CSM Meeting Minutes 3.003 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All this data is potentially out of date, and should be taken with a truckload of salt

[ 2009.06.21 17:02:46 ] Dierdra Vaal > ====== CSM3 meeting #3 in session
[ 2009.06.21 17:02:55 ] Avalloc > here
[ 2009.06.21 17:02:58 ] Meissa Anunthiel > Ok: present: Avalloc, Dierdra, Erik, Larkonis, Mazzilliu, Meissa, Oz, Vuk
[ 2009.06.21 17:03:32 ] Dierdra Vaal > I did not recieve a notification of Zastrows absence *checks evemail just in case* - so I guess thats 1 mark for unnotified absence
[ 2009.06.21 17:03:40 ] Dierdra Vaal > however, with 8 members we have a corum
[ 2009.06.21 17:03:44 ] Dierdra Vaal > (quorum?)_
[ 2009.06.21 17:04:03 ] Omber Zombie > quorum
[ 2009.06.21 17:04:04 ] Larkonis Trassler > quorum
[ 2009.06.21 17:04:15 ] Dierdra Vaal > first, OZ had a reply from peter regarding discussing stuff in this channel and the NDA
[ 2009.06.21 17:04:20 ] Dierdra Vaal > oz?
[ 2009.06.21 17:04:54 ] Omber Zombie > basically, don't discuss anything going on in here as it is all considered under nda until minutes are published
[ 2009.06.21 17:05:09 ] Dierdra Vaal > ^^ for the record :)
[ 2009.06.21 17:05:18 ] Omber Zombie > i've changed the motd in eve-csm chan to reflect that
[ 2009.06.21 17:05:20 ] Larkonis Trassler > !
[ 2009.06.21 17:05:46 ] Omber Zombie > (end)
[ 2009.06.21 17:05:50 ] Dierdra Vaal > lark?
[ 2009.06.21 17:05:51 ] Larkonis Trassler > Just for the record does that include everything mentioned here, even when meetings are not in progress
[ 2009.06.21 17:06:09 ] Omber Zombie > no, just while meetings are on or anything a ccp rep says is nda covered
[ 2009.06.21 17:06:20 ] Larkonis Trassler > ok cool beans
[ 2009.06.21 17:06:48 ] Larkonis Trassler > {end}
[ 2009.06.21 17:07:03 ] Dierdra Vaal > ok second - we still dont have CSM mail addresses, or a forum, I will continue to harass John about those
[ 2009.06.21 17:07:13 ] Dierdra Vaal > in a more... pressing tone than I have before
[ 2009.06.21 17:07:40 ] Dierdra Vaal > ok with the notifications out of the way I think we can get started :)
[ 2009.06.21 17:07:44 ] Larkonis Trassler > !
[ 2009.06.21 17:07:47 ] Dierdra Vaal > lark
[ 2009.06.21 17:07:54 ] Vuk Lau > here
[ 2009.06.21 17:08:29 ] Vuk Lau > sry guys I passed out
[ 2009.06.21 17:08:35 ] Vuk Lau > did the meeting started?
[ 2009.06.21 17:08:36 ] Larkonis Trassler > if you can get an internal secret forum on the go, please allow those of us (me?) with forum bans to post in it even if we can't post elsewhere
[ 2009.06.21 17:08:39 ] Larkonis Trassler > [end]
[ 2009.06.21 17:08:43 ] Dierdra Vaal > we start yes, scroll up vuk :)
[ 2009.06.21 17:08:47 ] Vuk Lau > sry :(
[ 2009.06.21 17:09:06 ] Omber Zombie > lark - forum bans are forum wide, darius had the same problem
[ 2009.06.21 17:09:23 ] Dierdra Vaal > we'll deal with that when we get the forum :)
[ 2009.06.21 17:09:26 ] Dierdra Vaal > ok
[ 2009.06.21 17:09:29 ] Dierdra Vaal > 1: Client modification (maz)
[ 2009.06.21 17:09:33 ] Dierdra Vaal > http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Client_Addons
[ 2009.06.21 17:09:51 ] Dierdra Vaal > take it away maz
[ 2009.06.21 17:09:55 ] mazzilliu > am i supposed to say anything at this point?
[ 2009.06.21 17:10:04 ] mazzilliu > just read the thing, thats all i have to say.  ill take questions about it though
[ 2009.06.21 17:10:05 ] Dierdra Vaal > yes, please introduce your issue :) you're chairing it
[ 2009.06.21 17:10:17 ] Meissa Anunthiel > !
[ 2009.06.21 17:10:28 ] mazzilliu > OK miessa
[ 2009.06.21 17:10:39 ] Meissa Anunthiel > "passing this proposal would definitely serve to decrease the gap between people following the EULA and those who aren't"
[ 2009.06.21 17:10:51 ] Omber Zombie > !
[ 2009.06.21 17:10:55 ] Larkonis Trassler > !
[ 2009.06.21 17:11:03 ] Meissa Anunthiel > The problem with your proposal is that it decreases the gap in the direction of allowing everyone to macro [even more] easily.
[ 2009.06.21 17:11:18 ] Erik Finnegan > !
[ 2009.06.21 17:11:22 ] Meissa Anunthiel > Macroing eve is already easy, do we really need more of that? [/end]
[ 2009.06.21 17:11:24 ] Dierdra Vaal > !
[ 2009.06.21 17:11:52 ] mazzilliu > well allowing people to rat while AFK isnt the goal of the probosal, but in situations like where one key presses F1-F8, it does decrease the gap without adverse effect
[ 2009.06.21 17:12:15 ] mazzilliu > its a convenience issue that im trying to press, in that particular part of the issue
[ 2009.06.21 17:12:20 ] mazzilliu > omber is next
[ 2009.06.21 17:12:34 ] Omber Zombie > i have serious concerns on what modding the client will do to the game. In the past modding the official client has caused versions to come out with all artwork removed (to reduce lag) among other things - part of the appeal of the game is it's artwork,
[ 2009.06.21 17:13:18 ] Omber Zombie > and if people need to start using those modded clients just to compete, it will slowly devolve into ugliness. I know it's not the most important thing, but tbh, it opens up a pandora's box of abuse (end)
[ 2009.06.21 17:14:34 ] mazzilliu > people should be able to play the game the way they like.  if everyone can do something its not as abusive as only letting people who illegally modify the client do it.  competition does not rely on the interface as much in EVE as it does for other MMO
[ 2009.06.21 17:14:48 ] mazzilliu > the important decisions, such as your ship fits, and what you do in combat, are still your decisions
[ 2009.06.21 17:14:57 ] Avalloc > !
[ 2009.06.21 17:15:11 ] mazzilliu > but you might not want to deal with so much lag,a nd players might be able t o address client lag better then devs can.  and i dont think thats abusive
[ 2009.06.21 17:15:37 ] mazzilliu > did that answer your question omber?
[ 2009.06.21 17:16:02 ] Omber Zombie > (it wasn't a question, just a POV) :)
[ 2009.06.21 17:16:07 ] mazzilliu > ok
[ 2009.06.21 17:16:12 ] Meissa Anunthiel > !
[ 2009.06.21 17:16:14 ] mazzilliu > lark is next
[ 2009.06.21 17:16:23 ] Larkonis Trassler > What you propose about the mechanics and whatnot, but from what I gather it could potentially remove a lot of player skill from gang fights, FC/WC/SC broadcasts a target... autolock, autoguns, same with reps...
[ 2009.06.21 17:16:42 ] Larkonis Trassler > It boils down to which corp/alliance has the best modders/programmers
[ 2009.06.21 17:16:58 ] Larkonis Trassler > I realise that the UI is pretty shit atm, but we all have to deal with it
[ 2009.06.21 17:17:08 ] Larkonis Trassler > so it's a level playing field
[ 2009.06.21 17:17:52 ] Larkonis Trassler > and no matter if everything goes through eve-o and the devs
[ 2009.06.21 17:18:18 ] Larkonis Trassler > it's still going to take time for a superior UI config to work it's way down to the peons
[ 2009.06.21 17:18:22 ] Larkonis Trassler > [end]
[ 2009.06.21 17:19:14 ] mazzilliu > well those issues could potentially be resolved by the way customizable UI is implemented
[ 2009.06.21 17:19:59 ] mazzilliu > first of all it is all done in the spirit of sharing information.  no matter wether you think all the talent is somehow locked up in big alliances or not, people will always want to make a name for themself by releasing the best and newest UI
[ 2009.06.21 17:20:16 ] Dierdra Vaal > (or it gets leaked through spais)
[ 2009.06.21 17:20:21 ] mazzilliu > evemon, eve fitting tool, ETC ETC could have been kept within their alliance but havent
[ 2009.06.21 17:21:06 ] mazzilliu > there arent any really useful EVE tools that are currently only avaliable within big eve alliances
[ 2009.06.21 17:21:20 ] mazzilliu > that isnt going to change with UI's
[ 2009.06.21 17:21:57 ] Vuk Lau > !
[ 2009.06.21 17:22:02 ] mazzilliu > also a lot of the skill in gang fights boils down to not clicking the wrong thing through an ever changing godawful interface- not locking the wrong target on a shifting overview or not shooting the guy youre repping
[ 2009.06.21 17:22:06 ] Larkonis Trassler > Can I add that evemon/eft don't have any effects on immeadiate gameplay
[ 2009.06.21 17:22:33 ] Dierdra Vaal > (the use bacon as example, which was made public)
[ 2009.06.21 17:23:06 ] mazzilliu > yeah but i dont think that is really relevent.  my point is software tends to spread if it is useful.  the internet has taught us that over past few years and i really dont think eve will be an exception
[ 2009.06.21 17:23:42 ] Meissa Anunthiel > (+ Shatana Fulfairas: o/)
[ 2009.06.21 17:23:45 ] mazzilliu > does that answer your question?
[ 2009.06.21 17:24:05 ] Shatana Fulfairas > sorry for my lateness fathers day ran over
[ 2009.06.21 17:24:41 ] Omber Zombie > !
[ 2009.06.21 17:24:51 ] mazzilliu > lark if thats all, meissa is next
[ 2009.06.21 17:25:12 ] Dierdra Vaal > I think erik is next?
[ 2009.06.21 17:25:23 ] Erik Finnegan > I would join Meissa and OZ in saying that it will open Pandora's box. What you want to achieve is fine and desirable, maz, but to draw the line will not be possible.
[ 2009.06.21 17:25:30 ] Erik Finnegan > Setting up a client or plugin API might also take a tremendous effort not to speak about the security leaks and macro opportunities it might open.
[ 2009.06.21 17:25:37 ] Erik Finnegan > I would rather see CCP work in the UI overhaul on their own in the classic way - and extend the well-working REST API via HTTP.Extend the existing API, yes. But not this direction.
[ 2009.06.21 17:25:40 ] Erik Finnegan > FIN
[ 2009.06.21 17:26:33 ] mazzilliu > yeah i think that by wanting this we would need some faith that CCP would not screw it up horribly
[ 2009.06.21 17:27:06 ] mazzilliu > but no matter how ccp overhaul the ui, nobody will be happy with everythiing,  if they can have their own ui, everybody will be happy with their ui
[ 2009.06.21 17:27:51 ] mazzilliu > macro opportuniteis are already there though
[ 2009.06.21 17:27:56 ] Erik Finnegan > One UI to bind them. One UI to enslave them
[ 2009.06.21 17:28:02 ] mazzilliu > no client protection and easily avaliable autiIt scripts
[ 2009.06.21 17:28:10 ] Vuk Lau > sry guys I am going afk 5 mins (nature calls), scratch my ! and if voting starts in within next 5 mins I will vote NO
[ 2009.06.21 17:28:53 ] mazzilliu > the security issue can be resolved in what the UI scripting environment allows or doesnt allow
[ 2009.06.21 17:29:12 ] mazzilliu > should it be allowed to read from external sources of information?  can we use wait commands and loops?
