CSM Meeting Minutes 3.004 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All this data is potentially out of date, and should be taken with a truckload of salt

[ 2009.07.05 16:18:09 ] Dierdra Vaal > ********* CSM meeting 4 start at 16:18
[ 2009.07.05 16:18:40 ] Dierdra Vaal > Absent, vuk lau and zastrow - it will not be counted against them due to possible confusion as to the start of the meeting
[ 2009.07.05 16:18:50 ] Dierdra Vaal > First - I assume everyone has received my email regarding the QnA from CCP. It is also on our internal CSM forums. I will be looking forward to receiving your questions.
[ 2009.07.05 16:19:09 ] Dierdra Vaal > if you did not receive my email, let me know
[ 2009.07.05 16:19:17 ] Omber Zombie > !
[ 2009.07.05 16:19:20 ] Dierdra Vaal > oz?
[ 2009.07.05 16:19:24 ] Omber Zombie > have we got ccp emails yet or not
[ 2009.07.05 16:19:46 ] Omber Zombie > (enmd0
[ 2009.07.05 16:19:54 ] Meissa Anunthiel > as of yesterday, the csm.eveonline.com domain was not working
[ 2009.07.05 16:20:00 ] Omber Zombie > ffs
[ 2009.07.05 16:20:08 ] Meissa Anunthiel > Under ConstructionThe site you are trying to view does not currently have a default page. It may be in the process of being upgraded and configured.
[ 2009.07.05 16:20:08 ] Dierdra Vaal > "In regards to the emails, I applied pressure and I have been assured that everything will be done this week. I reserved to break an arm if that was not the case.-Pétur."
[ 2009.07.05 16:20:19 ] Dierdra Vaal > I will contact him after the meeting
[ 2009.07.05 16:20:28 ] Dierdra Vaal > it sounds like some CCP employees will require a doctor soon
[ 2009.07.05 16:20:52 ] Omber Zombie > i just mailed myself - and it works...
[ 2009.07.05 16:21:10 ] Dierdra Vaal > you may have an old address tho?
[ 2009.07.05 16:21:20 ] Omber Zombie > omber.zombie@csm.eveonline.com
[ 2009.07.05 16:21:20 ] Dierdra Vaal > regardless, I shall contact Petur
[ 2009.07.05 16:21:44 ] Dierdra Vaal > next on the agenda a bit sad news
[ 2009.07.05 16:21:53 ] Dierdra Vaal > I'm sorry to report that todays agenda will be cut almost in half. Agenda items 1, 2, 5, 7, 10, 12 and 14 have not been wikified.
[ 2009.07.05 16:22:00 ] Dierdra Vaal > While I hate to do this, this is meeting 4. I made it clear in the first meeting that issues need to be wikified ON TIME. The absence of a wiki issue will make it impossible to define what we vote on exactly.
[ 2009.07.05 16:22:10 ] Dierdra Vaal > As such, these items will be removed from the agenda. I propose that we hold meeting 5 next week. If we do not do this, the meeting in 2 weeks would be overcrowded with issues.
[ 2009.07.05 16:22:19 ] Dierdra Vaal > Additionally, I'd like to add that I'm personally a bit dissapointed that even after 2 weeks, some of you cannot be bothered to write a wiki issue.
[ 2009.07.05 16:22:47 ] Dierdra Vaal > there is plenty of time, and absolutely no need to do everything last minute. I have to be firm now, so hopefully it does not happen again.
[ 2009.07.05 16:23:52 ] Dierdra Vaal > which means the first issue is
[ 2009.07.05 16:23:53 ] Dierdra Vaal > 3: Skill injection (OZ)
[ 2009.07.05 16:23:58 ] Dierdra Vaal > http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Skill_injection
[ 2009.07.05 16:24:10 ] Omber Zombie > ok then
[ 2009.07.05 16:24:53 ] Omber Zombie > the wiki makes it pretty clear, but in a nutshell, I would like ccp to add functionality for the skillqueue to allow skills which have their prereq's already in the queue to be injected
[ 2009.07.05 16:25:01 ] Omber Zombie > any questions/comments?
[ 2009.07.05 16:25:14 ] Dierdra Vaal > !
[ 2009.07.05 16:25:24 ] Omber Zombie > go d
[ 2009.07.05 16:25:30 ] Dierdra Vaal > sounds straightforward - I recently had this issue myself. I think we can vote :)
[ 2009.07.05 16:25:37 ] Dierdra Vaal > end
[ 2009.07.05 16:25:39 ] Erik Finnegan > yes we can
[ 2009.07.05 16:25:45 ] Omber Zombie > i know lark had an issue with this from the thread
[ 2009.07.05 16:25:51 ] Omber Zombie > so he may want to comment
[ 2009.07.05 16:25:58 ] Larkonis Trassler > !
[ 2009.07.05 16:26:09 ] Omber Zombie > go lark
[ 2009.07.05 16:26:56 ] Avalloc > !
[ 2009.07.05 16:27:04 ] Larkonis Trassler > Yeah I'm all for it as long as certain prereqs are met and you can only inject it if you are less than 24 hours from completing the prereqs
[ 2009.07.05 16:27:40 ] Larkonis Trassler > Relieving people of skill books is profitable and fun
[ 2009.07.05 16:27:50 ] Larkonis Trassler > but
[ 2009.07.05 16:28:34 ] Avalloc > (remove my !)
[ 2009.07.05 16:28:36 ] Larkonis Trassler > i'm also concerned this might have a knock on effect with character sales and the like
[ 2009.07.05 16:28:54 ] Dierdra Vaal > !
[ 2009.07.05 16:29:12 ] Larkonis Trassler > but i'm just speculating on the coding issues here
[ 2009.07.05 16:29:13 ] Larkonis Trassler > end
[ 2009.07.05 16:29:17 ] Omber Zombie > agreed, and that is stated pretty clearly - you can't add it to the queue if it doesn't fit in the queue :)
[ 2009.07.05 16:29:25 ] Omber Zombie > dier?
[ 2009.07.05 16:29:29 ] Dierdra Vaal > the 24 hour completion limitation that lark mentioned was somethign I did not consider - I hope this can be added to the wiki issue
[ 2009.07.05 16:29:36 ] Dierdra Vaal > end
[ 2009.07.05 16:29:53 ] Omber Zombie > the 24 hour limitation is part of the skill queue itself
[ 2009.07.05 16:30:09 ] Omber Zombie > i can add it to the wiki, but I personally don't see any need to
[ 2009.07.05 16:30:21 ] Omber Zombie > anyway, any other comments?
[ 2009.07.05 16:30:36 ] Meissa Anunthiel > !
