligerent involved so if 20 corps counterdecced after the first week the bill for each corp would be 40 mil, not a huge amount but significant non the less
[ 2009.06.07 19:34:41 ] Larkonis Trassler > anyways
[ 2009.06.07 19:35:30 ] Dierdra Vaal > I think we can vote :)
[ 2009.06.07 19:35:40 ] Meissa Anunthiel > votes no
[ 2009.06.07 19:35:44 ] Larkonis Trassler > If a FW corp who has been a member of the militia for not less than two weeks is wardecced then Corps who are in the same militia are able to counter wardec at base cost
[ 2009.06.07 19:35:49 ] Larkonis Trassler > yes
[ 2009.06.07 19:35:50 ] Issler Dainze > /emote votes no
[ 2009.06.07 19:36:14 ] Meissa Anunthiel > (sorry Lark, I'll leave you time to restate what we're voting on next time)
[ 2009.06.07 19:36:33 ] Dierdra Vaal > /emote votes no - necessity hasnt convinced me.
[ 2009.06.07 19:36:40 ] Omber Zombie > no
[ 2009.06.07 19:37:02 ] Avalloc > no
[ 2009.06.07 19:37:12 ] Erik Finnegan > yes
[ 2009.06.07 19:37:49 ] Zastrow J > no
[ 2009.06.07 19:38:11 ] Dierdra Vaal > vuk?
[ 2009.06.07 19:38:13 ] Vuk Lau > no
[ 2009.06.07 19:38:23 ] Dierdra Vaal > motion fails 7/2
[ 2009.06.07 19:38:40 ] Larkonis Trassler > o\
[ 2009.06.07 19:38:40 ] Dierdra Vaal > 10: The new L4 Agents - Wrong Approach (Erik)
[ 2009.06.07 19:38:44 ] Erik Finnegan > http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Make_Certain_Factions_More_Valid_for_Mission_Running_-_Part_2
[ 2009.06.07 19:39:13 ] Erik Finnegan > Problem summary: Majority of the new L4s were Caldari agents. Even though CCP had said before they would like other factions to be used more,
[ 2009.06.07 19:39:18 ] Erik Finnegan > and pilots focus less on Caldari space. Instead, Caldari still has major mission hubs.
[ 2009.06.07 19:39:28 ] Erik Finnegan > I suggest low-sec and 0.0 pirate factions should have more incentives added to run missions for them. And as a side note, the standing matrix needs a revisit.
[ 2009.06.07 19:39:34 ] Erik Finnegan > Like Amarr Empire hardly raising other factions while lowering others considerably.What do you think ? [FIN]
[ 2009.06.07 19:39:51 ] Dierdra Vaal > !
[ 2009.06.07 19:40:01 ] Erik Finnegan > Dierdra
[ 2009.06.07 19:40:05 ] Dierdra Vaal > are you requesting that the current agent additions are changed/reverted?
[ 2009.06.07 19:40:18 ] Erik Finnegan > No. I don't like nerfs.
[ 2009.06.07 19:40:30 ] Avalloc > !
[ 2009.06.07 19:40:48 ] Erik Finnegan > We should. But next time at the right side.
[ 2009.06.07 19:40:50 ] Erik Finnegan > Avalloc
[ 2009.06.07 19:41:03 ] Erik Finnegan > (we should ADD)
[ 2009.06.07 19:41:18 ] Avalloc > according to forum post, Ankh wants 23 new l4 agents added for each non-Caldari faction.. I'm not too keen on that
[ 2009.06.07 19:41:46 ] Dierdra Vaal > (keep in mind you're voting on the wiki issue, not the thread)
[ 2009.06.07 19:42:02 ] Erik Finnegan > Yeah, I would say that the details remain with CCP.
[ 2009.06.07 19:42:30 ] Erik Finnegan > Thing is, we should point out that the other factions were kinda forgotten in the agent game.
[ 2009.06.07 19:42:31 ] Avalloc > end
[ 2009.06.07 19:43:20 ] Meissa Anunthiel > !