[ 2009.06.21 17:29:21 ] mazzilliu > can it write to disk?
[ 2009.06.21 17:29:28 ] mazzilliu > etc etc.
[ 2009.06.21 17:30:56 ] mazzilliu > so, uhm next.  im not sure where i should go next.  diedra or miessa??
[ 2009.06.21 17:31:03 ] mazzilliu > i mean, not sure who is next*
[ 2009.06.21 17:31:09 ] Dierdra Vaal > I am :)
[ 2009.06.21 17:31:11 ] Dierdra Vaal > inc wall of text....
[ 2009.06.21 17:31:12 ] Zastrow J > hello
[ 2009.06.21 17:31:24 ] Dierdra Vaal > you're late zastrow :P
[ 2009.06.21 17:31:26 ] Dierdra Vaal > anyway
[ 2009.06.21 17:31:29 ] Dierdra Vaal > I support this issue - despite CCPs adamant and clear statement of thinking this is not a good thing. People can already adjust modules and artwork if they choose, and if people really want to macro they'll do it with or without modded clients.
[ 2009.06.21 17:31:30 ] Zastrow J > sorry :(
[ 2009.06.21 17:31:38 ] Dierdra Vaal > It shouldnt be too hard to limit abusability (look at WoW patch 1.12 where they removed the ability to execute certain commands during combat). Designing this would require a very close look at what commands are available to the player - ...
[ 2009.06.21 17:31:38 ] Meissa Anunthiel > (Dierdra, Avalloc, Meissa, Vuk, OZ)
[ 2009.06.21 17:31:45 ] Dierdra Vaal > ... but that is 100% under CCPs control, thus limiting abusability.
[ 2009.06.21 17:31:50 ] Dierdra Vaal > The Eve ui is godawful and as we can see in WoW, the community is able to come up with much better stuff than the developers (even if said mods are eventually copied into the real client).
[ 2009.06.21 17:31:56 ] Dierdra Vaal > Any doomsday thinking about 'modding wars' where mods create unfair advantages is ridiculous because we see that the best mods always become public. Additionally, if you dont like a certain mod it is clearly not giving you (personally) an advantage ...
[ 2009.06.21 17:32:05 ] Dierdra Vaal > .. so the idea that you 'need' a mod to compete is flawed.
[ 2009.06.21 17:32:08 ] Dierdra Vaal > end
[ 2009.06.21 17:32:28 ] mazzilliu > well put
[ 2009.06.21 17:32:51 ] mazzilliu > i thinka valloc isnext
[ 2009.06.21 17:32:56 ] Avalloc > as with oz, my concern would also be people depending upon a mod and when game gets patched the mods break and people have to wait till mod creator does update.. and this isn'tWoW where game is mainly player versus npc
[ 2009.06.21 17:33:19 ] Avalloc > which would then put grief on ccp, which they can't rectify..
[ 2009.06.21 17:33:34 ] Avalloc > <fin>
[ 2009.06.21 17:33:53 ] mazzilliu > yeah thats an issue but any well maintained mod will be updated soon enough
[ 2009.06.21 17:34:06 ] Avalloc > I do agree ui needs a revamp though
[ 2009.06.21 17:34:19 ] Erik Finnegan > !
[ 2009.06.21 17:34:19 ] mazzilliu > EVE relies much less on reaction times and so forth to be able to compete.  people can go back to the old UI and still be able to function
[ 2009.06.21 17:34:46 ] mazzilliu > i think miessa is next
[ 2009.06.21 17:34:48 ] Meissa Anunthiel > Some elements are currently hidden from view because of design decisions. Inability to see filter probes in the directional scanner comes to mind. That's the first thing I'd program.
[ 2009.06.21 17:34:52 ] Meissa Anunthiel > If the overview can be read in anyway, there goes easy/auto targetting/scramming. If the overview can't be read, that prevents any type of UI customisation while in-flight.
[ 2009.06.21 17:34:55 ] Meissa Anunthiel > If ship positions can be read, there goes easy decloaking ships that jump a gate.
[ 2009.06.21 17:35:03 ] Meissa Anunthiel > Give me one button for 3 actions and I'll auto manufacture and invent. If the market can be read, I'll auto -0.01 on market orders, or notify that I've been undercut without looking.
[ 2009.06.21 17:35:16 ] Meissa Anunthiel > In order for any of the above not to be possible, you basically wouldn't be able to customize anything, if they are, welcome to Macro Online.
[ 2009.06.21 17:35:21 ] Meissa Anunthiel > Eve is currently macroable, but it's a bannable offense. This would make it legal and as such a bad idea.
[ 2009.06.21 17:35:28 ] Meissa Anunthiel > I'd love the ability to write my own UI elements for the game or extract information and precisely for that reason it's extremely dangerous. [/end]
[ 2009.06.21 17:36:05 ] mazzilliu > thats why every customizable UI element needs to be looked at for its balance implications
[ 2009.06.21 17:36:14 ] mazzilliu > macros are poorly enforced
[ 2009.06.21 17:36:23 ] mazzilliu > to the point that its pretty much legal if you arent blatant about it
[ 2009.06.21 17:36:43 ] mazzilliu > auto manufacture and invent would be awesome
[ 2009.06.21 17:37:30 ] mazzilliu > most of that stuff can likely be solved with the way the proposal is implemented so
[ 2009.06.21 17:37:59 ] mazzilliu > i think vuk is next, or omber if vuk is gone
[ 2009.06.21 17:38:05 ] Omber Zombie > how do you propose ccp deal with people releasing client mods that steal user data (trap passwords to ingame chans, use igb data etc.)? It will happen, no matter the safeguards. Also, considering you are a known friend/supporter of kugutsumen,
[ 2009.06.21 17:38:06 ] Omber Zombie > my question really, is this something you want or something he wants? (end)
[ 2009.06.21 17:38:11 ] Dierdra Vaal > vuk retracted his !
[ 2009.06.21 17:38:38 ] Dierdra Vaal > ! (if I can reply to OZ)
[ 2009.06.21 17:38:52 ] mazzilliu > yeah just because someone has someone else on MSN dont mean they are their meat puppet
[ 2009.06.21 17:39:08 ] mazzilliu > if you see all the anti-spying and account security proposals i wrote you can probably guess my motivations
[ 2009.06.21 17:39:31 ] mazzilliu > in the wiki proposal i suggested a few soltutions for it
[ 2009.06.21 17:39:35 ] mazzilliu > 1. all ui are open sourced
[ 2009.06.21 17:39:56 ] mazzilliu > 2. ratings system and popularity ranking implemented so users can see if others have had a problem before they download
[ 2009.06.21 17:40:22 ] mazzilliu > 3. potentially overboard- but only allow people who have used a credit card on their account to publish UI- tie the software to a real name and real life penalties for spreading viruses
[ 2009.06.21 17:41:01 ] mazzilliu > does that answer the question?
[ 2009.06.21 17:41:43 ] Dierdra Vaal > if I can add to this: an open source UI would be required really for security (just look at WoWs implementation), and that would make it 100% verifyable whether or not it does something naught. end
[ 2009.06.21 17:41:53 ] Dierdra Vaal > naughty*
[ 2009.06.21 17:42:04 ] mazzilliu > if omber is satisfied with that responce ill take next person
[ 2009.06.21 17:42:22 ] mazzilliu > my chat log scrolled past the top of the window so im kind of lost as to whos next
[ 2009.06.21 17:42:24 ] Dierdra Vaal > erik?
[ 2009.06.21 17:42:32 ] Erik Finnegan > I am not sure who to follow: Dierdra has a point, when she says that who ever wants to macro, she will do it. Then again, Meissa's doubts are valid : it would totally break what the game is if you would get info that is by design hidden.
[ 2009.06.21 17:42:42 ] Erik Finnegan > As a question to Dierdra / Maz : do you think an API could be designed which would enforce the hidden information to custom UI code ?
[ 2009.06.21 17:42:58 ] mazzilliu > if something's hidden by design, ccp arent going to allow it to be revealed only in a customized UI
[ 2009.06.21 17:43:21 ] Meissa Anunthiel > (+Issler: o/)
[ 2009.06.21 17:43:30 ] Issler Dainze > hi
[ 2009.06.21 17:43:44 ] Dierdra Vaal > that entirely depends on how much customization would be possible I think. Still one could argue that some 'hidden' info are just plain bad design desicions and are rightfully overthrown with mods :P
[ 2009.06.21 17:44:08 ] Meissa Anunthiel > (Dierdra, use !) :p
[ 2009.06.21 17:44:13 ] Dierdra Vaal > sorry
[ 2009.06.21 17:44:20 ] mazzilliu > my ultimate goal with this is that ccp adopt a really good player created mod as the default, or built in alternative
[ 2009.06.21 17:44:36 ] mazzilliu > i think it can be possible to block hidden information
[ 2009.06.21 17:44:52 ] mazzilliu > so, next?
[ 2009.06.21 17:45:05 ] Erik Finnegan > ( I love Open Source, no doubt and with distributed effort we'll get much further )
[ 2009.06.21 17:45:10 ] Dierdra Vaal > I think we're through !s and able to vote?
[ 2009.06.21 17:45:28 ] Dierdra Vaal > can you briefly state the issue we're voting on maz?
[ 2009.06.21 17:45:34 ] mazzilliu > well, anyone who wants to ! do it under this line so i dont have to scroll up thru the chatlog ______________________
[ 2009.06.21 17:46:10 ] mazzilliu > in one sentance?  wether we say YES or NO to CCP releasing tools to let players modify the client
[ 2009.06.21 17:46:26 ] mazzilliu > or rather, modify the UI
[ 2009.06.21 17:46:41 ] Dierdra Vaal > vote yes
[ 2009.06.21 17:46:46 ] Meissa Anunthiel > (you can say we're voting on the issue as described on the wiki, without modification, easy :p)
[ 2009.06.21 17:46:57 ] mazzilliu > ok then were doing that
[ 2009.06.21 17:47:01 ] mazzilliu > voting yes
[ 2009.06.21 17:47:05 ] Omber Zombie > no
[ 2009.06.21 17:47:05 ] Larkonis Trassler > vote no
[ 2009.06.21 17:47:06 ] Meissa Anunthiel > /emote votes no
[ 2009.06.21 17:47:14 ] Erik Finnegan > /emote votes yes
[ 2009.06.21 17:47:18 ] Issler Dainze > yes
[ 2009.06.21 17:47:35 ] Meissa Anunthiel > Avalloc?
[ 2009.06.21 17:47:43 ] Vuk Lau > no
[ 2009.06.21 17:47:51 ] Avalloc > sec...
[ 2009.06.21 17:47:53 ] Omber Zombie > umm, afaik, we have 9 csm's here, no alt votes
[ 2009.06.21 17:47:53 ] Dierdra Vaal > issler cannot vote, all CSM members are present
[ 2009.06.21 17:48:07 ] Zastrow J > that was my question
[ 2009.06.21 17:48:12 ] Meissa Anunthiel > Ah, +Zastrow, didn't see you arrive
[ 2009.06.21 17:48:26 ] Dierdra Vaal > zastrow arrived a while ago :), you can vote Z
[ 2009.06.21 17:49:01 ] Zastrow J > yes
[ 2009.06.21 17:49:07 ] Avalloc > yes
[ 2009.06.21 17:49:27 ] Dierdra Vaal > motion passes 5/4
[ 2009.06.21 17:49:30 ] Meissa Anunthiel > 5/4, issue passed. Congratulations on getting your first issue through mazz :-)
[ 2009.06.21 17:49:35 ] mazzilliu > yayz
[ 2009.06.21 17:49:45 ] Dierdra Vaal > 2: Share dividends payout value (OZ)
[ 2009.06.21 17:49:49 ] Dierdra Vaal > http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Share_dividends_payout_value
[ 2009.06.21 17:50:11 ] Omber Zombie > basically, this is changing a value so that dividends can be paid out with one button click instead of 50
[ 2009.06.21 17:50:14 ] Omber Zombie > any questions?