[ 2009.07.05 16:30:40 ] Omber Zombie > meissa
[ 2009.07.05 16:30:53 ] Meissa Anunthiel > sounds complex to implent, not sure they'll go with it, but it's fine
[ 2009.07.05 16:30:57 ] Meissa Anunthiel > [end]
[ 2009.07.05 16:31:09 ] Meissa Anunthiel > (implement)
[ 2009.07.05 16:31:16 ] Omber Zombie > if no-one else has anything to add - votage
[ 2009.07.05 16:31:23 ] mazzilliu > voting yes
[ 2009.07.05 16:31:24 ] Erik Finnegan > /emote votes yes
[ 2009.07.05 16:31:26 ] Omber Zombie > /emote goes for yes
[ 2009.07.05 16:31:27 ] Meissa Anunthiel > /emote votes yes
[ 2009.07.05 16:31:37 ] Larkonis Trassler > yes
[ 2009.07.05 16:31:41 ] Dierdra Vaal > ytes
[ 2009.07.05 16:31:42 ] Avalloc > yes
[ 2009.07.05 16:31:43 ] Dierdra Vaal > -t
[ 2009.07.05 16:32:00 ] Dierdra Vaal > motion passes 7/0
[ 2009.07.05 16:32:22 ] Dierdra Vaal > 4: covert cynos in high sec (DV)
[ 2009.07.05 16:32:27 ] Dierdra Vaal > http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Covert_cynosural_fields_in_high_security_space
[ 2009.07.05 16:32:57 ] Dierdra Vaal > basically, allowing covert cynos to be made in high sec space allows for a great deal of cool new tactics in high sec pvp
[ 2009.07.05 16:33:07 ] Dierdra Vaal > especially in combination with the blacops and its portalling tech
[ 2009.07.05 16:33:32 ] Dierdra Vaal > A full description is ofcourse available in the wiki
[ 2009.07.05 16:33:48 ] Dierdra Vaal > any questions?
[ 2009.07.05 16:33:52 ] Erik Finnegan > !
[ 2009.07.05 16:33:55 ] Omber Zombie > !
[ 2009.07.05 16:34:00 ] Dierdra Vaal > oh my
[ 2009.07.05 16:34:01 ] Dierdra Vaal > erik
[ 2009.07.05 16:34:13 ] Erik Finnegan > I have read through the thread as well : any new insights (of Meissa prolly) about the impact on trade ?
[ 2009.07.05 16:34:16 ] Meissa Anunthiel > !
[ 2009.07.05 16:34:18 ] Dierdra Vaal > (btw, not directed at anyone in particular, do make sure to read the wiki)
[ 2009.07.05 16:34:20 ] Erik Finnegan > That seemed to have been the major point there
[ 2009.07.05 16:34:21 ] Erik Finnegan > FIN
[ 2009.07.05 16:35:02 ] Dierdra Vaal > nothing new that hasnt been incorporated into the wiki issue. The amount of jumps between major trade hubs stays the same. Still, I admit trading is something to keep in mind with this issue
[ 2009.07.05 16:35:08 ] Dierdra Vaal > although I believe it will not be a major problem.
[ 2009.07.05 16:35:09 ] Avalloc > brb, bio
[ 2009.07.05 16:35:11 ] Dierdra Vaal > OZ?
[ 2009.07.05 16:35:26 ] Larkonis Trassler > !
[ 2009.07.05 16:35:36 ] Omber Zombie > my only concern is that it would limit the implementation of blackops style capital ships should ccp go down that road in the future - otherwise i'm cool with it, the trade benefit is mostly neutralized by the jump fuel cost anyway (end)
[ 2009.07.05 16:36:24 ] Dierdra Vaal > An interesting idea, but I kinda feel like we can cross that bridge when we get there (mass limits on covert cynos in high sec?), etc
[ 2009.07.05 16:36:36 ] Dierdra Vaal > meissa
[ 2009.07.05 16:36:43 ] Meissa Anunthiel > These considerations should be taken into account:Moving easily in highsec disrupts carebear wars where everyone is on an equal (read: low) footing.
[ 2009.07.05 16:36:50 ] Meissa Anunthiel > Moving easily in highsec removes potential mandatory lowsec passages.While the current range of black ops is limited and would not disrupt trade much, any future range increase to the black ops would be hindered by the impact it has on highsec marke...
[ 2009.07.05 16:36:59 ] Meissa Anunthiel > markets. [/end]
[ 2009.07.05 16:37:24 ] Dierdra Vaal > correct - I will add the range caveat to the issue.
[ 2009.07.05 16:37:35 ] Dierdra Vaal > lark
[ 2009.07.05 16:37:36 ] Larkonis Trassler > wrt trading it only really affects boosters which need a boost (pun intended)
[ 2009.07.05 16:37:58 ] Larkonis Trassler > and high value low volume goods which the switched on player can move undetected anyway, and given the anaemic jump range of BO at the moment i don't see it as too much of an issue
[ 2009.07.05 16:38:52 ] Larkonis Trassler > unless of course you have a gang of br's
[ 2009.07.05 16:39:11 ] Meissa Anunthiel > (br?)
[ 2009.07.05 16:39:14 ] Larkonis Trassler > in which case maybe add the caveat that blockade runners are unable to bridge into hisec
[ 2009.07.05 16:39:18 ] Dierdra Vaal > blockade runners
[ 2009.07.05 16:39:19 ] Larkonis Trassler > blockade runner
[ 2009.07.05 16:39:33 ] Meissa Anunthiel > (doh)
[ 2009.07.05 16:39:40 ] Larkonis Trassler > concord trade division (lolrp)
[ 2009.07.05 16:39:41 ] Larkonis Trassler > end
[ 2009.07.05 16:39:58 ] Dierdra Vaal > lark, that is something I did think of - I'm not sure if its ideal though with the inclusion of fuel bays perhaps blockade runners to carry jump fuel are no longer needed
[ 2009.07.05 16:40:02 ] Dierdra Vaal > I shall include it in the issue.
[ 2009.07.05 16:40:14 ] Dierdra Vaal > I listed booster trading as a 'neutral' in the wiki :)
[ 2009.07.05 16:40:27 ] Meissa Anunthiel > !
[ 2009.07.05 16:40:29 ] Dierdra Vaal > since its good or bad depending on your opinion of combat boosters
[ 2009.07.05 16:40:30 ] Dierdra Vaal > meissa
[ 2009.07.05 16:41:39 ] Meissa Anunthiel > I fail to see why you want them in highsec... In addition to the afforementionned issue with hindering BO range improvements, it would also hinder creation of anything that relies on covert cynos... What missing spot are you trying to fill with this?
[ 2009.07.05 16:41:41 ] Meissa Anunthiel > [/end]
[ 2009.07.05 16:42:21 ] Dierdra Vaal > I am looking to improve the usefulness of covert cynos and covert portals, as well as increase the tactics available in high sec warfare
[ 2009.07.05 16:42:39 ] Dierdra Vaal > also, due to game mechanics, alt scouts are a lot harder to get rid of in high sec than in other areas
[ 2009.07.05 16:42:54 ] Meissa Anunthiel > !
[ 2009.07.05 16:43:09 ] Dierdra Vaal > which can make it extremely difficult to set a proper trap.
[ 2009.07.05 16:43:27 ] Dierdra Vaal > covert cynos will allow for more interesting traps.
[ 2009.07.05 16:43:28 ] Dierdra Vaal > meissa
[ 2009.07.05 16:43:42 ] Meissa Anunthiel > scouts (alt or not) being hard to get rid of is a feature of highsec, not a "bug" to fix, it's not due to game mechanics, it's because there's stations everywhere...
[ 2009.07.05 16:43:51 ] Meissa Anunthiel > and imho, that's a good thing.