[ 2009.06.07 19:43:23 ] Erik Finnegan > Is anyone of you flying missions at all ?
[ 2009.06.07 19:43:27 ] Erik Finnegan > Meissa
[ 2009.06.07 19:43:30 ] Meissa Anunthiel > (yup)
[ 2009.06.07 19:43:31 ] Dierdra Vaal > !
[ 2009.06.07 19:43:42 ] Shatana Fulfairas > i do
[ 2009.06.07 19:43:57 ] Meissa Anunthiel > I believe the last agent change was because caldari agent hubs were pretty much overcrowded, the problem is less signficant for the other factions.
[ 2009.06.07 19:44:26 ] Omber Zombie > !
[ 2009.06.07 19:44:35 ] Meissa Anunthiel > I do however agree that more L4 agents for the others would be nice, as would some more corps to run missions for... [/end]
[ 2009.06.07 19:45:00 ] Erik Finnegan > Yes, Meissa, the additon increased the disproportion betwen Caldari and the others.
[ 2009.06.07 19:45:03 ] Erik Finnegan > Dierdra
[ 2009.06.07 19:45:06 ] Erik Finnegan > then OZ
[ 2009.06.07 19:45:06 ] Dierdra Vaal > I fly missions sometimes (for the caldari, in a CNR :P) but its dreadfully boring. Anyway, it seems this issue kinda lumps together the perceived overrepresentation of caldari agents, the lack of minor-faction agents and low sec missioning on one pile..
[ 2009.06.07 19:45:46 ] Dierdra Vaal > I believe all of that has 1 common cause or concern at its root.. but this concern is not immediately and explicitly apparent in the issue description.
[ 2009.06.07 19:46:10 ] Dierdra Vaal > I would suggest that the core of the problem, that has given rise to this issue, is explained better in the issue description. end
[ 2009.06.07 19:46:36 ] Omber Zombie > the point of this change was to spread the load on systems to other agents, from all reports, this has worked. It would be nice to have more agents for all factions, but the agent system as a whole needs revision, adding more agents on top of the ones
[ 2009.06.07 19:46:49 ] Omber Zombie > they just added would be silly (end)
[ 2009.06.07 19:47:46 ] Erik Finnegan > Hmm...Dierdra is right in that the mix of agent distribution and standing matrix might not be too good.
[ 2009.06.07 19:48:27 ] Erik Finnegan > Learning from the previous discussions tonight.... can I rephrase the issue and not put it to vote ?
[ 2009.06.07 19:48:37 ] Dierdra Vaal > yes you can
[ 2009.06.07 19:48:46 ] Dierdra Vaal > if you want to withdraw it atm, that is fine
[ 2009.06.07 19:49:08 ] Erik Finnegan > Are there more remarks ?
[ 2009.06.07 19:49:19 ] Erik Finnegan > Else, we should drop this one for now.
[ 2009.06.07 19:49:23 ] Dierdra Vaal > ok
[ 2009.06.07 19:49:27 ] Dierdra Vaal > 11: Sentry gun aggression and Drones (Lark)
[ 2009.06.07 19:49:32 ] Dierdra Vaal > http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Sentry_Gun_Aggression_and_Drones
[ 2009.06.07 19:49:45 ] Larkonis Trassler > 2 secs
[ 2009.06.07 19:50:02 ] Larkonis Trassler > Ok
[ 2009.06.07 19:50:42 ] Larkonis Trassler > Currently when engaging a target when flagged as a criminal, or to a factional navy on gates, or to a stations owners sentry guns will agress drones
[ 2009.06.07 19:51:01 ] Larkonis Trassler > this limits the types of ships players (mainly outlaws) fighting under these conditions can employ
[ 2009.06.07 19:51:59 ] Larkonis Trassler > although a useful tactic has sprung up by Sub bc pilots of using drones as 'chaff' to gain a little longer in combat this is generally seen as a massive disadvantage to players fighting in these circumstances
[ 2009.06.07 19:52:18 ] Larkonis Trassler > questions?