[ 2009.06.21 17:50:23 ] mazzilliu > !
[ 2009.06.21 17:50:27 ] Omber Zombie > mazz
[ 2009.06.21 17:50:38 ] Dierdra Vaal > !
[ 2009.06.21 17:50:39 ] mazzilliu > is there any real downside to this?  it seems pretty straightforward convenience
[ 2009.06.21 17:50:41 ] mazzilliu > end
[ 2009.06.21 17:50:46 ] Omber Zombie > nope
[ 2009.06.21 17:50:48 ] Omber Zombie > d?
[ 2009.06.21 17:50:49 ] Erik Finnegan > !
[ 2009.06.21 17:50:53 ] Vuk Lau > lets vote?
[ 2009.06.21 17:50:59 ] Meissa Anunthiel > /emote votes yes
[ 2009.06.21 17:51:02 ] mazzilliu > yes
[ 2009.06.21 17:51:05 ] Shatana Fulfairas > !
[ 2009.06.21 17:51:11 ] Omber Zombie > lol, wait for q's to inish
[ 2009.06.21 17:51:17 ] Omber Zombie > *finish
[ 2009.06.21 17:51:17 ] Dierdra Vaal > instead of setting the solution as '64 bit integer' just adjust it to say "change coding to allow for larger values"...
[ 2009.06.21 17:51:29 ] Dierdra Vaal > for example, isntead of using a 64 bit integer you could also use a long
[ 2009.06.21 17:51:35 ] Dierdra Vaal > (long is a datatype)
[ 2009.06.21 17:51:38 ] Dierdra Vaal > end
[ 2009.06.21 17:51:55 ] Omber Zombie > ok, i can adjust that if noone has a problem
[ 2009.06.21 17:51:57 ] Dierdra Vaal > wait 1 addendum...
[ 2009.06.21 17:51:59 ] Omber Zombie > erik?
[ 2009.06.21 17:52:10 ] Dierdra Vaal > my point is not to tell ccp how to technically implement a solution
[ 2009.06.21 17:52:13 ] Dierdra Vaal > end for real
[ 2009.06.21 17:52:18 ] Omber Zombie > ok
[ 2009.06.21 17:52:21 ] Omber Zombie > erik?
[ 2009.06.21 17:52:26 ] Erik Finnegan > previous CSM had a similar suggestion related to dividends at leasthttp://evajobse.net/csmwiki/index.php/Shares%2C_Dividends_and_Stocks
[ 2009.06.21 17:52:33 ] Erik Finnegan > http://evajobse.net/csmwiki/index.php/Shares%2C_Dividends_and_Stocks
[ 2009.06.21 17:52:38 ] Erik Finnegan > We might/should link it to that. So this would actually be a re-submission. And since there is an open request to the CSM anyway, we might have to do our homework and suggest a viable stock exchange market in Iceland.
[ 2009.06.21 17:52:40 ] Erik Finnegan > FIN
[ 2009.06.21 17:52:43 ] Omber Zombie > yup, was raised, passed, ccp agreed and never did anything
[ 2009.06.21 17:53:01 ] Omber Zombie > this is telling them exactly what they need to do
[ 2009.06.21 17:53:09 ] Erik Finnegan > CSM was asked to provide more details on a "good" stock exchange
[ 2009.06.21 17:53:14 ] Omber Zombie > as for stockmarket - that's an entirely seperate kettle of fish
[ 2009.06.21 17:53:20 ] Erik Finnegan > ok
[ 2009.06.21 17:53:35 ] Omber Zombie > this is paying out dividends, a fnction that already exists
[ 2009.06.21 17:53:44 ] Omber Zombie > shal?
[ 2009.06.21 17:53:46 ] Shatana Fulfairas > This was asked by a devccp said a couple of years ago was that it involved changing code and that it was"too hard" - programming department:- and because its a code change and they still arent certain...
[ 2009.06.21 17:53:49 ] Shatana Fulfairas > which bits of code tie into which other bits of code they were reluctant to play with it, but this was 2 years ago
[ 2009.06.21 17:54:02 ] Shatana Fulfairas > this is from a former dev of ccp
[ 2009.06.21 17:54:05 ] Larkonis Trassler > aye this is surely to do with dividends, not some fancy pants fleet street stock exchange
[ 2009.06.21 17:54:16 ] Shatana Fulfairas > they were asking the same question
[ 2009.06.21 17:54:48 ] Shatana Fulfairas > but the 64bit would cascade down crippling clinet with double the workload
[ 2009.06.21 17:55:24 ] Dierdra Vaal > ! c(an I reply to shatana?)
[ 2009.06.21 17:55:33 ] Omber Zombie > yup shalt, that issue is noted in the proposal, all we are asking is for them to look at it and if it's easy, fix it now, if not, fix it soon™
[ 2009.06.21 17:55:34 ] Omber Zombie > d
[ 2009.06.21 17:56:08 ] Dierdra Vaal > this is why I mentioned a 64 bit int isnt the only soltion (and changing to a 64bit system IS quite a big change) - but using a Long or even a Double isntead of an int would go a long way
[ 2009.06.21 17:56:09 ] Dierdra Vaal > end
[ 2009.06.21 17:56:39 ] Omber Zombie > any other questions?
[ 2009.06.21 17:57:07 ] Omber Zombie > cool, lets vote
[ 2009.06.21 17:57:10 ] Omber Zombie > _____________
[ 2009.06.21 17:57:13 ] Meissa Anunthiel > yes
[ 2009.06.21 17:57:15 ] Erik Finnegan > /emote votes yes
[ 2009.06.21 17:57:17 ] Dierdra Vaal > yes
[ 2009.06.21 17:57:20 ] Omber Zombie > yes
[ 2009.06.21 17:57:26 ] Zastrow J > yea
[ 2009.06.21 17:57:33 ] Avalloc > yes
[ 2009.06.21 17:57:37 ] Vuk Lau > yes
[ 2009.06.21 17:57:38 ] Larkonis Trassler > yes
[ 2009.06.21 17:57:45 ] Issler Dainze > yes
[ 2009.06.21 17:57:53 ] Erik Finnegan > /emote wonders if we really have to give coding suggestions to CCP now ?!?! Oo
[ 2009.06.21 17:58:05 ] Meissa Anunthiel > why do you vote issler?
[ 2009.06.21 17:58:15 ] Dierdra Vaal > issler you cannot vote. you're not needed
[ 2009.06.21 17:58:26 ] Dierdra Vaal > stop trying to sneak votes in.
[ 2009.06.21 17:58:56 ] Dierdra Vaal > maz gonna vote?
[ 2009.06.21 17:58:57 ] Omber Zombie > just waiting on mazz vote
[ 2009.06.21 17:59:01 ] mazzilliu > oh
[ 2009.06.21 17:59:02 ] mazzilliu > voting yes
[ 2009.06.21 17:59:23 ] Dierdra Vaal > motion passed unanimously
[ 2009.06.21 17:59:26 ] Dierdra Vaal > grats OZ
[ 2009.06.21 17:59:32 ] Issler Dainze > never mind, I wont, since there are enough
[ 2009.06.21 17:59:47 ] Dierdra Vaal > yes..
[ 2009.06.21 17:59:53 ] Dierdra Vaal > 3: Zoom buttons (DV)
[ 2009.06.21 17:59:59 ] Dierdra Vaal > http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Bring_back_zoom_buttons
[ 2009.06.21 18:00:23 ] Avalloc > (bio afk, voting yes)
[ 2009.06.21 18:00:28 ] mazzilliu > !
[ 2009.06.21 18:00:32 ] Dierdra Vaal > its a simple request at the surface - to bring back the zoom camera in/out buttons in order to help disabled players who need them.
[ 2009.06.21 18:00:53 ] Dierdra Vaal > It is based on a bigger issue, a request for CCP to keep usability in mind when (re)designing their UI.
[ 2009.06.21 18:01:15 ] Dierdra Vaal > maz
[ 2009.06.21 18:01:45 ] mazzilliu > i see this as kind of a part of the overall UI issue.  when people all have to use the same UI handicapped people are not going to get special consideration
[ 2009.06.21 18:01:52 ] mazzilliu > imagine if we had a UI designed for colorblind people
[ 2009.06.21 18:02:07 ] Omber Zombie > !
[ 2009.06.21 18:02:27 ] mazzilliu > anyways i gotta go afk 15 or so minutes and voting yes on this issue
[ 2009.06.21 18:02:30 ] mazzilliu > end
[ 2009.06.21 18:02:37 ] Dierdra Vaal > it IS an advantage of a self made ui that you can keep special needs in mind.
[ 2009.06.21 18:02:38 ] Dierdra Vaal > OZ
[ 2009.06.21 18:03:01 ] Omber Zombie > was just goign to say that has nothing to do with this issue and can we move on
[ 2009.06.21 18:03:03 ] Omber Zombie > (end)
[ 2009.06.21 18:03:10 ] Larkonis Trassler > !
[ 2009.06.21 18:03:18 ] Dierdra Vaal > lark
[ 2009.06.21 18:03:56 ] Larkonis Trassler > Just going to point out that while there is plenty wrong with the UI this was not one of the problems and CCP really had no reason to remove it
[ 2009.06.21 18:05:35 ] Larkonis Trassler > end
[ 2009.06.21 18:05:46 ] Dierdra Vaal > anyone else? otherwise I move to vote
[ 2009.06.21 18:05:59 ] Dierdra Vaal > Voting on returning the camera zoom buttons:
[ 2009.06.21 18:06:03 ] Erik Finnegan > /emote votes yes
[ 2009.06.21 18:06:05 ] Omber Zombie > yes
[ 2009.06.21 18:06:06 ] Meissa Anunthiel > /emote votes yes
[ 2009.06.21 18:06:08 ] Larkonis Trassler > yes
[ 2009.06.21 18:06:08 ] Zastrow J > sure
[ 2009.06.21 18:06:10 ] Dierdra Vaal > avalloc and maz voted yes as well
[ 2009.06.21 18:06:13 ] Dierdra Vaal > I also vote yes
[ 2009.06.21 18:06:45 ] Dierdra Vaal > vuk?
[ 2009.06.21 18:07:13 ] Erik Finnegan > He's getting dressed maybe ?
[ 2009.06.21 18:07:14 ] Vuk Lau > yes
[ 2009.06.21 18:07:20 ] Dierdra Vaal > motion passed 9/0
[ 2009.06.21 18:07:30 ] Dierdra Vaal > 4: Manufacturing and Invention at POSes (Meissa)
[ 2009.06.21 18:07:33 ] Dierdra Vaal > http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Manufacturing_and_Invention_at_POSes
[ 2009.06.21 18:07:38 ] Meissa Anunthiel > The industry expansion may or may not be coming. Either way there are a number of industry questions that need to be solved if it doesn't
[ 2009.06.21 18:07:44 ] Meissa Anunthiel > This particular one applies to manufacturing/research at POSes. While it's a limited problem in empire, it's a bigger one in 0.0.
[ 2009.06.21 18:07:50 ] Meissa Anunthiel > This issue wants 2 particular things adressed primarily:
[ 2009.06.21 18:07:57 ] Meissa Anunthiel > - Make blueprints in labs/assemblies the user has access to visible from afar, according to the Scientific Networking skill, at least optionally
[ 2009.06.21 18:08:06 ] Meissa Anunthiel > - Make labs "pool" resources through a corporate hangar array. If a lab is missing a datacore, decryptor or ML-Item and one is available in the same division of an online corporate hangar array the installer has access to, the lab takes the resource fro
[ 2009.06.21 18:08:17 ] Meissa Anunthiel > The reason these changes are required are described in the wiki.