[ 2009.07.05 16:44:30 ] Meissa Anunthiel > the risks of anticipatively continuing the nerf of BOs by adding this is not worth the cost to me. [/end]
[ 2009.07.05 16:44:39 ] Meissa Anunthiel > (worth the benefit)
[ 2009.07.05 16:44:55 ] Dierdra Vaal > fair enough, but I disagree :)
[ 2009.07.05 16:44:58 ] Dierdra Vaal > any other !s?
[ 2009.07.05 16:45:53 ] Dierdra Vaal > ok then I suppose we can vote
[ 2009.07.05 16:45:56 ] Meissa Anunthiel > /emote votes no
[ 2009.07.05 16:46:04 ] Dierdra Vaal > Voting on: allowing covert cynos in high sec:
[ 2009.07.05 16:46:05 ] Dierdra Vaal > yes
[ 2009.07.05 16:46:13 ] Larkonis Trassler > yes
[ 2009.07.05 16:46:22 ] Omber Zombie > yes
[ 2009.07.05 16:46:44 ] Erik Finnegan > /emote abstains
[ 2009.07.05 16:46:52 ] Avalloc > hmm
[ 2009.07.05 16:46:52 ] Omber Zombie > you can't abstain
[ 2009.07.05 16:46:52 ] mazzilliu > ill abstain too.
[ 2009.07.05 16:46:57 ] Erik Finnegan > (Dran)
[ 2009.07.05 16:46:59 ] Erik Finnegan > darn
[ 2009.07.05 16:47:04 ] Omber Zombie > yes or no, there is no abstain
[ 2009.07.05 16:47:26 ] mazzilliu > k then i will wait for everyone else to finish then vote in a way that it doesnt change the outcome
[ 2009.07.05 16:47:36 ] Dierdra Vaal > lol
[ 2009.07.05 16:47:45 ] Erik Finnegan > /emote votes yes (for RP argument and opening up high-sec)
[ 2009.07.05 16:48:11 ] Dierdra Vaal > maz may I ask why you choose to abstain?
[ 2009.07.05 16:48:12 ] Erik Finnegan > There you go, Maz
[ 2009.07.05 16:48:14 ] mazzilliu > ill vote yes then
[ 2009.07.05 16:48:22 ] Avalloc > yes
[ 2009.07.05 16:48:27 ] Dierdra Vaal > motion passes 6/1
[ 2009.07.05 16:48:43 ] mazzilliu > because it seems really not much of a benefit or cost one way or the other.  not sure which side is better
[ 2009.07.05 16:48:48 ] Dierdra Vaal > ok
[ 2009.07.05 16:48:50 ] Dierdra Vaal > 6: Make certain factions more valid for mission running (Erik)
[ 2009.07.05 16:48:54 ] Dierdra Vaal > http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Make_Certain_Factions_More_Valid_for_Mission_Running_-_Part_2
[ 2009.07.05 16:49:08 ] Erik Finnegan > The suggestion is to evaluate the availability of agents in the smaller factions. The Caldari have had lots of love in the past, which is fine seeing Capsuleer origin.
[ 2009.07.05 16:49:18 ] Erik Finnegan > The argument, however, that "the more Caldari pilots we have, the more Caldari agents we need", could be turned around and asked : "more agents for other factions might motivate more mission running for them"
[ 2009.07.05 16:49:32 ] Erik Finnegan > I suggest to keep that in mind for new agents to be added next time.
[ 2009.07.05 16:49:36 ] Erik Finnegan > Questions ?
[ 2009.07.05 16:50:04 ] Omber Zombie > !
[ 2009.07.05 16:50:07 ] Erik Finnegan > OZ
[ 2009.07.05 16:50:17 ] Omber Zombie > "CCP should also consider an additional boost to loyalty points generated in low-security space and 0.0 or other incentives to offset the risk. "
[ 2009.07.05 16:50:36 ] Omber Zombie > no matter how much you boost the LP gain, people won't mission there due to the increased risk
[ 2009.07.05 16:50:42 ] Omber Zombie > (end)
[ 2009.07.05 16:51:00 ] Meissa Anunthiel > !
[ 2009.07.05 16:51:14 ] Erik Finnegan > I know, this is not really going to solve it. But would it be a step into the wrong direction ?
[ 2009.07.05 16:51:25 ] Omber Zombie > !
[ 2009.07.05 16:51:30 ] Erik Finnegan > OZ please
[ 2009.07.05 16:52:05 ] Omber Zombie > yes, patching the current agent system would be a waste of time - as i said the last time this was raised, the entire mision system needs an overhaul, not just extra agents and lp boosts (end)
[ 2009.07.05 16:52:21 ] Avalloc > !
[ 2009.07.05 16:52:38 ] Erik Finnegan > I'm discussing options for player-generated missions for the big re-factoring....but that still needs work....
[ 2009.07.05 16:52:41 ] Erik Finnegan > Meissa
[ 2009.07.05 16:52:43 ] Meissa Anunthiel > I have first hand experience of running missions in lowsec and 0.0, and have seen numerous other people do so. (including a gang of 50 russians running L4s in morosses in lowsec). Just as a side note... Not saying a boost wouldn't be nice. [/end]
[ 2009.07.05 16:53:14 ] Erik Finnegan > ok
[ 2009.07.05 16:53:17 ] Erik Finnegan > Avalloc ?
[ 2009.07.05 16:53:42 ] Avalloc > For what its worth, running missions in 0.0 is a double-edged blade.. you run them for same faction as npc rats in area, so you can't rat and mission run unlike in Empire.. crappy choice there
[ 2009.07.05 16:54:04 ] Avalloc > kill rats = no missions
[ 2009.07.05 16:54:53 ] Avalloc > mission reward in 0.0 would need sizeable boost and lp stores rebalanced over all pirate factions
[ 2009.07.05 16:55:22 ] Avalloc > some get great lp reward, (slave implants) others don't
[ 2009.07.05 16:55:25 ] Avalloc > (fin)
[ 2009.07.05 16:56:09 ] Erik Finnegan > Well, NPC agent missions should not be a major driver to go to (or sustain your life in ) 0.0.
[ 2009.07.05 16:56:40 ] Dierdra Vaal > (note: vuk has arrived)
[ 2009.07.05 16:56:46 ] Vuk Lau > sry guys
[ 2009.07.05 16:56:56 ] Vuk Lau > i was 100% sure meeting is starting 17:00
[ 2009.07.05 16:57:04 ] Vuk Lau > my mistake
[ 2009.07.05 16:57:05 ] Dierdra Vaal > the MotD was in error - I apologize
[ 2009.07.05 16:57:12 ] Vuk Lau > ah
[ 2009.07.05 16:57:46 ] Erik Finnegan > OZ, I would like the issue to sound like : when agents are again added/changed/,... then have this new focus.
[ 2009.07.05 16:57:49 ] Avalloc > !
[ 2009.07.05 16:58:13 ] Erik Finnegan > It is not a "fix agents" issue
[ 2009.07.05 16:58:16 ] Erik Finnegan > Avalloc ?
[ 2009.07.05 16:58:39 ] Avalloc > Erik, npc missions are in their own sov areas where anyone can dock.. why shouldn't that be big motivator to bring people out to 0.0?