[ 2009.06.07 19:52:25 ] Issler Dainze > !
[ 2009.06.07 19:52:34 ] Larkonis Trassler > issler
[ 2009.06.07 19:53:25 ] Omber Zombie > !
[ 2009.06.07 19:53:25 ] Issler Dainze > So i don't think letting people stay at gates and fght longer is the right way to go, the guns need to be buffed, you shouldn't be able to perma tank any set of sentry guns
[ 2009.06.07 19:53:36 ] Issler Dainze > that was never intended (end)
[ 2009.06.07 19:53:45 ] Meissa Anunthiel > !
[ 2009.06.07 19:54:27 ] Dierdra Vaal > !
[ 2009.06.07 19:54:27 ] Larkonis Trassler > Like it or not issler 90% of fights happen at gates, regardless, that's not the issue here, in any case DPS from sentries not on drones=DPS on players
[ 2009.06.07 19:54:32 ] Larkonis Trassler > OZ
[ 2009.06.07 19:54:36 ] Omber Zombie > how does this stop me from tanking a sentry and then using my drones to kill a target in hisec before concord gets there? (end)
[ 2009.06.07 19:55:00 ] Larkonis Trassler > Generally (and I have some experience of hisec ganks)
[ 2009.06.07 19:55:12 ] Larkonis Trassler > the sentries work on a 30 second cycle time
[ 2009.06.07 19:55:20 ] Larkonis Trassler > so the agressing ship will always take the first cycle
[ 2009.06.07 19:55:57 ] Larkonis Trassler > then the sentries will switch fire if other targets (outlaws or drones) are around or continue to give their love to the aggressing ship if there are no other suitable targets
[ 2009.06.07 19:56:44 ] Larkonis Trassler > even in a 0.5 concord shows up well within 30 seconds and locks down the aggressing ship and his drones
[ 2009.06.07 19:56:58 ] Larkonis Trassler > (end)
[ 2009.06.07 19:57:04 ] Larkonis Trassler > meissa
[ 2009.06.07 19:57:11 ] Meissa Anunthiel > lowsec dwellers (aka Pirates) operate mainly at the gates or stations (just like everyone else). Boost gate guns and you eliminate lowsec PvP. More lowsec PvP is a good thing, and variety is good. Since we're discussing drone in particular, it's a good
[ 2009.06.07 19:57:34 ] Meissa Anunthiel > idea to make drones immune IF there's no ship in range, but if there's no ships in range, drones should be fair game.
[ 2009.06.07 19:57:47 ] Issler Dainze > !
[ 2009.06.07 19:57:52 ] Meissa Anunthiel > if there's a ship in range I meant
[ 2009.06.07 19:58:02 ] Larkonis Trassler > dierdra
[ 2009.06.07 19:58:04 ] Dierdra Vaal > I dont agree with iss's statement, as gates are one of the few places you can actually catch people. I am however worried about how this technique may be exploited. For example, drone based suicide ganks. Does concord target drones? end
[ 2009.06.07 19:58:15 ] Larkonis Trassler > yes
[ 2009.06.07 19:58:19 ] Dierdra Vaal > ok
[ 2009.06.07 19:58:37 ] Larkonis Trassler > when concord show up they immeadiately shut done drones as well as the aggressors ship
[ 2009.06.07 19:58:50 ] Larkonis Trassler > this issue is about gate and station sentries only
[ 2009.06.07 19:58:57 ] Larkonis Trassler > back to issler
[ 2009.06.07 19:59:52 ] Issler Dainze > gate guns now are a joke and thats why we have perma-camped gates, that was never the what it was meant to mork, to say that because i is now possible it is good thing is wrong (end)
[ 2009.06.07 20:00:26 ] Erik Finnegan > !