[ 2009.06.21 18:08:24 ] Meissa Anunthiel > Taking your questions
[ 2009.06.21 18:08:26 ] Larkonis Trassler > !
[ 2009.06.21 18:08:30 ] Meissa Anunthiel > Lark
[ 2009.06.21 18:08:40 ] Larkonis Trassler > Sorry 2 secs while i type this out
[ 2009.06.21 18:08:45 ] Meissa Anunthiel > take your time :-)
[ 2009.06.21 18:09:42 ] Larkonis Trassler > Under current mechanics one can use a blueprint to manufacture/research remotely from a station in system
[ 2009.06.21 18:10:03 ] Larkonis Trassler > if no station is present in system then the bp must be in the lab/array yes?
[ 2009.06.21 18:10:07 ] Meissa Anunthiel > yes
[ 2009.06.21 18:10:23 ] Larkonis Trassler > and your proposal would not change this?
[ 2009.06.21 18:10:44 ] Meissa Anunthiel > no, I consider that a separate issue
[ 2009.06.21 18:11:17 ] Larkonis Trassler > and under the current system the materials apart from the bp must be present within the array to manufacture/build/research something
[ 2009.06.21 18:11:33 ] Meissa Anunthiel > this is "the range of action a character-BPs", more than "the range of BP-lab"
[ 2009.06.21 18:11:52 ] Larkonis Trassler > in english...
[ 2009.06.21 18:12:28 ] Omber Zombie > basically instead of having to remember which hanger you put the bp/mats in, it just looks for them all and does what it needs to
[ 2009.06.21 18:12:31 ] Meissa Anunthiel > under the current system all the materials and BP need to be in the lab/array. The BP can, however, be present in a station in the system the lab is in, if there's one.
[ 2009.06.21 18:12:36 ] Omber Zombie > (sorry to interject)
[ 2009.06.21 18:13:07 ] Larkonis Trassler > so there's no change to what needs to be placed where in relation to manufacturing things at poses
[ 2009.06.21 18:13:18 ] Meissa Anunthiel > there is
[ 2009.06.21 18:13:26 ] Meissa Anunthiel > currently, if you have 9 labs
[ 2009.06.21 18:13:26 ] Larkonis Trassler > go on
[ 2009.06.21 18:14:16 ] Meissa Anunthiel > you have to seed each lab with datacores, meta-level items, decryptors and (possibly) BPCs to do invention. You can put BPCs in station if there's one if you want, but then you don't know which lab has the materials needed for your job
[ 2009.06.21 18:14:30 ] Meissa Anunthiel > or you can put the BPCs in the labs, but you need to be AT the lab to start the jobs
[ 2009.06.21 18:14:54 ] Larkonis Trassler > so this is all about improving the remote lab interface
[ 2009.06.21 18:15:07 ] Meissa Anunthiel > and either way, each lab need to be seeded with items separately, so you need to fill each lab with each item potentially needed for any job you might want to run if you want to have the least bit of flexibility
[ 2009.06.21 18:15:28 ] Meissa Anunthiel > yes for the first part
[ 2009.06.21 18:16:05 ] Meissa Anunthiel > and the second part is to centralize the items needed for the jobs so you don't have to put them in 9 separate labs, just one corporate hangar array, out of which each lab would take the items needed for the jobs
[ 2009.06.21 18:16:33 ] Larkonis Trassler > so there would be no change for me, or say the random 0.0 roaming fellow happening across a lab or reactor or CHA on an offline pos and blowing it up
[ 2009.06.21 18:16:45 ] Meissa Anunthiel > no, on the contrary
[ 2009.06.21 18:17:09 ] Erik Finnegan > ( CHA ? )
[ 2009.06.21 18:17:13 ] Meissa Anunthiel > it could, for those who want it, make people use labs/assemblies more in systems that don't have stations
[ 2009.06.21 18:17:21 ] Larkonis Trassler > and then scooping the juicey loots like a nine year old smashing a pinata at a birthday party
[ 2009.06.21 18:17:24 ] Meissa Anunthiel > which, right now, is not possible
[ 2009.06.21 18:17:33 ] Larkonis Trassler > ok cool
[ 2009.06.21 18:17:35 ] Larkonis Trassler > end
[ 2009.06.21 18:17:45 ] Larkonis Trassler > erik cha=corporate hangar array
[ 2009.06.21 18:18:08 ] Larkonis Trassler > a pos structure, found at player owned stations
[ 2009.06.21 18:18:16 ] Avalloc > !
[ 2009.06.21 18:18:20 ] Meissa Anunthiel > Avalloc?
[ 2009.06.21 18:18:26 ] Erik Finnegan > !
[ 2009.06.21 18:19:17 ] Avalloc > from my pov, having all resources, datacores be pullale from cha AT the pos makes sense.. isn't that the easiest solution?
[ 2009.06.21 18:19:33 ] Meissa Anunthiel > that's the 2nd thing I ask for indeed
[ 2009.06.21 18:19:43 ] Avalloc > bpc/bpo in station cha
[ 2009.06.21 18:20:13 ] Meissa Anunthiel > Well, in station CHA has 2 issues
[ 2009.06.21 18:20:54 ] Meissa Anunthiel > there's lots of systems that don't have stations, NPC 0.0 or even lowsec/highsec. And 2nd it removes items from POSes, which removes "rewards" from blowing them up
[ 2009.06.21 18:21:09 ] Meissa Anunthiel > That last part is of debatable importance, but that's the way it currently is
[ 2009.06.21 18:21:30 ] Avalloc > imo you're cramming toomuch together
[ 2009.06.21 18:21:39 ] Omber Zombie > ^^
[ 2009.06.21 18:22:02 ] Meissa Anunthiel > I can split the issue in 2 if everyone would be more comfortable
[ 2009.06.21 18:22:02 ] Avalloc > (fin)
[ 2009.06.21 18:22:59 ] Avalloc > bpc issue shouldn't be attached
[ 2009.06.21 18:23:14 ] Meissa Anunthiel > I'll remove that from the wiki
[ 2009.06.21 18:23:28 ] Meissa Anunthiel > The 3 "possibly" stuff
[ 2009.06.21 18:23:54 ] Avalloc > sorry for scrambling the discussion...
[ 2009.06.21 18:24:13 ] Meissa Anunthiel > It's cool
[ 2009.06.21 18:24:24 ] Meissa Anunthiel > I removed them, the 2 issues left are the ones I mentionned
[ 2009.06.21 18:24:49 ] Meissa Anunthiel > viewing BPs in a lab from afar, and pooling resources with a CHA at a POS
[ 2009.06.21 18:25:14 ] Meissa Anunthiel > (basically the only 2 we've been discussing this far)
[ 2009.06.21 18:25:41 ] Erik Finnegan > Maybe it's the combination, which confuses me.
[ 2009.06.21 18:25:45 ] Erik Finnegan > Can you detail for me again, please, the issue of the researcher having to be at the POS (lab) to start the job (a colleague of mine is doing it in our corp - so I do not know a lot about the actual doing).
[ 2009.06.21 18:25:48 ] Erik Finnegan > Will your issue change that the researcher has to be at the POS ? Or will it rather simplify researching at POS (without station in the system), as with your suggestion the labs can take their items from a CHA (instead of individual lab) ?
[ 2009.06.21 18:26:19 ] Meissa Anunthiel > Dierdra, is it ok if I split the issue in 2 for discussion and voting? it'll be easier
[ 2009.06.21 18:27:14 ] Dierdra Vaal > yes that is fine
[ 2009.06.21 18:27:19 ] Meissa Anunthiel > Ok, issue 1:
[ 2009.06.21 18:27:27 ] Meissa Anunthiel > Make blueprints in labs/assemblies the user has access to visible from afar, according to the Scientific Networking skill, at least optionally
[ 2009.06.21 18:27:39 ] Larkonis Trassler > yes
[ 2009.06.21 18:27:41 ] Dierdra Vaal > yes
[ 2009.06.21 18:27:57 ] Avalloc > yes
[ 2009.06.21 18:28:00 ] mazzilliu > yes
[ 2009.06.21 18:28:01 ] Erik Finnegan > What about my !
[ 2009.06.21 18:28:24 ] Meissa Anunthiel > I'll answer your Q: This first thing is so people can see their blueprints in a POS from afar. Right now they can't
[ 2009.06.21 18:28:45 ] Erik Finnegan > Visible means also usable ? or really only visible (as assets) ?
[ 2009.06.21 18:28:56 ] Vuk Lau > yes
[ 2009.06.21 18:28:58 ] Zastrow J > yes
[ 2009.06.21 18:28:58 ] Meissa Anunthiel > visible and useable, through the S&I interface at least
[ 2009.06.21 18:29:26 ] Omber Zombie > so, is this a vote - i'm confused
[ 2009.06.21 18:29:48 ] Meissa Anunthiel > yes OZ, we're voting on the first part, just in case
[ 2009.06.21 18:29:53 ] Erik Finnegan > I still need one more !
[ 2009.06.21 18:30:01 ] Larkonis Trassler > shut up erik
[ 2009.06.21 18:30:02 ] Larkonis Trassler > yes
[ 2009.06.21 18:30:11 ] Omber Zombie > yes
[ 2009.06.21 18:30:27 ] Erik Finnegan > Hej ! Just because I'm not doing it often enough, does not mean I may not ask for details . :'(
[ 2009.06.21 18:30:33 ] Meissa Anunthiel > Erik, that's the 2nd part, can you vote on this one?
[ 2009.06.21 18:30:40 ] Meissa Anunthiel > or do you have more questions about that part
[ 2009.06.21 18:30:46 ] Erik Finnegan > /emote votes yes (seems popular enough)
[ 2009.06.21 18:30:56 ] Meissa Anunthiel > and yes for me, so that's that
[ 2009.06.21 18:31:02 ] Meissa Anunthiel > 2nd part: pooling resources
[ 2009.06.21 18:31:54 ] Meissa Anunthiel > So a lab/array takes items from a corporate hangar array (CHA) anchored at a POS if the lab/array lacks some items. For Erik, this simplifies operations for people running multiple labs/arrays, as is the norm rather than the exception.
[ 2009.06.21 18:32:03 ] Erik Finnegan > Resource pooling on CHA is fine. I wasn't worried about it.votes: yes
[ 2009.06.21 18:32:20 ] Omber Zombie > yes
[ 2009.06.21 18:32:22 ] Dierdra Vaal > vote yes
[ 2009.06.21 18:32:32 ] mazzilliu > voting yes
[ 2009.06.21 18:32:40 ] Larkonis Trassler > voting yes
[ 2009.06.21 18:32:43 ] Meissa Anunthiel > yes
[ 2009.06.21 18:33:01 ] Vuk Lau > yes
[ 2009.06.21 18:33:13 ] Avalloc > yes
[ 2009.06.21 18:33:15 ] Zastrow J > yea
[ 2009.06.21 18:33:28 ] Meissa Anunthiel > Ok, issue passed 9/0
[ 2009.06.21 18:33:46 ] Dierdra Vaal > next?
[ 2009.06.21 18:33:50 ] Meissa Anunthiel > I'm sorry if this issue confused anyone, I'll make sure I split them in easy to understand pieces next time
[ 2009.06.21 18:34:14 ] Dierdra Vaal > 5: Armageddon Day (Vuk)
[ 2009.06.21 18:34:19 ] Dierdra Vaal > http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Armaggedon_Day_2.0
[ 2009.06.21 18:34:36 ] Vuk Lau > cool
[ 2009.06.21 18:34:44 ] Larkonis Trassler > !