[ 2009.07.05 16:59:06 ] Avalloc > risk = reward
[ 2009.07.05 16:59:27 ] Avalloc > right now empire people can make huge isk for zero risk in missions
[ 2009.07.05 16:59:59 ] Avalloc > (fin)
[ 2009.07.05 17:00:00 ] Erik Finnegan > Well, in my opiniion 0.0 should be player-driven mostly. I don't want to lose that nature by making NPC missions too important.
[ 2009.07.05 17:00:24 ] Avalloc > it generates income
[ 2009.07.05 17:00:24 ] Dierdra Vaal > !
[ 2009.07.05 17:00:29 ] Avalloc > for players
[ 2009.07.05 17:00:39 ] Erik Finnegan > DV ?
[ 2009.07.05 17:00:40 ] Avalloc > not alliances like mons in 0.0
[ 2009.07.05 17:00:45 ] Avalloc > moons
[ 2009.07.05 17:00:51 ] Dierdra Vaal > I think 0.0 mission running , at least the debate you two are currently holding , falls a bit outside the scope of the proposed issue
[ 2009.07.05 17:00:52 ] Dierdra Vaal > end
[ 2009.07.05 17:01:07 ] Erik Finnegan > I would hope so.
[ 2009.07.05 17:01:18 ] Erik Finnegan > But making sure....
[ 2009.07.05 17:01:55 ] Erik Finnegan > OZ, do you agree that as long we have NPC agents, the suggested new focus would be a thing worth considering ?
[ 2009.07.05 17:02:26 ] Omber Zombie > as i said, i think patching the current system is a waste of dev time, but that's just a personal opinion (end)
[ 2009.07.05 17:02:30 ] Vuk Lau > !
[ 2009.07.05 17:02:34 ] Erik Finnegan > Vuk ?
[ 2009.07.05 17:02:41 ] Vuk Lau > i am sorry one for time for being late
[ 2009.07.05 17:02:49 ] Vuk Lau > and maybe I will tell something already said about this issue
[ 2009.07.05 17:03:02 ] Vuk Lau > agent distribution is inbalanced - i am ok with it
[ 2009.07.05 17:03:16 ] Vuk Lau > lowsec agents are much more profitable - i am cool with it
[ 2009.07.05 17:03:41 ] Vuk Lau > i just think that lvl5 agents are crap
[ 2009.07.05 17:03:46 ] Vuk Lau > end
[ 2009.07.05 17:04:52 ] Erik Finnegan > As I see the issue in the light of "fixing" the imbalance, I note your statement as a contra. That's fair.
[ 2009.07.05 17:05:00 ] Erik Finnegan > And other !
[ 2009.07.05 17:05:23 ] Erik Finnegan > Then to vote on......
[ 2009.07.05 17:05:52 ] Erik Finnegan > ....as stated in the wiki
[ 2009.07.05 17:06:13 ] Meissa Anunthiel > /emote votes yes
[ 2009.07.05 17:06:19 ] Omber Zombie > no
[ 2009.07.05 17:06:22 ] Vuk Lau > no
[ 2009.07.05 17:06:23 ] Dierdra Vaal > yes
[ 2009.07.05 17:06:25 ] Erik Finnegan > /emote votes yes
[ 2009.07.05 17:06:39 ] Avalloc > no
[ 2009.07.05 17:06:42 ] Larkonis Trassler > yes
[ 2009.07.05 17:06:50 ] mazzilliu > voting yes
[ 2009.07.05 17:06:58 ] Dierdra Vaal > motion passes 5/3
[ 2009.07.05 17:07:10 ] Dierdra Vaal > 8: Faction warfare - allied forces (OZ)
[ 2009.07.05 17:07:13 ] Dierdra Vaal > http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Faction_warfare_-_allied_forces
[ 2009.07.05 17:07:45 ] Omber Zombie > ok, this is a bit of an interesting one - we've asked ccp in the past to add functionality for alliances to join in faction warfare, this bring a new dimension to it
[ 2009.07.05 17:08:00 ] Meissa Anunthiel > !
[ 2009.07.05 17:08:12 ] Omber Zombie > the ability for outside forces to declare against specific factions rather than for them
[ 2009.07.05 17:08:19 ] Omber Zombie > the writeup is in the wiki
[ 2009.07.05 17:08:23 ] Omber Zombie > mesiisa?
[ 2009.07.05 17:08:29 ] Meissa Anunthiel > CCP already agreed to this in CCP/CSM meeting 2.2 I believe
[ 2009.07.05 17:08:55 ] Omber Zombie > yes and no - they agreed to allowing alliances to join in faction warfare, not to decalre against factions
[ 2009.07.05 17:09:05 ] Dierdra Vaal > !
[ 2009.07.05 17:09:17 ] Omber Zombie > and they still haven't actually implemented alliances involvement either
[ 2009.07.05 17:09:21 ] Omber Zombie > dierdra
[ 2009.07.05 17:09:44 ] Dierdra Vaal > I feel that just about everything in this issue can simply be accomplished by allowing alliances to join FW - rather than the current proposal..
[ 2009.07.05 17:09:54 ] Dierdra Vaal > which seems to advocate an expansion on the war dec system.
[ 2009.07.05 17:10:17 ] Dierdra Vaal > meanwhile, CCP have said that technically they can already let alliances join FW (it is apparently a matter of 'flicking the switch').
[ 2009.07.05 17:10:37 ] Dierdra Vaal > Why they havent, I dont know - but it seems an easier solution, yet it is not mentioned in the wiki.
[ 2009.07.05 17:10:53 ] Dierdra Vaal > I think it would be good to add it as 'alternative solution'
[ 2009.07.05 17:10:54 ] Dierdra Vaal > end
[ 2009.07.05 17:10:57 ] Omber Zombie > agreed, this is more of another way of looking at bringing alliances into FW rather than being an entire mechanic on it's own. I like to give them options to think about.
[ 2009.07.05 17:10:58 ] Larkonis Trassler > !
[ 2009.07.05 17:11:00 ] Erik Finnegan > !
[ 2009.07.05 17:11:07 ] Omber Zombie > lark
[ 2009.07.05 17:11:55 ] Larkonis Trassler > This is probably one of the better suggestions for getting alliances into FW
[ 2009.07.05 17:12:21 ] Larkonis Trassler > rather than a blanket 'just allow them in' it still allows an alliance to retain a bit of individuality
[ 2009.07.05 17:12:23 ] Larkonis Trassler > end
[ 2009.07.05 17:12:49 ] Omber Zombie > erik
[ 2009.07.05 17:12:52 ] Meissa Anunthiel > !
[ 2009.07.05 17:13:06 ] Erik Finnegan > That's a tough one. Generally, it was positively acclaimed by my peers at Take Care and the FW contacts, who I have. The only thing they fear, but where the votes pro/contra were even : could it be used to grief FW ?
[ 2009.07.05 17:13:11 ] Erik Finnegan > Some say, militias have enough PvP power and experience. Others doubted that.
[ 2009.07.05 17:13:30 ] Erik Finnegan > All of them wanted to deny complex activity for the wardec'ing corps, though and a high-sec block. This is a point, which I would, thus, like to see added/changed in the issue.
[ 2009.07.05 17:13:37 ] Erik Finnegan > The standing requirement would improve the push for RP in this issue. This was acclaimed. So as I am for developing FW - and this was generally seen as a step into the right direction - I say we go for it.