[ 2009.06.07 20:01:49 ] Issler Dainze > can we speed this up we are now at hour three
[ 2009.06.07 20:02:02 ] Larkonis Trassler > Stepping aside from your obvious personal issues with my ilk, it is still and will still be impossible to operate under sentries in anything smaller than a well tanked BC solo and a HAC or recon in a gang...
[ 2009.06.07 20:02:17 ] Larkonis Trassler > a pilot who knows what he's doing can get any ship bar a freighter through a lowsec camp
[ 2009.06.07 20:02:19 ] Larkonis Trassler > erik
[ 2009.06.07 20:02:26 ] Erik Finnegan > I think this change fosters diversity of fighting at gates. And that is good, like Dierdra stated. We had gate camps before and this issue is not supposed to change it. We might want to look at that in a separate issue.
[ 2009.06.07 20:02:43 ] Dierdra Vaal > (was meissa who said that I think)
[ 2009.06.07 20:03:14 ] Larkonis Trassler > ok cool beans
[ 2009.06.07 20:03:23 ] Larkonis Trassler > any other questions or comments?
[ 2009.06.07 20:03:50 ] Erik Finnegan > ( I should have had dinner before this meeting - I'm learning a lot the hard way tonight..... )
[ 2009.06.07 20:03:53 ] Larkonis Trassler > ok lets vote
[ 2009.06.07 20:04:13 ] Meissa Anunthiel > /emote votes yes
[ 2009.06.07 20:04:16 ] Dierdra Vaal > can you prase the precise issue?
[ 2009.06.07 20:04:22 ] Dierdra Vaal > (just for clarity)
[ 2009.06.07 20:04:46 ] Larkonis Trassler > On the issue of changing sentry gun mechanics so that they ignore drones/prioritise all ships over drones cast your votes
[ 2009.06.07 20:04:52 ] Dierdra Vaal > yes
[ 2009.06.07 20:04:55 ] Erik Finnegan > yes
[ 2009.06.07 20:04:58 ] Larkonis Trassler > yes
[ 2009.06.07 20:05:06 ] Zastrow J > no
[ 2009.06.07 20:05:07 ] Issler Dainze > /emote votes no
[ 2009.06.07 20:05:20 ] Meissa Anunthiel > yes
[ 2009.06.07 20:05:42 ] Dierdra Vaal > vuk, avalloc, oz?
[ 2009.06.07 20:05:44 ] Omber Zombie > no
[ 2009.06.07 20:05:48 ] Avalloc > hmm...
[ 2009.06.07 20:06:04 ] Avalloc > yes
[ 2009.06.07 20:06:15 ] Vuk Lau > sry
[ 2009.06.07 20:06:17 ] Vuk Lau > no
[ 2009.06.07 20:06:24 ] Dierdra Vaal > motion passes 5/4
[ 2009.06.07 20:06:38 ] Dierdra Vaal > that concludes the issues we had lined up today
[ 2009.06.07 20:06:47 ] Dierdra Vaal > before closing, I'd like to set the date for the next meeting
[ 2009.06.07 20:06:56 ] Omber Zombie > !
[ 2009.06.07 20:06:59 ] Dierdra Vaal > do you guys feel you have enough issues for a meet in 7 days, or do you want to make it 14?
[ 2009.06.07 20:07:00 ] Dierdra Vaal > OZ?