[ 2009.06.21 18:34:58 ] Vuk Lau > ok there is not much to explain
[ 2009.06.21 18:35:04 ] Vuk Lau > it is a blast event
[ 2009.06.21 18:35:07 ] Vuk Lau > and we should get another one
[ 2009.06.21 18:35:10 ] Vuk Lau > Larkonis
[ 2009.06.21 18:35:11 ] Omber Zombie > !
[ 2009.06.21 18:35:12 ] Dierdra Vaal > !
[ 2009.06.21 18:36:10 ] Vuk Lau > Larkonis Trassler
[ 2009.06.21 18:36:23 ] Larkonis Trassler > I'll just throw it out there... it's not too much to ask from CCP to throw one of these every time they have a MAJOR patch... we all know it's going to be a bit laggy on sisi etc etc, but those that get on will have a blast :lolend:
[ 2009.06.21 18:36:35 ] Vuk Lau > OZ
[ 2009.06.21 18:36:42 ] Omber Zombie > if on sisi, sure, not on TQ (end)
[ 2009.06.21 18:36:49 ] Vuk Lau > ok
[ 2009.06.21 18:36:55 ] Vuk Lau > Lady Dierdra
[ 2009.06.21 18:37:20 ] Dierdra Vaal > I think its a cool idea - but only on SiSi. It is not worth all the hassle and downtime to convert TQ to a temporary armageddon day.
[ 2009.06.21 18:37:32 ] Vuk Lau > rgr
[ 2009.06.21 18:37:40 ] Vuk Lau > anyone else
[ 2009.06.21 18:37:44 ] Dierdra Vaal > armageddon day on TQ would be too much of a can of worms - are losses during TQ armageddon day reimbursed? etc. end
[ 2009.06.21 18:37:58 ] Vuk Lau > agree
[ 2009.06.21 18:38:07 ] Vuk Lau > but lets CCP give a final on that
[ 2009.06.21 18:38:08 ] Larkonis Trassler > !
[ 2009.06.21 18:38:25 ] Vuk Lau > if it is doable on sisi, ofc it is better to have it on sisi
[ 2009.06.21 18:38:40 ] Vuk Lau > yes Larkonis
[ 2009.06.21 18:38:42 ] Larkonis Trassler > AFAIK the last AD was on Sisi during some major patch
[ 2009.06.21 18:38:51 ] Vuk Lau > yup
[ 2009.06.21 18:38:55 ] Larkonis Trassler > so as i said, keep it to sisi
[ 2009.06.21 18:38:59 ] Larkonis Trassler > everyone's happy
[ 2009.06.21 18:39:04 ] Vuk Lau > but it was not so stable
[ 2009.06.21 18:39:11 ] Vuk Lau > and today we have much more players
[ 2009.06.21 18:39:16 ] Vuk Lau > but as I said [18:37:53] Vuk Lau > if it is doable on sisi, ofc it is better to have it on sisi
[ 2009.06.21 18:39:36 ] Vuk Lau > if there is noone else we can vote?
[ 2009.06.21 18:39:42 ] Larkonis Trassler > make it something semi regular, either monthly on sisi or reinforce sisi during updates of TQ
[ 2009.06.21 18:39:48 ] Larkonis Trassler > [end]
[ 2009.06.21 18:40:06 ] Vuk Lau > well if it is to often, then it lose the epicness tbh
[ 2009.06.21 18:40:35 ] Vuk Lau > lets vote?
[ 2009.06.21 18:40:45 ] Dierdra Vaal > sure
[ 2009.06.21 18:40:50 ] Meissa Anunthiel > /emote votes yes
[ 2009.06.21 18:40:53 ] mazzilliu > voting yes, a lot of yes
[ 2009.06.21 18:40:53 ] Dierdra Vaal > I vote yes
[ 2009.06.21 18:40:59 ] Larkonis Trassler > yes
[ 2009.06.21 18:41:00 ] Vuk Lau > yes
[ 2009.06.21 18:41:02 ] Omber Zombie > y
[ 2009.06.21 18:41:05 ] Avalloc > yes
[ 2009.06.21 18:41:12 ] Zastrow J > yes
[ 2009.06.21 18:41:24 ] Dierdra Vaal > erik?
[ 2009.06.21 18:41:28 ] Erik Finnegan > yes
[ 2009.06.21 18:41:32 ] Dierdra Vaal > motion passed 9/0
[ 2009.06.21 18:41:43 ] Dierdra Vaal > 6: What is in the works for FW (Erik)
[ 2009.06.21 18:41:47 ] Dierdra Vaal > http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Factional_Warfare_-_Request_for_Information
[ 2009.06.21 18:41:56 ] Erik Finnegan > Alright, this issue is a boiled-down version from last time. Adjusted - by an attentive player - to the level, which seemed to have agreement in this round : instead of asking for a priority change to raise FW, we shall simply ask CCP about
[ 2009.06.21 18:42:03 ] Erik Finnegan > what is in the works. About the same style as OZ did for industry in our last meeting.
[ 2009.06.21 18:42:07 ] Erik Finnegan > That shall improve the communication, as FW'ers are unhappy with the answers right now. So that is as much as we can do : ask CCP what they have in mind for FW improvements. After all, some issues have already been agreed by CCP, yet we are lacking a st
[ 2009.06.21 18:42:14 ] Erik Finnegan > status.It is fair enough from our side to ask them, what the status is.
[ 2009.06.21 18:42:23 ] Dierdra Vaal > !
[ 2009.06.21 18:42:36 ] Erik Finnegan > Dierdra
[ 2009.06.21 18:42:59 ] Dierdra Vaal > I see no reason not to support this issue. Asking CCP for more information does not take development time or really many other resources and seems a very reasonable request. end
[ 2009.06.21 18:43:33 ] Erik Finnegan > Well, we discussed this issue last time anyway....
[ 2009.06.21 18:43:58 ] Erik Finnegan > Thank you. Any other remarks ?
[ 2009.06.21 18:44:14 ] Erik Finnegan > /emote wants to make a quick issue for a change
[ 2009.06.21 18:44:18 ] Vuk Lau > I agree with Lady Dierdra
[ 2009.06.21 18:44:37 ] Dierdra Vaal > no !'s so if you wish you could proceed to a vote, erik.
[ 2009.06.21 18:44:51 ] Erik Finnegan > Vote for the issue as stated, please ______________
[ 2009.06.21 18:44:58 ] Dierdra Vaal > yes
[ 2009.06.21 18:45:10 ] Omber Zombie > yes
[ 2009.06.21 18:45:33 ] Erik Finnegan > /emote votes yes
[ 2009.06.21 18:45:39 ] Zastrow J > yea ok
[ 2009.06.21 18:46:11 ] Vuk Lau > yes
[ 2009.06.21 18:46:35 ] mazzilliu > no
[ 2009.06.21 18:46:40 ] Larkonis Trassler > no
[ 2009.06.21 18:46:41 ] Meissa Anunthiel > no :-)
[ 2009.06.21 18:46:52 ] Dierdra Vaal > avalloc?
[ 2009.06.21 18:46:56 ] Avalloc > yes
[ 2009.06.21 18:47:01 ] Dierdra Vaal > motion passed 6/3
[ 2009.06.21 18:47:15 ] Dierdra Vaal > grats erik, hopefully this also makes the FW players a bit happier :)
[ 2009.06.21 18:47:23 ] Erik Finnegan > saves my head at least
[ 2009.06.21 18:47:27 ] Dierdra Vaal > 7: solution to macro haulers (maz)
[ 2009.06.21 18:47:38 ] mazzilliu > ok, any questions?
[ 2009.06.21 18:47:39 ] Dierdra Vaal > http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Macro_hauler_solution
[ 2009.06.21 18:47:47 ] Larkonis Trassler > !
[ 2009.06.21 18:47:49 ] Erik Finnegan > Fine solution. I'm all for it
[ 2009.06.21 18:47:51 ] mazzilliu > lark go
[ 2009.06.21 18:48:04 ] Omber Zombie > !
[ 2009.06.21 18:48:38 ] Larkonis Trassler > I'll just say, this is pretty cool, as someone who lives in an area plagued by macro and player haulers it's nice to add a tangible reward to popping them apart from the sweet explosions and t1 expanders
[ 2009.06.21 18:49:02 ] Larkonis Trassler > end
[ 2009.06.21 18:49:06 ] mazzilliu > ok omber go
[ 2009.06.21 18:49:12 ] Omber Zombie > without an increase to the reward, wouldn't this skew the risk vs reward way out of proportion? Why would anyone do these missions with high collateral and such massive risk for low reward? (end)
[ 2009.06.21 18:49:22 ] Larkonis Trassler > !
[ 2009.06.21 18:49:29 ] mazzilliu > well, firs tof all very few humans run hauler missions
[ 2009.06.21 18:49:39 ] Omber Zombie > !
[ 2009.06.21 18:50:21 ] mazzilliu > second, i do think reward might need to be looked at especially for higher level missions, but right now fixing macros is the big problem here
[ 2009.06.21 18:50:25 ] Meissa Anunthiel > !
[ 2009.06.21 18:50:49 ] mazzilliu > the biggest thing getting in the way of people doing them is because its very boring, not because theres no reward
[ 2009.06.21 18:51:05 ] mazzilliu > lark go
[ 2009.06.21 18:51:08 ] Larkonis Trassler > maz, if i can interject, the majority of courier missions run are level 4's, the cargo capacity well within the capabilities of a blockade runner and thus risk free to the average player in line with say a level 4 kill mission runner
[ 2009.06.21 18:51:19 ] Larkonis Trassler > end
[ 2009.06.21 18:51:29 ] Larkonis Trassler > wait no
[ 2009.06.21 18:51:55 ] Larkonis Trassler > this will push out the regularly banned macros and give more power to the human players doing these missions etc etc
[ 2009.06.21 18:51:58 ] Zastrow J > i bluescreened, im back
[ 2009.06.21 18:52:11 ] mazzilliu > is it impossible to kill a blockade runner in a gatecamp?  no, its just very hard.  and now they are risking the collateral and the expensive blockade runner
[ 2009.06.21 18:52:24 ] Larkonis Trassler > exactly
[ 2009.06.21 18:52:40 ] Larkonis Trassler > a good blockade runner pilot is nigh on uncatchable to most
[ 2009.06.21 18:52:43 ] mazzilliu > i dont think it will help humans doing the missions though.  others doing the mission does not impede on the ability of you to do the same mission AFAIK
[ 2009.06.21 18:52:43 ] Larkonis Trassler > but
[ 2009.06.21 18:53:18 ] Larkonis Trassler > in the areas where the farmers are doing missions they tend to linger on gates etc
[ 2009.06.21 18:53:33 ] mazzilliu > they could just jump a carrier on top of the stations to be even more invincible.  but we catch stupid carrier pilots off stations all the time, the risk will alwyas be there
[ 2009.06.21 18:53:42 ] Larkonis Trassler > so these changes will make them sharpen up and make them much tastier prey
[ 2009.06.21 18:54:10 ] mazzilliu > i think any area that gets infested with farmers will attract pirates and the macro population in localized areas will reach a player enforced maximum
[ 2009.06.21 18:54:53 ] Dierdra Vaal > !