[ 2009.07.05 17:13:46 ] Erik Finnegan > And to reply on Dierdra's statement, joining Lark : I would prefer this way of letting alliances "meddle" with FW than seeing them join altogether.
[ 2009.07.05 17:13:47 ] Erik Finnegan > FIN
[ 2009.07.05 17:14:25 ] Larkonis Trassler > !
[ 2009.07.05 17:14:32 ] Omber Zombie > ok, the hisec thing i kind of agree on, but keep in mind faction police will shoot them in hisec if they are actively participating in attacking FW members/plexes
[ 2009.07.05 17:15:17 ] Omber Zombie > as for shooting at plexes, again i agree it would give them some power, but as they cannot actually capture the plex, allt hey can do is neutralize it for the other FW members
[ 2009.07.05 17:15:21 ] Omber Zombie > lark?
[ 2009.07.05 17:16:05 ] Larkonis Trassler > Just ref Alliances 'griefing' FW, it won't happen, 0.0 entities and most other large alliances have enough to worry about without taking time out to pew pew FW types, added to that the issues it would cause for their own empire logistics and what not
[ 2009.07.05 17:16:08 ] Larkonis Trassler > end
[ 2009.07.05 17:16:24 ] Omber Zombie > any other comments/questions?
[ 2009.07.05 17:16:30 ] Erik Finnegan > agreed, Lark
[ 2009.07.05 17:16:40 ] Meissa Anunthiel > What prevents an alliance from declaring against all 4 factions and getting relatively easy kills out of everyone taking part in FW? [/end]
[ 2009.07.05 17:16:47 ] Meissa Anunthiel > (you forgot mine :p)
[ 2009.07.05 17:16:48 ] Omber Zombie > standings
[ 2009.07.05 17:16:56 ] Omber Zombie > sory dude (:))
[ 2009.07.05 17:17:03 ] Erik Finnegan > !
[ 2009.07.05 17:17:11 ] Omber Zombie > you can't have standings heigh enough for a corp/alliance to actually achieve that
[ 2009.07.05 17:17:16 ] Omber Zombie > erik?
[ 2009.07.05 17:17:18 ] Erik Finnegan > Just to remind me : the standing was optional in the issue ? or a want-to-have ?
[ 2009.07.05 17:17:31 ] Erik Finnegan > FIN
[ 2009.07.05 17:17:37 ] Omber Zombie > i personally think of it as a pre-req, but that is ultimately up to ccp to decide
[ 2009.07.05 17:17:51 ] Vuk Lau > !
[ 2009.07.05 17:17:54 ] Omber Zombie > vuk
[ 2009.07.05 17:17:59 ] Vuk Lau > there are no "alliance" standings?
[ 2009.07.05 17:18:15 ] Vuk Lau > so even if standings are prereq how they will achieve that?
[ 2009.07.05 17:18:16 ] Vuk Lau > end
[ 2009.07.05 17:18:46 ] Omber Zombie > hmm, good point, it will be something ccp needs to look at and as a side benefit we may finally get alliance standings :p
[ 2009.07.05 17:18:52 ] Vuk Lau > \o/
[ 2009.07.05 17:18:52 ] Erik Finnegan > !
[ 2009.07.05 17:18:58 ] Omber Zombie > erik
[ 2009.07.05 17:19:00 ] Erik Finnegan > I would love to see standing get alot more attention in the future, so that's a good one.FIN
[ 2009.07.05 17:19:19 ] Omber Zombie > so, anyone else or vote time?
[ 2009.07.05 17:19:33 ] Omber Zombie > /emote votes yes
[ 2009.07.05 17:19:34 ] Meissa Anunthiel > /emote votes yes
[ 2009.07.05 17:19:34 ] Erik Finnegan > /slash: /votes yes
[ 2009.07.05 17:19:38 ] Erik Finnegan > /emote votes yes
[ 2009.07.05 17:19:41 ] mazzilliu > yes
[ 2009.07.05 17:19:47 ] Vuk Lau > yes
[ 2009.07.05 17:19:54 ] Larkonis Trassler > yes
[ 2009.07.05 17:20:11 ] Dierdra Vaal > no - overly elaborate when alliances could just be made to join FW
[ 2009.07.05 17:20:14 ] Avalloc > yes
[ 2009.07.05 17:20:19 ] Dierdra Vaal > motion passes 7/1
[ 2009.07.05 17:21:00 ] Dierdra Vaal > 9: add probes to overview (DV)
[ 2009.07.05 17:21:05 ] Dierdra Vaal > http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Add_probes_to_overview
[ 2009.07.05 17:21:17 ] Dierdra Vaal > Ok, I'm sure this will be a controversial issue
[ 2009.07.05 17:21:28 ] Meissa Anunthiel > !
[ 2009.07.05 17:21:33 ] Dierdra Vaal > basically, allow probes to be added to the overview
[ 2009.07.05 17:22:06 ] Dierdra Vaal > as this would also allow you to filter scan results for it, which would mean low sec mission running and exploring isnt plagued with a stupid, soul destroying mechanic. (a bad ui is not good game design!)
[ 2009.07.05 17:22:08 ] Dierdra Vaal > meissa
[ 2009.07.05 17:22:34 ] Meissa Anunthiel > I hate being probed, but I hate not being able to probe someone. the way things go, someone paying attention should escape being probed, but hitting "scan" repeatedly and checking the list is totally painful and boring. Right now ship probing goes too
[ 2009.07.05 17:23:07 ] Meissa Anunthiel > fast so you have to constantly click that damn scan button. For that I'd agree with the proposal, but then ship probing becomes impossible. For that I can't support the proposal...
[ 2009.07.05 17:23:24 ] Larkonis Trassler > !
[ 2009.07.05 17:23:28 ] Meissa Anunthiel > conunedrum... [/end]
[ 2009.07.05 17:24:35 ] Dierdra Vaal > "the way things go, someone paying attention should escape being probed" is this already not the case?
[ 2009.07.05 17:24:46 ] Dierdra Vaal > as I point out in my issue, its already possible - its just annoying
[ 2009.07.05 17:24:59 ] Dierdra Vaal > while people who dont pay attention now are probably not likely to do so in the future
[ 2009.07.05 17:25:17 ] Meissa Anunthiel > your solution would turn it into "anyone not paying attention can avoid being probed"
[ 2009.07.05 17:25:26 ] Meissa Anunthiel > (that's what I meant)
[ 2009.07.05 17:25:27 ] Dierdra Vaal > which is already the case
[ 2009.07.05 17:25:34 ] Dierdra Vaal > its just a soul destroying mechanic
[ 2009.07.05 17:25:57 ] Omber Zombie > !
[ 2009.07.05 17:26:01 ] Dierdra Vaal > anyone who pays attention to his scanner can avoid being found
[ 2009.07.05 17:26:19 ] Dierdra Vaal > in the current system as well as the proposed system
[ 2009.07.05 17:26:21 ] Vuk Lau > !
[ 2009.07.05 17:26:30 ] Dierdra Vaal > Lark?