[ 2009.06.07 20:07:06 ] Vuk Lau > 14 if u ask me
[ 2009.06.07 20:07:11 ] Erik Finnegan > 14
[ 2009.06.07 20:07:15 ] Issler Dainze > 14
[ 2009.06.07 20:07:18 ] Omber Zombie > i just want to raise an issue that was being discussed in the eve-csm chat
[ 2009.06.07 20:07:24 ] Dierdra Vaal > ok
[ 2009.06.07 20:07:31 ] Avalloc > 14 would be on Father's Day
[ 2009.06.07 20:07:40 ] Erik Finnegan > Not in my country
[ 2009.06.07 20:07:44 ] Dierdra Vaal > lol
[ 2009.06.07 20:07:52 ] Shatana Fulfairas > and can i get access to that channel it keeps telling me i am not inited  :)
[ 2009.06.07 20:08:12 ] Dierdra Vaal > ok guys one thing at a time, lets focus on Oz's issue first
[ 2009.06.07 20:08:13 ] Vuk Lau > i tried to invite you but u rejected :D
[ 2009.06.07 20:08:23 ] Shatana Fulfairas > ahh soz
[ 2009.06.07 20:08:31 ] Shatana Fulfairas > try now
[ 2009.06.07 20:08:48 ] Shatana Fulfairas > didnt want botrhered while this going on so had suto reject on
[ 2009.06.07 20:08:54 ] Issler Dainze > and my dad's no longer with us so no issue for me
[ 2009.06.07 20:09:09 ] Vuk Lau > yes OZ?
[ 2009.06.07 20:09:30 ] Meissa Anunthiel > OZ is black screened
[ 2009.06.07 20:09:40 ] Omber Zombie > sorry, not sure what happened there
[ 2009.06.07 20:10:19 ] Omber Zombie > we need to clarify exactly what teh procedre is for that channel, everyone in there is udner NDA, but to what level are we going to discuss the meetings in there
[ 2009.06.07 20:10:31 ] Dierdra Vaal > ah
[ 2009.06.07 20:10:58 ] Dierdra Vaal > what we did in CSM1 was basically you can mention that an issue has passed/failed
[ 2009.06.07 20:11:06 ] Dierdra Vaal > but any more details you'd have to wait for the minutes
[ 2009.06.07 20:11:11 ] Dierdra Vaal > dunno if CSM2 changed it?
[ 2009.06.07 20:11:19 ] Omber Zombie > we never really used the channel
[ 2009.06.07 20:11:21 ] Vuk Lau > we almost didnt used it at all
[ 2009.06.07 20:11:27 ] Vuk Lau > except for 1st 2 meetings
[ 2009.06.07 20:11:29 ] Dierdra Vaal > well I'm also talking about the forums
[ 2009.06.07 20:11:30 ] Omber Zombie > other than for bitching at eachother
[ 2009.06.07 20:11:35 ] Vuk Lau > more or less
[ 2009.06.07 20:11:36 ] Vuk Lau > :D
[ 2009.06.07 20:11:44 ] Dierdra Vaal > for example, I posted in the remote repping thread that the motion was passed
[ 2009.06.07 20:11:54 ] Issler Dainze > I thoought it was the bitching at e3ch other channel! :-)
[ 2009.06.07 20:12:05 ] Dierdra Vaal > do we NEED a procedure for it?
[ 2009.06.07 20:12:17 ] Dierdra Vaal > are there people wondering about doing stuff that might be ok/not ok?
[ 2009.06.07 20:12:19 ] Avalloc > well, nda covered channel for current csm to chat in during meeting would be nice
[ 2009.06.07 20:12:42 ] Meissa Anunthiel > As part of the minutes making process, I'll be posting the results in the wiki threads, so please refrain from doing it yourselves lest I keep track of what I've done and not done
[ 2009.06.07 20:13:08 ] Omber Zombie > the issue with the NDA is that it covers you while you are in office regarding things being discussed while in office, it also then covers any of that dicussion for 5 years after but not what is being discussed by the CSM currently
[ 2009.06.07 20:14:04 ] Omber Zombie > so, for example, I effectively broke NDA with erik when we discussed an issue we talked about in this meeting in that channel, with people that are no longer in the CSM
[ 2009.06.07 20:14:20 ] Vuk Lau > well lets kick you
[ 2009.06.07 20:14:38 ] Dierdra Vaal > ugh.. another dc
[ 2009.06.07 20:14:42 ] Vuk Lau > btw
[ 2009.06.07 20:14:45 ] Omber Zombie > they can't talk about it to anyone else, but it's one of those weird situations that we should probably get clarification on
[ 2009.06.07 20:14:45 ] Vuk Lau > we could ask Petur?