[ 2009.06.21 18:55:00 ] mazzilliu > im trying to figure out who is next
[ 2009.06.21 18:55:01 ] mazzilliu > i think omber is
[ 2009.06.21 18:55:06 ] Omber Zombie > i think you are completely ignoring the fact that humans actually do these missions (end)
[ 2009.06.21 18:55:36 ] mazzilliu > yeah, but not very many, and alert not stupid humans can evade gatecamps
[ 2009.06.21 18:56:02 ] mazzilliu > i think there will need to be some sort of rebalancing to make the increased risk worth it though
[ 2009.06.21 18:56:06 ] Larkonis Trassler > oz
[ 2009.06.21 18:56:39 ] mazzilliu > hauler missions suck and need a lot of work.  but this is one quick solution that can solve a big problem without ruining it for people that know how to complete the missions anyways
[ 2009.06.21 18:57:10 ] mazzilliu > hauler missions have always needed this change anyways IMO, as a gameplay style sort of issue
[ 2009.06.21 18:57:12 ] Larkonis Trassler > can i just add, the vast majority of high bulk courier missions are level 4s which in kill mission terms are only doable with a well fit bs, is it that hard to expect a human doing these missions to train for a blockade runner
[ 2009.06.21 18:58:10 ] mazzilliu > yeah
[ 2009.06.21 18:58:13 ] mazzilliu > so, next person?
[ 2009.06.21 18:58:20 ] Meissa Anunthiel > I run lots of hauling mission, when there's no PvPing to do... This proposition is fine with me, but don't claim that nobody runs them... For the newbs 1 mil collateral may be an issue however, maybe request that the 1 mil collateral be limited to L4s?
[ 2009.06.21 18:58:23 ] Meissa Anunthiel > [/end]
[ 2009.06.21 18:58:54 ] Dierdra Vaal > (comfirming 1 mil isk is a lot for newbies)
[ 2009.06.21 18:58:54 ] mazzilliu > i put a specific provision in the proposal stating that low reward missions should be left as it.  especially low level highsec missions
[ 2009.06.21 18:59:07 ] mazzilliu > next?
[ 2009.06.21 18:59:31 ] Dierdra Vaal > I think its an interesting idea, and at least worth putting forward...
[ 2009.06.21 18:59:50 ] Dierdra Vaal > ..to see what CCP thinks about macro haulers and essentially a player-policing solution (something ccp likes)
[ 2009.06.21 18:59:53 ] Dierdra Vaal > end
[ 2009.06.21 19:00:01 ] Dierdra Vaal > I think I was the last ! maz
[ 2009.06.21 19:00:05 ] mazzilliu > ok
[ 2009.06.21 19:00:12 ] mazzilliu > so any more !'s or should we vote?
[ 2009.06.21 19:01:51 ] Dierdra Vaal > go for vote
[ 2009.06.21 19:02:16 ] mazzilliu > voting yes !
[ 2009.06.21 19:02:26 ] Vuk Lau > yes
[ 2009.06.21 19:02:30 ] Erik Finnegan > /emote votes yes
[ 2009.06.21 19:02:34 ] Avalloc > yes
[ 2009.06.21 19:02:47 ] Dierdra Vaal > yes
[ 2009.06.21 19:03:01 ] Omber Zombie > plz fix the risk vs reward, but yes
[ 2009.06.21 19:03:10 ] Meissa Anunthiel > (making up my mind)
[ 2009.06.21 19:03:20 ] Larkonis Trassler > yes
[ 2009.06.21 19:03:30 ] Zastrow J > yes
[ 2009.06.21 19:03:31 ] Meissa Anunthiel > yes
[ 2009.06.21 19:03:46 ] Dierdra Vaal > motion passed.. uh
[ 2009.06.21 19:03:51 ] Meissa Anunthiel > 9/0
[ 2009.06.21 19:03:54 ] Dierdra Vaal > ^^
[ 2009.06.21 19:04:00 ] Dierdra Vaal > 8: Corp interface overhaul (DV + maz)
[ 2009.06.21 19:04:05 ] Dierdra Vaal > http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Corporation_and_Alliance_tool_overhaul
[ 2009.06.21 19:04:40 ] Dierdra Vaal > before I launch this quite large topic, I have a question. Would you guys prefer to vote on this in 1 go, or would you prefer me to split it up in its 8 individual issues?
[ 2009.06.21 19:04:53 ] Erik Finnegan > Complete is fine
[ 2009.06.21 19:04:58 ] Omber Zombie > complete
[ 2009.06.21 19:05:06 ] Vuk Lau > i am ok with all 8 :D
[ 2009.06.21 19:05:09 ] Larkonis Trassler > fire away
[ 2009.06.21 19:05:43 ] Dierdra Vaal > ok in that case
[ 2009.06.21 19:05:55 ] Dierdra Vaal > corporations and alliances are a cornerstone of Eve
[ 2009.06.21 19:06:19 ] Dierdra Vaal > regardless of all the pilots that play solo, Eve doesnt come into its own until you get into play with other players
[ 2009.06.21 19:06:28 ] Dierdra Vaal > it is a massive _multiplayer_ game afterall.
[ 2009.06.21 19:06:42 ] Dierdra Vaal > however, corporate management tools are... lacking. (a polite description)
[ 2009.06.21 19:06:51 ] Omber Zombie > (dude, we get it and can read :) )
[ 2009.06.21 19:06:53 ] Avalloc > !
[ 2009.06.21 19:07:07 ] Dierdra Vaal > my issue proposes 8 changes to various aspects. I would urge you all to make sure you read the wall of text
[ 2009.06.21 19:07:18 ] Erik Finnegan > /emote read the wiki
[ 2009.06.21 19:07:34 ] Dierdra Vaal > I contacted goonswarm, morsus mihi, razor, kenzoku, CVA, and various other corporations to get their inputm to make this issue
[ 2009.06.21 19:07:46 ] Dierdra Vaal > Avalloc?
[ 2009.06.21 19:08:14 ] Avalloc > concerningpos password thing, is that for each pos?
[ 2009.06.21 19:08:25 ] Avalloc > or all pos belonging to corp
[ 2009.06.21 19:08:48 ] Omber Zombie > "It is suggested to add a new feature to the POS interface where you can set the required corporate or alliance standing for other pilots to enter your POS shields. Keep in mind that this should be a per-POS setting."
[ 2009.06.21 19:09:28 ] Avalloc > well crap, my browser window did something wonky
[ 2009.06.21 19:09:51 ] Avalloc > ok, that last bit kind of takes the "spy game" out of game
[ 2009.06.21 19:10:15 ] mazzilliu > !
[ 2009.06.21 19:10:25 ] Meissa Anunthiel > !
[ 2009.06.21 19:10:25 ] Avalloc > which is my only concern, personally
[ 2009.06.21 19:10:42 ] Avalloc > (fin)
[ 2009.06.21 19:10:55 ] Dierdra Vaal > Maz?
[ 2009.06.21 19:10:59 ] Dierdra Vaal > (and then meissa)
[ 2009.06.21 19:11:12 ] mazzilliu > the pos password/standings issue does not eliminate ingame eve spying
[ 2009.06.21 19:11:55 ] mazzilliu > spying is one thing when you can outwit your enemy and gain access to their corp and get their trust, its entirely another when broken game mechanics make play inconvenient for everybody because you are forced to give trust to people you dont trust
[ 2009.06.21 19:12:19 ] Omber Zombie > (is this relevent to this issue?)
[ 2009.06.21 19:12:33 ] mazzilliu > it was a responce to avalloc's comment
[ 2009.06.21 19:13:07 ] mazzilliu > what im trying to say is that the pos issue is a fix of broken game mechanics.  the way it is now is not a workable situation
[ 2009.06.21 19:13:12 ] mazzilliu > end
[ 2009.06.21 19:13:22 ] Meissa Anunthiel > I'll make my writing minutes easier by stating "I agree with what mazz said" instead of having to reformulate it ;-)
[ 2009.06.21 19:13:36 ] Dierdra Vaal > Anyone else with !'s?
[ 2009.06.21 19:13:48 ] Avalloc > !
[ 2009.06.21 19:13:52 ] Dierdra Vaal > av
[ 2009.06.21 19:14:09 ] Avalloc > you can strike my comment from minutes, as being a nonissue
[ 2009.06.21 19:14:25 ] Meissa Anunthiel > rgr
[ 2009.06.21 19:14:55 ] Avalloc > (fin)
[ 2009.06.21 19:14:57 ] Dierdra Vaal > anyone else?
[ 2009.06.21 19:15:03 ] mazzilliu > yeah strike the parts of mine directly responding to him too, as they wouldnt make mush sense that way
[ 2009.06.21 19:15:21 ] Erik Finnegan > Do I have to rephrase anything ?
[ 2009.06.21 19:15:33 ] Dierdra Vaal > now another thing, I received an email from erik
[ 2009.06.21 19:15:33 ] Meissa Anunthiel > just vote already :p
[ 2009.06.21 19:15:45 ] Dierdra Vaal > but havent had time to add these ideas to the approved issue wiki
[ 2009.06.21 19:15:51 ] Dierdra Vaal > erik asked to include:
[ 2009.06.21 19:15:57 ] Dierdra Vaal > - Corp assets overview (not direct hangar access view/take) is only available to the director in the corp interface; should be a grantable right to others
[ 2009.06.21 19:16:03 ] Dierdra Vaal > - Contents of POS hangars is not visible. The hangars are shown as items in space, yet their contents is not being expanded. Should be visible more like the "assets in stations" tab.
[ 2009.06.21 19:16:07 ] Dierdra Vaal > - The asset list features a volume column, but it is not filled ?!
[ 2009.06.21 19:16:11 ] Dierdra Vaal > - Corp mail (delete) access might be a permission on its own. But that might be packaged with a mail-UI overhaul issue
[ 2009.06.21 19:16:20 ] Dierdra Vaal > does anyone have a problem with me adding those to the wiki?
[ 2009.06.21 19:16:39 ] Dierdra Vaal > I may leave out the evemail one - I do think evemail is a different issue
[ 2009.06.21 19:16:45 ] Erik Finnegan > it is
[ 2009.06.21 19:17:01 ] Dierdra Vaal > it seems nobody objects? in that case..
[ 2009.06.21 19:17:19 ] Dierdra Vaal > The vote is on the corp tool overhaul wiki plus the additions proposed by Erik.
[ 2009.06.21 19:17:19 ] Vuk Lau > its cool
[ 2009.06.21 19:17:27 ] Dierdra Vaal > I vote yes
[ 2009.06.21 19:17:28 ] Erik Finnegan > /emote votes yes
[ 2009.06.21 19:17:30 ] Meissa Anunthiel > /emote votes yes
[ 2009.06.21 19:17:32 ] Vuk Lau > yes
[ 2009.06.21 19:17:35 ] Omber Zombie > yes
[ 2009.06.21 19:17:54 ] mazzilliu > voting yes
[ 2009.06.21 19:18:07 ] Avalloc > yes
[ 2009.06.21 19:18:18 ] Larkonis Trassler > yes
[ 2009.06.21 19:18:27 ] Dierdra Vaal > zastrow?
[ 2009.06.21 19:18:32 ] Zastrow J > i really dont like every part of this big package, but ill have to go with yes as it's "mostly" good issues
[ 2009.06.21 19:19:04 ] Meissa Anunthiel > (your comment will be noted)
[ 2009.06.21 19:19:19 ] Dierdra Vaal > motion passed 9/0
[ 2009.06.21 19:19:28 ] Dierdra Vaal > I would be interested in your feedback btw
[ 2009.06.21 19:19:33 ] Dierdra Vaal > on parts you may not agree with
[ 2009.06.21 19:19:44 ] Dierdra Vaal > (I did ask for goonswarm feedback a week ago :P)
[ 2009.06.21 19:19:53 ] Dierdra Vaal > anyway
[ 2009.06.21 19:19:54 ] Dierdra Vaal > 9: Show implants on POD killmails (Meissa)
[ 2009.06.21 19:19:58 ] Dierdra Vaal > http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Show_Implants_on_POD_killmails
[ 2009.06.21 19:20:14 ] Meissa Anunthiel > This convoluted and highly technical issue is to add implants on pod killmails.
[ 2009.06.21 19:20:30 ] Meissa Anunthiel > Questions/Comments?