[ 2009.07.05 17:26:58 ] Larkonis Trassler > I'm in two minds about this like meissa, i think the high signal to noise ratio looking for probes in conjested systems is a good thing
[ 2009.07.05 17:27:22 ] Larkonis Trassler > really, once you sort the list by name it's not that hard to narrow down
[ 2009.07.05 17:28:27 ] Larkonis Trassler > it's a silly game 'feature' but right now it can give you an extra 10-15 seconds to get the drop on someone which i like, as much as i hate checking to see if i'm being probed
[ 2009.07.05 17:28:34 ] Larkonis Trassler > end
[ 2009.07.05 17:28:44 ] Dierdra Vaal > this is true, as most probes start with a C, however, in a congested system this means constantly: scan, scroll doowwwwwwn passt all the assembly arrays etc.
[ 2009.07.05 17:28:56 ] Dierdra Vaal > its annoying
[ 2009.07.05 17:29:06 ] Dierdra Vaal > oz?
[ 2009.07.05 17:29:08 ] Larkonis Trassler > mission in less congested systems?
[ 2009.07.05 17:29:09 ] Meissa Anunthiel > !
[ 2009.07.05 17:29:09 ] Omber Zombie > personally i think ccp did this for a reason, i'm not averse to asking them why they made that decision for a clearer explanaion of their thoughts tho (end)
[ 2009.07.05 17:29:37 ] Dierdra Vaal > vuk
[ 2009.07.05 17:29:40 ] Vuk Lau > i agree with DV, basicly its just replacing retarted UI mechanic (end)
[ 2009.07.05 17:29:48 ] Erik Finnegan > !
[ 2009.07.05 17:29:49 ] Dierdra Vaal > meissa?
[ 2009.07.05 17:30:14 ] Meissa Anunthiel > The annoyance is the whole reason it's sometimes possible to scan down someone at the moment... Adding a 30 second cooldown on scan would remove the soul destruction but still give a chance at being probed down
[ 2009.07.05 17:30:31 ] Meissa Anunthiel > but it disrupts other uses of the directional scanner...
[ 2009.07.05 17:30:34 ] Meissa Anunthiel > [/end]
[ 2009.07.05 17:31:13 ] mazzilliu > !
[ 2009.07.05 17:31:53 ] Dierdra Vaal > while your point is valid, I feel that simply making a task 'annoying' isnt a good game design decision to limit the execution of that task
[ 2009.07.05 17:32:00 ] Dierdra Vaal > erik
[ 2009.07.05 17:32:09 ] Erik Finnegan > We discussed a UI issue last time : debating whether custom clients would give those players using it, any unfair advantage, since they would see data others might not be able to see.
[ 2009.07.05 17:32:14 ] Erik Finnegan > We "solved" it by affirming that the amount of data available to any new UI should be the same as to other clients.Coming from there, I think the "signal to noise" ratio is worth another thought in this issue.
[ 2009.07.05 17:32:26 ] Erik Finnegan > FIN
[ 2009.07.05 17:32:32 ] Dierdra Vaal > maz
[ 2009.07.05 17:32:56 ] mazzilliu > i think that if this were combined with some way to make probing and warping to the target faster, then i think it would be fair
[ 2009.07.05 17:33:07 ] mazzilliu > a bad UI design should never be a factor in gameplay balance
[ 2009.07.05 17:33:10 ] mazzilliu > end
[ 2009.07.05 17:33:30 ] Erik Finnegan > !
[ 2009.07.05 17:34:20 ] Dierdra Vaal > erik?
[ 2009.07.05 17:34:24 ] Erik Finnegan > The "bad UI" in this game is replacing the "shaking hand at the trigger" in real world physics. In RL, you cannot simply say : your shaking hand is bad UI design. But in this game, we do.
[ 2009.07.05 17:34:44 ] Vuk Lau > ?
[ 2009.07.05 17:35:01 ] Erik Finnegan > What about the cool down which Meissa spoke about. Enlighten me : is that part of the suggestion, or a new feature suggested by Meissa ?
[ 2009.07.05 17:35:02 ] Dierdra Vaal > I think there are better, more fun ways to simulate a shaking hand at the trigger (personal sloppyness)
[ 2009.07.05 17:35:03 ] Erik Finnegan > FIN
[ 2009.07.05 17:35:11 ] Erik Finnegan > I know, there are, DV
[ 2009.07.05 17:35:17 ] Erik Finnegan > How about the cool down ?
[ 2009.07.05 17:35:20 ] Dierdra Vaal > Erik, the cooldown is not included in the issue at this point
[ 2009.07.05 17:35:27 ] Dierdra Vaal > it was something meissa mentioned during this meeting
[ 2009.07.05 17:35:49 ] Dierdra Vaal > is it desired that I include it?
[ 2009.07.05 17:35:57 ] Erik Finnegan > !
[ 2009.07.05 17:36:00 ] Dierdra Vaal > erik
[ 2009.07.05 17:36:20 ] Erik Finnegan > I think we need something to make up for the "fuzzyness" of the manual pattern match that we are going to abolish.
[ 2009.07.05 17:36:28 ] Erik Finnegan > So:  for it.
[ 2009.07.05 17:36:28 ] Erik Finnegan > FIN
[ 2009.07.05 17:36:45 ] Meissa Anunthiel > !
[ 2009.07.05 17:36:48 ] Dierdra Vaal > meissa
[ 2009.07.05 17:37:20 ] Meissa Anunthiel > Just to be clear: if we pass this issue, ship probes become totally useless. That's a fact...
[ 2009.07.05 17:37:47 ] Meissa Anunthiel > Where you stand on that front is a choice, but with this on, never again will you get a hit on anyone...
[ 2009.07.05 17:37:49 ] Meissa Anunthiel > [/end]
[ 2009.07.05 17:37:58 ] Vuk Lau > !
[ 2009.07.05 17:38:08 ] Dierdra Vaal > I disagree, only people who pay attention - and that group already does this and can get away
[ 2009.07.05 17:38:15 ] Dierdra Vaal > people will continue to be sloppy
[ 2009.07.05 17:38:17 ] Meissa Anunthiel > !
[ 2009.07.05 17:38:22 ] Dierdra Vaal > in addition, more people may venture into dangerous space.
[ 2009.07.05 17:38:24 ] Dierdra Vaal > Vuk
[ 2009.07.05 17:38:46 ] Vuk Lau > I strongly disagree with you meissa(end)
[ 2009.07.05 17:38:55 ] Meissa Anunthiel > (in what regard?)
[ 2009.07.05 17:39:08 ] Vuk Lau > [17:37:14] Meissa Anunthiel > Just to be clear: if we pass this issue, ship probes become totally useless. That's a fact...
[ 2009.07.05 17:40:42 ] Dierdra Vaal > do you want to elaborate?
[ 2009.07.05 17:40:54 ] Meissa Anunthiel > I'm curious too :p
[ 2009.07.05 17:41:03 ] Vuk Lau > me?
[ 2009.07.05 17:41:12 ] Vuk Lau > i disagree with a fact
[ 2009.07.05 17:41:25 ] Vuk Lau > that ship probes will become useless
[ 2009.07.05 17:41:34 ] Dierdra Vaal > but would you like to say why you feel this way
[ 2009.07.05 17:41:43 ] Vuk Lau > [17:38:02] Dierdra Vaal > I disagree, only people who pay attention - and that group already does this and can get away
[ 2009.07.05 17:41:44 ] Vuk Lau > this
[ 2009.07.05 17:41:49 ] Dierdra Vaal > ok
[ 2009.07.05 17:41:54 ] Vuk Lau > [17:38:09] Dierdra Vaal > people will continue to be sloppy - and this
[ 2009.07.05 17:41:59 ] Vuk Lau > basicly
[ 2009.07.05 17:42:05 ] Vuk Lau > the ones who were taking care
[ 2009.07.05 17:42:17 ] Vuk Lau > will continue to take care, but without the pain of scrolling
[ 2009.07.05 17:42:27 ] Vuk Lau > ppl who are not taking care, will continue not to take care
[ 2009.07.05 17:42:37 ] Erik Finnegan > Does that include Take Care ?