[ 2009.06.07 20:14:53 ] Omber Zombie > ^^
[ 2009.06.07 20:15:00 ] Dierdra Vaal > asking petur can be a good idea if you're not clear on NDA status
[ 2009.06.07 20:15:09 ] Dierdra Vaal > can you arrange that, OZ?
[ 2009.06.07 20:15:12 ] Erik Finnegan > Guys
[ 2009.06.07 20:15:19 ] Omber Zombie > /emote abuses msn
[ 2009.06.07 20:15:28 ] Dierdra Vaal > I take that as a yes? :P
[ 2009.06.07 20:15:28 ] Shatana Fulfairas > msn always good :)
[ 2009.06.07 20:15:38 ] Erik Finnegan > !
[ 2009.06.07 20:15:41 ] Omber Zombie > yes
[ 2009.06.07 20:15:43 ] Dierdra Vaal > sup erik?
[ 2009.06.07 20:16:26 ] Erik Finnegan > I agree with a clarification with Pétur. Then again, if you read paragraph 1, it is the base definition of "Proprietary Information", that is then used in the whole document.
[ 2009.06.07 20:16:47 ] Erik Finnegan > It is information, which one party gives to the other
[ 2009.06.07 20:17:10 ] Erik Finnegan > Information, which we (the CSM) generate here, is not related to knowledge we obtained from the other party (CCP)
[ 2009.06.07 20:17:28 ] Erik Finnegan > So, please keep cool. Let's wait for Pétur [FIN]
[ 2009.06.07 20:17:31 ] Dierdra Vaal > I think this is something we'll ask petur about, and can talk about at another time. I dont think we can figure it out right now in a timely fashion.
[ 2009.06.07 20:17:51 ] Dierdra Vaal > so, the next meeting.. most people seem to desire 14 days from now, but that IS fathers day
[ 2009.06.07 20:18:00 ] Dierdra Vaal > and I dont wanna ruin anyone's fathers day
[ 2009.06.07 20:18:18 ] Erik Finnegan > make it 13 then
[ 2009.06.07 20:18:28 ] Dierdra Vaal > I think saturdays were difficult for OZ?
[ 2009.06.07 20:18:36 ] Dierdra Vaal > we can also set it for 7 days from now
[ 2009.06.07 20:18:46 ] Erik Finnegan > kk
[ 2009.06.07 20:18:47 ] Dierdra Vaal > and have the next meeting be 14 days later
[ 2009.06.07 20:18:56 ] Erik Finnegan > \o/ Vacation !
[ 2009.06.07 20:19:01 ] Dierdra Vaal > Since I know a few issues from today (from the goon members and mazz) will be moved to next week
[ 2009.06.07 20:19:07 ] Dierdra Vaal > so I think there will be plenty of issues
[ 2009.06.07 20:19:09 ] Dierdra Vaal > ok?
[ 2009.06.07 20:19:10 ] Vuk Lau > on wednesday I am celebrating 6 years of my corp
[ 2009.06.07 20:19:12 ] Vuk Lau > no
[ 2009.06.07 20:19:18 ] Vuk Lau > and I will be on big bbq till monday
[ 2009.06.07 20:19:23 ] Dierdra Vaal > ah
[ 2009.06.07 20:19:24 ] Dierdra Vaal > hm
[ 2009.06.07 20:19:33 ] Dierdra Vaal > ok, OZ
[ 2009.06.07 20:19:33 ] Erik Finnegan > bbq with WLAN ?
[ 2009.06.07 20:19:35 ] Meissa Anunthiel > and I'll add some
[ 2009.06.07 20:19:38 ] Dierdra Vaal > how big a problem is saturday for you?