[ 2009.06.21 19:20:48 ] Vuk Lau > vote yes
[ 2009.06.21 19:20:52 ] Dierdra Vaal > !
[ 2009.06.21 19:20:56 ] Meissa Anunthiel > Dierdra
[ 2009.06.21 19:21:22 ] Dierdra Vaal > I believe this was requested in CSM 1... I think CCP mentioned some technical difficulties in adding implants
[ 2009.06.21 19:21:28 ] Dierdra Vaal > but tbh, it sounds like a louzy excuse
[ 2009.06.21 19:21:30 ] Dierdra Vaal > end
[ 2009.06.21 19:21:47 ] Larkonis Trassler > !
[ 2009.06.21 19:21:52 ] Meissa Anunthiel > Lark?
[ 2009.06.21 19:21:57 ] Omber Zombie > (they fixed the implant data in the api, so shouldn't be a problem anymore)
[ 2009.06.21 19:22:41 ] Larkonis Trassler > i'm pretty sure technology and the interface with regards to api, implant data etc has moved on in the last 12 months, why not raise this again
[ 2009.06.21 19:23:08 ] Meissa Anunthiel > And everything requiring some code to work around current limitations is something we'll have to handle. If they tell us again it'd took 3 men-month to implement that, well, in terms of cost/benefit ratio, we can always reevaluate when we actually
[ 2009.06.21 19:23:17 ] Meissa Anunthiel > discuss it. No point in guessing
[ 2009.06.21 19:23:38 ] Meissa Anunthiel > Anyone else?
[ 2009.06.21 19:23:48 ] Zastrow J > !
[ 2009.06.21 19:23:52 ] Meissa Anunthiel > Zastrow
[ 2009.06.21 19:24:13 ] Zastrow J > i just want to comment taht even after we all vote yes, if this issue is going to take tons of coding time to fix it should be a low priority issue
[ 2009.06.21 19:24:30 ] Dierdra Vaal > !
[ 2009.06.21 19:24:36 ] Meissa Anunthiel > Dierdra
[ 2009.06.21 19:24:46 ] Dierdra Vaal > prioritising is a different stage, and something we dont need to worry about atm. end
[ 2009.06.21 19:24:48 ] Meissa Anunthiel > (Zastrow, end your comments by [end] if you can :p)
[ 2009.06.21 19:24:59 ] Zastrow J > yea sorry
[ 2009.06.21 19:25:04 ] Meissa Anunthiel > no problem
[ 2009.06.21 19:25:10 ] Meissa Anunthiel > Any further comments?
[ 2009.06.21 19:25:17 ] Meissa Anunthiel > Let's vote
[ 2009.06.21 19:25:18 ] Meissa Anunthiel > _________
[ 2009.06.21 19:25:20 ] Erik Finnegan > /emote votes yes
[ 2009.06.21 19:25:21 ] Meissa Anunthiel > /emote votes Yes
[ 2009.06.21 19:25:23 ] Zastrow J > yea
[ 2009.06.21 19:25:28 ] Omber Zombie > yes
[ 2009.06.21 19:25:32 ] mazzilliu > yes
[ 2009.06.21 19:25:32 ] Avalloc > yes
[ 2009.06.21 19:25:39 ] Larkonis Trassler > yes
[ 2009.06.21 19:25:39 ] Dierdra Vaal > si
[ 2009.06.21 19:25:55 ] Meissa Anunthiel > Vuk?
[ 2009.06.21 19:26:15 ] Meissa Anunthiel > Anyone can wave a dildo in front of vuk's webcam or something?
[ 2009.06.21 19:26:49 ] Vuk Lau > yes
[ 2009.06.21 19:26:58 ] Vuk Lau > i said yes :D
[ 2009.06.21 19:27:07 ] Shatana Fulfairas > lol mei
[ 2009.06.21 19:27:10 ] Dierdra Vaal > motion passed 9/0
[ 2009.06.21 19:27:13 ] Dierdra Vaal > 10: More orbit range options (Erik)
[ 2009.06.21 19:27:17 ] Dierdra Vaal > http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/More_orbit_range_options
[ 2009.06.21 19:27:17 ] Meissa Anunthiel > :-)
[ 2009.06.21 19:27:22 ] Erik Finnegan > This is a UI improvement much in the sense as CCP wants the CSM to suggest. ( cf. http://evajobse.net/csmwiki/index.php/CSM-CCP_Meeting_1-2#0102-09-0068_UI_Hotkeys )
[ 2009.06.21 19:27:28 ] Erik Finnegan > It has two requests : a) add more orbit ranges, which can be defined by the pilot. Currently, there is only one, the "default" orbit, which is a lot of clicks to change it in a fight.
[ 2009.06.21 19:27:32 ] Erik Finnegan > b) (potentially) add those range slots to the ESC shortcut menu so players can assign hotkeys to activate them.
[ 2009.06.21 19:27:36 ] Erik Finnegan > Questions ?
[ 2009.06.21 19:27:48 ] Larkonis Trassler > !
[ 2009.06.21 19:27:51 ] Erik Finnegan > Lark
[ 2009.06.21 19:28:04 ] Vuk Lau > !
[ 2009.06.21 19:28:56 ] Vuk Lau > scratch my !
[ 2009.06.21 19:29:24 ] Larkonis Trassler > I'll add here that currently, even post nano nerf, I find juggling between 'approach', 'keep at range (usually far) and 'orbit' (something in between) sufficient, it's just a case of micro managing between the three BUT adding an extra orbit button
[ 2009.06.21 19:29:31 ] Larkonis Trassler > to the UI wouldn't hurt too much
[ 2009.06.21 19:29:45 ] Larkonis Trassler > if it's within ccp's might to do so
[ 2009.06.21 19:29:46 ] Larkonis Trassler > end
[ 2009.06.21 19:29:48 ] Dierdra Vaal > !
[ 2009.06.21 19:29:55 ] Erik Finnegan > Dierdra
[ 2009.06.21 19:30:18 ] Dierdra Vaal > I understand these mainly focus on configurable orbit options (as you currently have some through the right click menu) and hotkeys
[ 2009.06.21 19:30:21 ] Dierdra Vaal > instead of additional buttons
[ 2009.06.21 19:30:24 ] Dierdra Vaal > end
[ 2009.06.21 19:30:31 ] Dierdra Vaal > (repsonse to lark)
[ 2009.06.21 19:31:02 ] Erik Finnegan > It is an implementation choice that CCP is free to make....
[ 2009.06.21 19:31:08 ] Erik Finnegan > ...I would do it in context menu, yes.
[ 2009.06.21 19:31:31 ] Erik Finnegan > Anyone else ?
[ 2009.06.21 19:31:57 ] mazzilliu > !
[ 2009.06.21 19:31:59 ] Erik Finnegan > Then let's vote
[ 2009.06.21 19:32:01 ] Erik Finnegan > Oops
[ 2009.06.21 19:32:02 ] Erik Finnegan > Maz
[ 2009.06.21 19:32:26 ] mazzilliu > just a quick comment saying that if the client could be customized, this is one of the things we would be able to do :O
[ 2009.06.21 19:32:27 ] mazzilliu > end
[ 2009.06.21 19:32:29 ] mazzilliu > also voting yes
[ 2009.06.21 19:32:33 ] Erik Finnegan > :)
[ 2009.06.21 19:32:49 ] Erik Finnegan > more vote please on the topic as stated...................
[ 2009.06.21 19:32:50 ] Vuk Lau > yes
[ 2009.06.21 19:32:52 ] Meissa Anunthiel > /emote votes yes
[ 2009.06.21 19:32:55 ] Erik Finnegan > /emote votes yes
[ 2009.06.21 19:32:57 ] Omber Zombie > yes
[ 2009.06.21 19:32:58 ] Larkonis Trassler > yes
[ 2009.06.21 19:33:01 ] Avalloc > yes
[ 2009.06.21 19:33:05 ] Zastrow J > yes
[ 2009.06.21 19:33:44 ] Erik Finnegan > Dierdra ?
[ 2009.06.21 19:33:51 ] Dierdra Vaal > yes
[ 2009.06.21 19:34:20 ] Dierdra Vaal > motion passes 9/0
[ 2009.06.21 19:34:33 ] Dierdra Vaal > may I remind everyone to please pre-type your responses/questions/etc
[ 2009.06.21 19:34:43 ] Dierdra Vaal > poor OZ is staying up very late atm
[ 2009.06.21 19:34:51 ] Dierdra Vaal > 11: Remove pause for JC and implants (Meissa)
[ 2009.06.21 19:34:54 ] Dierdra Vaal > http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Remove_pause_for_JC_and_implants
[ 2009.06.21 19:35:25 ] Meissa Anunthiel > Right now, jumping clones of plugging in an implant requires you to stop training
[ 2009.06.21 19:35:37 ] Meissa Anunthiel > plug implant/jump clone, then resume training
[ 2009.06.21 19:35:54 ] Meissa Anunthiel > I'd like CCP to bundle all 3 actions in the plugging/JC'ing implant
[ 2009.06.21 19:36:13 ] Meissa Anunthiel > questions?
[ 2009.06.21 19:36:28 ] Avalloc > !
[ 2009.06.21 19:36:35 ] Meissa Anunthiel > Avalloc
[ 2009.06.21 19:37:10 ] Avalloc > Is it that big of a deal? ;) Iimagine there is a code reason for it.
[ 2009.06.21 19:37:32 ] Avalloc > [end]
[ 2009.06.21 19:37:48 ] Meissa Anunthiel > Well, there's a potential reason, I suppose
[ 2009.06.21 19:37:56 ] Meissa Anunthiel > If I had programmed Eve, which I haven't
[ 2009.06.21 19:38:22 ] Meissa Anunthiel > these would be separate code blocks (or even separate programs, depending if they have separate ones for different tasks)
[ 2009.06.21 19:38:26 ] Meissa Anunthiel > also, there's one issue
[ 2009.06.21 19:38:45 ] Meissa Anunthiel > your new Jump clone may have lesser implants
[ 2009.06.21 19:38:57 ] Meissa Anunthiel > leading to you having a skill queue longer than 24 hours
[ 2009.06.21 19:39:16 ] Dierdra Vaal > !
[ 2009.06.21 19:39:36 ] Meissa Anunthiel > but the worst case scenario is that you gain only a couple of hours IN QUEUE, not real gain
[ 2009.06.21 19:39:40 ] Meissa Anunthiel > yes Dierdra?
[ 2009.06.21 19:40:09 ] Dierdra Vaal > while there are some technical caveats, I think its fair to put this to CCP. other than that, I think we can vote. end
[ 2009.06.21 19:40:21 ] Meissa Anunthiel > If they can't do it
[ 2009.06.21 19:40:37 ] Meissa Anunthiel > I'll request they put a pause/resume training button in the JC pane
[ 2009.06.21 19:40:51 ] Meissa Anunthiel > either way, let's vote
[ 2009.06.21 19:40:57 ] Erik Finnegan > /emote votes yes
[ 2009.06.21 19:41:04 ] Omber Zombie > ye
[ 2009.06.21 19:41:06 ] Dierdra Vaal > yes
[ 2009.06.21 19:41:07 ] Meissa Anunthiel > (and Avalloc seems to have DC'ed, so we'll wait a tiny bit see if he comes back)
[ 2009.06.21 19:41:10 ] Meissa Anunthiel > /emote votes yes
[ 2009.06.21 19:41:22 ] Larkonis Trassler > yes
[ 2009.06.21 19:41:51 ] Zastrow J > yea ok
[ 2009.06.21 19:42:28 ] Vuk Lau > yes
[ 2009.06.21 19:42:48 ] mazzilliu > yes
[ 2009.06.21 19:43:44 ] Omber Zombie > it passes, grab avalloc's vote later and move on please
[ 2009.06.21 19:43:47 ] Dierdra Vaal > motion passes, 8/0 with Avalloc's vote yet to be cast (he can do this later
[ 2009.06.21 19:43:58 ] Dierdra Vaal > 12: POS labs and assemblies use by corp and alliance (Meissa)
[ 2009.06.21 19:43:58 ] Meissa Anunthiel > IF he doesn't we'll ask shatana
[ 2009.06.21 19:44:02 ] Dierdra Vaal > http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/POS_labs_and_assemblies_use_by_corp_and_alliance
[ 2009.06.21 19:44:14 ] Dierdra Vaal > we dont really need to meissa, you only need 7 votes for a quorum
[ 2009.06.21 19:44:35 ] Meissa Anunthiel > ok, POS labs stuff again (I think this is my last one)
[ 2009.06.21 19:44:54 ] Meissa Anunthiel > right now POS labs require items to be placed in them for jobs
[ 2009.06.21 19:45:15 ] Avalloc > (ack..back)
[ 2009.06.21 19:45:26 ] Omber Zombie > !