[ 2009.07.05 17:42:47 ] Vuk Lau > ROFL
[ 2009.07.05 17:42:53 ] Vuk Lau > take care should be banned
[ 2009.07.05 17:42:59 ] mazzilliu > hahaha
[ 2009.07.05 17:43:01 ] Vuk Lau > and shiped to WoW
[ 2009.07.05 17:43:02 ] Dierdra Vaal > get back on topic guys :)
[ 2009.07.05 17:43:04 ] Erik Finnegan > !
[ 2009.07.05 17:43:14 ] Dierdra Vaal > meissa
[ 2009.07.05 17:43:48 ] Meissa Anunthiel > I may have overstated the fact, Vuk... But it's still a huge ship probing nerf
[ 2009.07.05 17:44:00 ] Meissa Anunthiel > bah... At least we'll get to talk abot thius with them [/end]
[ 2009.07.05 17:44:12 ] Dierdra Vaal > erik (but only if its relevant to this topic and not regarding vuk's statement about take care :P)
[ 2009.07.05 17:44:18 ] Erik Finnegan > This issue, as much as any other, will be discussed in Iceland anyway. And I want to have it there already for its UI impetus.
[ 2009.07.05 17:44:23 ] Erik Finnegan > Scanner and overview (and local !) are hugely powerful information providers in this game. Changing them must be done carefully. Can't we add this extra thought ?
[ 2009.07.05 17:44:24 ] Erik Finnegan > FIN
[ 2009.07.05 17:45:15 ] Dierdra Vaal > I do not feel this small scanner change should include a mention of carefulness. It does not change the scanner system as a whole, just a small filtering addition.
[ 2009.07.05 17:45:21 ] Dierdra Vaal > I think we are ready to vote?
[ 2009.07.05 17:45:33 ] mazzilliu > voting no
[ 2009.07.05 17:45:41 ] Dierdra Vaal > Voting on adding probes to overview filtering options
[ 2009.07.05 17:45:42 ] Dierdra Vaal > yes
[ 2009.07.05 17:45:59 ] Meissa Anunthiel > /emote votes nye?
[ 2009.07.05 17:46:03 ] Erik Finnegan > /emote votes yes (still sad that no moderate consideration will be added to issue)
[ 2009.07.05 17:46:08 ] Larkonis Trassler > no
[ 2009.07.05 17:46:09 ] Meissa Anunthiel > bah... yes for me
[ 2009.07.05 17:46:12 ] Vuk Lau > yes
[ 2009.07.05 17:46:35 ] Omber Zombie > yes
[ 2009.07.05 17:46:46 ] Avalloc > yes
[ 2009.07.05 17:46:52 ] Dierdra Vaal > motion passes 6/2
[ 2009.07.05 17:47:19 ] Dierdra Vaal > I would like to add that the time is 17:46 - I am marking Zastrow as absent, I did not receive notification that he would be absent
[ 2009.07.05 17:47:20 ] Meissa Anunthiel > I count only 7 votes
[ 2009.07.05 17:47:36 ] Dierdra Vaal > you're right
[ 2009.07.05 17:47:39 ] Omber Zombie > mazz voted above the vote call
[ 2009.07.05 17:47:41 ] Dierdra Vaal > who is missing
[ 2009.07.05 17:47:45 ] mazzilliu > voting no again
[ 2009.07.05 17:47:46 ] Meissa Anunthiel > even then
[ 2009.07.05 17:48:01 ] Dierdra Vaal > o right
[ 2009.07.05 17:48:14 ] Dierdra Vaal > 11: Revisit standings matrix (Erik)
[ 2009.07.05 17:48:18 ] Dierdra Vaal > http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Revisit_the_standing_matrix
[ 2009.07.05 17:48:18 ] Meissa Anunthiel > ah, yes, my bad
[ 2009.07.05 17:48:39 ] Erik Finnegan > aaargh.....there goes my prewritten text....... §$%%%&%$§$"""!!!!!
[ 2009.07.05 17:48:51 ] Erik Finnegan > Well. ok, again......
[ 2009.07.05 17:49:05 ] Erik Finnegan > ....the wiki says it. It's short.
[ 2009.07.05 17:49:25 ] Erik Finnegan > Look at the standing matrix and check if the "no way out" can be fixed, and Amarr merrits more love
[ 2009.07.05 17:49:28 ] Erik Finnegan > questions ?
[ 2009.07.05 17:50:03 ] Omber Zombie > !
[ 2009.07.05 17:50:05 ] Erik Finnegan > OZ
[ 2009.07.05 17:50:12 ] Omber Zombie > why does everyone have to be equal? (end)
[ 2009.07.05 17:50:29 ] Dierdra Vaal > !
[ 2009.07.05 17:50:29 ] mazzilliu > !
[ 2009.07.05 17:50:52 ] Erik Finnegan > It's not about equality. But the fact that a certain faction is irrecoverable was brought up multiple times on the forums already.
[ 2009.07.05 17:51:11 ] Erik Finnegan > And I think the Amarr standing is not backstory compliant.
[ 2009.07.05 17:51:15 ] Erik Finnegan > DV ?
[ 2009.07.05 17:51:21 ] Dierdra Vaal > I feel a certain faction should not be less desireable as mission running target than others (in reply to oz mostly)....
[ 2009.07.05 17:51:40 ] Dierdra Vaal > Also, I do not like certain avenues being closed indefinately due to choices made by players, quite possibly made before they were aware of the consequences (new players)
[ 2009.07.05 17:51:42 ] Dierdra Vaal > end
[ 2009.07.05 17:51:58 ] Erik Finnegan > Maz ?
[ 2009.07.05 17:52:22 ] mazzilliu > i'm going afk for a little bit, but i'm voting yes on this issue and would like to note that this issue doesnt seem to deal with equality or attractiveness of agents rather the fact that it's impossible to recover bad standings in certain situations.  t
[ 2009.07.05 17:52:26 ] mazzilliu > that definitely needs fixing
[ 2009.07.05 17:52:34 ] mazzilliu > end
[ 2009.07.05 17:52:58 ] Omber Zombie > !
[ 2009.07.05 17:53:05 ] Erik Finnegan > OZ ?
[ 2009.07.05 17:53:09 ] Omber Zombie > i should probably qualify my meaning of 'equal'
[ 2009.07.05 17:53:55 ] Omber Zombie > yes, people make choices, those choices should have consequences - it takes a fair amount of work to get standings low enough not to recover them, i'm not sure there should be an easy way out of it (end)
[ 2009.07.05 17:54:22 ] Erik Finnegan > OZ, point is, that sometimes there is no way out
[ 2009.07.05 17:54:30 ] Erik Finnegan > It should still be hard. OFC !
[ 2009.07.05 17:54:37 ] Erik Finnegan > But not IMpossible.