[ 2009.06.07 20:19:43 ] Vuk Lau > I am not geek Erik
[ 2009.06.07 20:19:50 ] Vuk Lau > :D
[ 2009.06.07 20:19:54 ] Dierdra Vaal > the 20th
[ 2009.06.07 20:20:02 ] Omber Zombie > i can do saturday in 2 weeks (i think)
[ 2009.06.07 20:20:06 ] Erik Finnegan > ( Is this information NDA covered, which Vuk just gave to me ?! )
[ 2009.06.07 20:20:11 ] Omber Zombie > lemme check my calendar
[ 2009.06.07 20:20:23 ] Dierdra Vaal > I may need to leave slightly early but I should be able to be there the first 2-.25 hours :)
[ 2009.06.07 20:20:32 ] Dierdra Vaal > erik, no :P
[ 2009.06.07 20:20:43 ] Dierdra Vaal > NDA only really covers info from CCP to us
[ 2009.06.07 20:20:52 ] Omber Zombie > yeah, sat is fine
[ 2009.06.07 20:21:02 ] Dierdra Vaal > ok so, saturday June 20th 17:00?
[ 2009.06.07 20:21:13 ] Dierdra Vaal > last call to make objections
[ 2009.06.07 20:21:14 ] Erik Finnegan > I'm glowing in anticipation.
[ 2009.06.07 20:21:20 ] Avalloc > I can't do 20th
[ 2009.06.07 20:21:21 ] Vuk Lau > ok for me
[ 2009.06.07 20:21:25 ] Dierdra Vaal > lol
[ 2009.06.07 20:21:53 ] Avalloc > that 20th is one saturday a month I'm busy
[ 2009.06.07 20:21:58 ] Dierdra Vaal > ah right
[ 2009.06.07 20:22:07 ] Dierdra Vaal > friday?
[ 2009.06.07 20:22:12 ] Dierdra Vaal > wait no americans will have to work
[ 2009.06.07 20:22:13 ] Dierdra Vaal > uhm
[ 2009.06.07 20:22:30 ] Avalloc > I can do Sunday, wasn't a showstopper
[ 2009.06.07 20:22:39 ] Avalloc > but Saturday is
[ 2009.06.07 20:22:48 ] Dierdra Vaal > right
[ 2009.06.07 20:22:54 ] Dierdra Vaal > ok sundsay 21st then?
[ 2009.06.07 20:23:00 ] Dierdra Vaal > it is fathersday but we'll manage?
[ 2009.06.07 20:23:05 ] Vuk Lau > ok for me
[ 2009.06.07 20:23:16 ] Meissa Anunthiel > I don't care, you chose
[ 2009.06.07 20:23:18 ] Larkonis Trassler > i'm easy
[ 2009.06.07 20:23:22 ] Dierdra Vaal > ok then, june 21st 17:00
[ 2009.06.07 20:23:24 ] Larkonis Trassler > also i don't mind what date we chose
[ 2009.06.07 20:23:25 ] Dierdra Vaal > 2 weeks from now
[ 2009.06.07 20:23:32 ] Avalloc > we wanna shift time?
[ 2009.06.07 20:23:44 ] Dierdra Vaal > no we dont
[ 2009.06.07 20:23:45 ] Dierdra Vaal > I hope
[ 2009.06.07 20:23:47 ] Dierdra Vaal > lol
[ 2009.06.07 20:23:48 ] Erik Finnegan > 08h00 GMT
[ 2009.06.07 20:23:56 ] Omber Zombie > lol
[ 2009.06.07 20:23:57 ] Dierdra Vaal > lord no
[ 2009.06.07 20:23:57 ] Erik Finnegan > just kidding
[ 2009.06.07 20:23:58 ] Dierdra Vaal > lol
[ 2009.06.07 20:23:59 ] Shatana Fulfairas > lol
[ 2009.06.07 20:24:01 ] Larkonis Trassler > gtfo
[ 2009.06.07 20:24:16 ] Shatana Fulfairas > i live in uk i am not getting up for it   on a weekend :P
[ 2009.06.07 20:24:19 ] Dierdra Vaal > ok guys, this meeting is officially closed! Thanks for your participation. it was a long one but I'm quite pleased with it