[ 2009.06.21 19:45:28 ] Meissa Anunthiel > due to the nature of the thing, it means that, with the exception of ME/PE research, only corpmates with access to the lab can start jobs
[ 2009.06.21 19:45:38 ] Larkonis Trassler > !
[ 2009.06.21 19:46:29 ] Meissa Anunthiel > This proposal, and it is different from the previous one, would make the lab/array slots rentable to corp/alliance by making them visible in station as being "virtually in station" and as such taking items directly from personal hangars in station.
[ 2009.06.21 19:46:52 ] Meissa Anunthiel > The downsides is that it requires a station, that there would be less items present in labs (That's an issue for larkonis)
[ 2009.06.21 19:47:39 ] Meissa Anunthiel > but it's probably easier to implement than giving alliance members access to POS labs
[ 2009.06.21 19:47:55 ] Erik Finnegan > !
[ 2009.06.21 19:48:02 ] Meissa Anunthiel > so there it is... On one hand it's more access to labs for corp/alliance and possibly others, on the others there's less ganking
[ 2009.06.21 19:48:06 ] Meissa Anunthiel > Oz
[ 2009.06.21 19:48:09 ] Omber Zombie > this has been asked for before and csm was told during that discussion it was technically impossible to do (end)
[ 2009.06.21 19:48:32 ] Meissa Anunthiel > Considering what I know of Eve and how it's programmed, that's not a surprise
[ 2009.06.21 19:49:17 ] Meissa Anunthiel > however industry is a major part of the game for a number of people, and maybe it's time CCP rework that. I'm ready to hear them say that, but I'll argue in favour if it ges high priority and the CSM votes this issue up
[ 2009.06.21 19:49:19 ] Meissa Anunthiel > Lark?
[ 2009.06.21 19:49:29 ] Larkonis Trassler > just going through your cons i come across Labs & Arrays become less "juicy" targets in empire as they don't hold much. This problem is not much of one however as labs/arrays can be emptied fairly easily.
[ 2009.06.21 19:49:47 ] Larkonis Trassler > if you're going to be producing stuff from a lab then it should be IN the lab
[ 2009.06.21 19:50:13 ] Meissa Anunthiel > (end?)
[ 2009.06.21 19:50:16 ] Larkonis Trassler > hence you have a bit of risk/reward when you fail to fuel your tower
[ 2009.06.21 19:50:19 ] Larkonis Trassler > [end]
[ 2009.06.21 19:50:27 ] Meissa Anunthiel > Erik?
[ 2009.06.21 19:50:55 ] Erik Finnegan > With the corp and alliance tools overhaul we definitely want roles to be finer-grained. I would promote to solve your requirement (renting out slots) through an improved role concept instead of pulling lab functionality into a local station.
[ 2009.06.21 19:51:11 ] Erik Finnegan > FIN
[ 2009.06.21 19:51:19 ] Dierdra Vaal > !
[ 2009.06.21 19:51:31 ] Meissa Anunthiel > That's got nothing to do with corp/alliance tool overhauls, it's a technical issue involving access to the labs themselves Erik
[ 2009.06.21 19:51:33 ] Meissa Anunthiel > Dierdra
[ 2009.06.21 19:51:53 ] Dierdra Vaal > actually scratch that, sorry
[ 2009.06.21 19:52:14 ] Meissa Anunthiel > Larkonis, can you think of any solution that would decrease the problem?
[ 2009.06.21 19:53:03 ] Larkonis Trassler > yeah, when items are moved from a personal hangar to do a job in a lab, they are not consumed until a job is completed
[ 2009.06.21 19:53:24 ] Larkonis Trassler > so if the lab is pew pewed while the job is in process/the pos is offlined
[ 2009.06.21 19:53:36 ] Larkonis Trassler > same drop rate as normal
[ 2009.06.21 19:55:04 ] Meissa Anunthiel > Interesting. But that adds another problem, there's no concept of "locking" stuff atm, so that could be a problem. Maybe if any interrupted job returned the minerals whence they came, that could work, but that's tough
[ 2009.06.21 19:55:28 ] Dierdra Vaal > !
[ 2009.06.21 19:55:31 ] Larkonis Trassler > how about if the job is cancelled
[ 2009.06.21 19:55:33 ] Meissa Anunthiel > Dierdra
[ 2009.06.21 19:55:37 ] Larkonis Trassler > say by an errant director
[ 2009.06.21 19:55:46 ] Larkonis Trassler > they go back to where they came from
[ 2009.06.21 19:55:46 ] Meissa Anunthiel > More drama = good
[ 2009.06.21 19:55:56 ] Dierdra Vaal > this isnt really the right time to go through an elaborate revisal of the solution...
[ 2009.06.21 19:56:02 ] Meissa Anunthiel > exactly
[ 2009.06.21 19:56:11 ] Meissa Anunthiel > Right now I'm going to let this suggestion stand as it is and be voted on on its own merit.
[ 2009.06.21 19:56:12 ] Dierdra Vaal > small changes are fine but if you wish to make big changes I suggest postponing the issue., end
[ 2009.06.21 19:56:28 ] Larkonis Trassler > but if the mod is pew pewed, albeit through lack of fueling or spying then the stuff drops
[ 2009.06.21 19:56:41 ] Meissa Anunthiel > Ok, scratch this proposal
[ 2009.06.21 19:56:52 ] Dierdra Vaal > you wish to take it off the agenda?
[ 2009.06.21 19:56:56 ] Meissa Anunthiel > I'll rework it to include a "extra loot" option
[ 2009.06.21 19:57:01 ] Dierdra Vaal > ok :)
[ 2009.06.21 19:57:05 ] Meissa Anunthiel > and wish it be resubmitted for the next meeting
[ 2009.06.21 19:57:13 ] Dierdra Vaal > roger
[ 2009.06.21 19:57:16 ] Dierdra Vaal > that brings us to the last issue of tonight: the next meeting
[ 2009.06.21 19:57:22 ] Omber Zombie > !
[ 2009.06.21 19:57:25 ] Dierdra Vaal > OZ?
[ 2009.06.21 19:57:38 ] Omber Zombie > i'd like to propose a meeting time limit as it's 6am here
[ 2009.06.21 19:57:44 ] Omber Zombie > which is pretty rediculous
[ 2009.06.21 19:57:52 ] Omber Zombie > (end)
[ 2009.06.21 19:57:54 ] Vuk Lau > !
[ 2009.06.21 19:58:02 ] Dierdra Vaal > vuk?
[ 2009.06.21 19:58:12 ] Vuk Lau > I am for doing it bit earlier if possible
[ 2009.06.21 19:58:22 ] Vuk Lau > Oz would love it aswell
[ 2009.06.21 19:58:23 ] Vuk Lau > end
[ 2009.06.21 19:58:30 ] Dierdra Vaal > would an earlier time be possible for american players?
[ 2009.06.21 19:58:44 ] Dierdra Vaal > (I assume it is not a problem for the europeans)
[ 2009.06.21 19:59:01 ] Avalloc > i'm est, so 17:00 = 1pm
[ 2009.06.21 19:59:19 ] Dierdra Vaal > are there any pacific time players on the council?
[ 2009.06.21 19:59:24 ] Avalloc > I can do one hur earlier no prob.... how much we talking?
[ 2009.06.21 19:59:42 ] Avalloc > zastrow is est
[ 2009.06.21 19:59:47 ] Omber Zombie > i don't care if we start earlier, it's just a 3 hour meeting for a meeting that has no real urgent time bearing considering the 1st csm/ccp meeting is in 2 months is just a little insane to me
[ 2009.06.21 19:59:47 ] Zastrow J > cst
[ 2009.06.21 19:59:53 ] Avalloc > oh
[ 2009.06.21 20:00:06 ] Zastrow J > just an hour difference.  i think i can wake up before noon
[ 2009.06.21 20:00:25 ] Dierdra Vaal > to get back to OZs original request however
[ 2009.06.21 20:00:43 ] Dierdra Vaal > a time limit for CSM meetings. This may require more frequent meetings to allow the same volume of issues to be addressed
[ 2009.06.21 20:01:12 ] Dierdra Vaal > would you guys support a 2hour limit for CSM meetings, with the possibility that we occasionally need to do 1 meeting per week?
[ 2009.06.21 20:01:21 ] Omber Zombie > probably also a good time to point out that the csm/ccp meetings have a 2hour hard limit, so if we raise 40 issues, most of them won't get discussed
[ 2009.06.21 20:01:27 ] Dierdra Vaal > (instead of the current 1 meeting per 2 weeks)
[ 2009.06.21 20:01:31 ] Zastrow J > ok
[ 2009.06.21 20:01:53 ] Larkonis Trassler > we've had two meetings so far
[ 2009.06.21 20:02:01 ] Larkonis Trassler > both have been wrapped up in three hours
[ 2009.06.21 20:02:18 ] Larkonis Trassler > i'm sure as we progress there'll be less issues etc etc
[ 2009.06.21 20:02:34 ] Meissa Anunthiel > Oz, it goes faster since we have the replies ahead of time
[ 2009.06.21 20:02:41 ] Meissa Anunthiel > (for the online CCP meetings)
[ 2009.06.21 20:02:43 ] Dierdra Vaal > I would like to avoid this discussion becoming too long, we can do this at another time (or through email) as well
[ 2009.06.21 20:03:09 ] Larkonis Trassler > the in game meetings have been set after the iceland meet so we'll have some time to organize stuff etc etc
[ 2009.06.21 20:03:15 ] Dierdra Vaal > I will schedule the next meeting for 2 weeks from now, 16:00 eve time (1 hour earlier)
[ 2009.06.21 20:03:26 ] Dierdra Vaal > I also hope we can come to a conclusion about a maximum time limit
[ 2009.06.21 20:03:42 ] Dierdra Vaal > but I think its best to end this meeting here
[ 2009.06.21 20:03:45 ] Dierdra Vaal > at the 3 hour mark.
[ 2009.06.21 20:03:58 ] Avalloc > hopefuly we get a forrum before then
[ 2009.06.21 20:03:59 ] Dierdra Vaal > any urgent objections?
[ 2009.06.21 20:04:04 ] Omber Zombie > lol
[ 2009.06.21 20:04:15 ] Omber Zombie > you might have email by then :)
[ 2009.06.21 20:04:21 ] Larkonis Trassler > ! forum exemption for me
[ 2009.06.21 20:04:28 ] Larkonis Trassler > if we get our own forum
[ 2009.06.21 20:04:29 ] Dierdra Vaal > I know lark :)
[ 2009.06.21 20:04:31 ] Dierdra Vaal > dont worry
[ 2009.06.21 20:04:46 ] Dierdra Vaal > CSM3 meeting 3 is officially closed
[ 2009.06.21 20:04:49 ] Dierdra Vaal > *****************