[ 2009.07.05 17:54:50 ] Dierdra Vaal > !
[ 2009.07.05 17:54:53 ] Erik Finnegan > DV
[ 2009.07.05 17:54:54 ] Dierdra Vaal > I think we can vote :)
[ 2009.07.05 17:55:10 ] Erik Finnegan > Vote then on the Revisit Standing Matrix issue as stated on wiki  :
[ 2009.07.05 17:55:17 ] Meissa Anunthiel > /emote votes yes
[ 2009.07.05 17:55:20 ] Erik Finnegan > /emote votes yes
[ 2009.07.05 17:55:20 ] Larkonis Trassler > yes
[ 2009.07.05 17:55:24 ] Omber Zombie > yes
[ 2009.07.05 17:55:26 ] Dierdra Vaal > yes
[ 2009.07.05 17:55:27 ] Vuk Lau > yes
[ 2009.07.05 17:55:35 ] Avalloc > yes
[ 2009.07.05 17:55:48 ] Dierdra Vaal > motion passes 8/0
[ 2009.07.05 17:55:56 ] Dierdra Vaal > (maz voted yes earlier)
[ 2009.07.05 17:56:09 ] Dierdra Vaal > 13: personal wallet divisions (DV)
[ 2009.07.05 17:56:13 ] Dierdra Vaal > http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Personal_wallet_divisions
[ 2009.07.05 17:56:37 ] Dierdra Vaal > Basically, its like the wallet divisions corporations have, except for your personal wallet
[ 2009.07.05 17:56:50 ] Erik Finnegan > !
[ 2009.07.05 17:56:56 ] Dierdra Vaal > which would make managing personal finances a lot easier
[ 2009.07.05 17:57:09 ] Dierdra Vaal > it seems this feature is highly requested by industrial players.
[ 2009.07.05 17:57:11 ] Dierdra Vaal > Erik?
[ 2009.07.05 17:57:14 ] Erik Finnegan > Book keeping rocks. I'm for it. :)
[ 2009.07.05 17:57:19 ] Erik Finnegan > FIN
[ 2009.07.05 17:57:31 ] Omber Zombie > ! i thought this was asked fro already, but apparantly not (end)
[ 2009.07.05 17:57:54 ] Dierdra Vaal > OZ, I talked to LaVista about this, who originally took this issue under his wing
[ 2009.07.05 17:58:17 ] Dierdra Vaal > but due to the continued requests from the industrial player base, I feel its prudent to bring it to CCPs attention again
[ 2009.07.05 17:58:35 ] Dierdra Vaal > any other !s?
[ 2009.07.05 17:59:12 ] Dierdra Vaal > I guess not
[ 2009.07.05 17:59:24 ] Dierdra Vaal > Voting on personal wallet divisions, what say ye?
[ 2009.07.05 17:59:27 ] Avalloc > yes
[ 2009.07.05 17:59:27 ] Dierdra Vaal > I say yes
[ 2009.07.05 17:59:28 ] Meissa Anunthiel > /emote votes yes
[ 2009.07.05 17:59:28 ] Omber Zombie > yes
[ 2009.07.05 17:59:31 ] Erik Finnegan > yes
[ 2009.07.05 17:59:33 ] mazzilliu > yes
[ 2009.07.05 17:59:37 ] Larkonis Trassler > yes
[ 2009.07.05 18:00:20 ] Dierdra Vaal > vuk?
[ 2009.07.05 18:00:25 ] Vuk Lau > yes
[ 2009.07.05 18:00:31 ] Dierdra Vaal > I see zastrow has joined as well
[ 2009.07.05 18:00:37 ] Dierdra Vaal > motion passed 8/0
[ 2009.07.05 18:00:55 ] Dierdra Vaal > 15: Machinima support in WIS (DV)
[ 2009.07.05 18:00:59 ] Dierdra Vaal > http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Machinima_support_in_Walking_in_Stations
[ 2009.07.05 18:01:02 ] Omber Zombie > !
[ 2009.07.05 18:01:08 ] Zastrow J > uhg i am sorry
[ 2009.07.05 18:01:10 ] Dierdra Vaal > (may I make the introduction first)
[ 2009.07.05 18:01:22 ] Vuk Lau > !
[ 2009.07.05 18:01:31 ] Dierdra Vaal > especially now that it appears WIS isnt coming in the summer expansion (or winter), I believe it is still in development
[ 2009.07.05 18:01:40 ] Erik Finnegan > !
[ 2009.07.05 18:01:49 ] Dierdra Vaal > this issue requests that CCP takes machinima into consideration when designing the camera controls.
[ 2009.07.05 18:02:04 ] Dierdra Vaal > which could make for an awesome clear skies 3
[ 2009.07.05 18:02:05 ] Dierdra Vaal > :D
[ 2009.07.05 18:02:08 ] Dierdra Vaal > ok OZ
[ 2009.07.05 18:02:09 ] Omber Zombie > ccp has already commented on previous WiS issues that they won't discuss them. (end)
[ 2009.07.05 18:02:39 ] Dierdra Vaal > We do not wish to discuss their WIS gameplay or design
[ 2009.07.05 18:02:45 ] Dierdra Vaal > we only request they take this wish into account
[ 2009.07.05 18:03:17 ] Dierdra Vaal > vuk?
[ 2009.07.05 18:03:19 ] Vuk Lau > what OZ said (end) (and this IS design issue)
[ 2009.07.05 18:03:22 ] Vuk Lau > end
[ 2009.07.05 18:03:25 ] Dierdra Vaal > erik
[ 2009.07.05 18:03:37 ] Erik Finnegan > Your thought ahead in that matter is astonishing. I'm for it. *slime* (sorry)
[ 2009.07.05 18:03:41 ] Erik Finnegan > And to reply to OZ, we do not need CCP to comment on anything in that matter. Putting the idea in their heads in enough at this stage of development.
[ 2009.07.05 18:03:52 ] Erik Finnegan > is enough
[ 2009.07.05 18:03:53 ] Erik Finnegan > FIN
[ 2009.07.05 18:04:03 ] Omber Zombie > !
[ 2009.07.05 18:04:19 ] Dierdra Vaal > oz
[ 2009.07.05 18:04:23 ] Omber Zombie > i'm just pointing out that anything WiS related is instantly rejected, i see no point in wasting time with it (end)
[ 2009.07.05 18:04:54 ] Erik Finnegan > !
[ 2009.07.05 18:05:06 ] Dierdra Vaal > I'm putting this forward now rather than AFTER WIS is released because I am certain it would be easier for CCP to implement it now, rather than hack it in later. So it would actually save effort on CCPs side - plus unlikely many other WIS proposals, thi
[ 2009.07.05 18:05:17 ] Dierdra Vaal > ...this makes no assumptions on 'existing' WIS gameplay or design.
[ 2009.07.05 18:05:18 ] Dierdra Vaal > Erik
[ 2009.07.05 18:05:21 ] Erik Finnegan > From when dates this statement of CCP ?
[ 2009.07.05 18:05:28 ] Erik Finnegan > To bluntly "reject" ?
[ 2009.07.05 18:05:31 ] Erik Finnegan > They evolve, too
[ 2009.07.05 18:05:32 ] Erik Finnegan > FIN
[ 2009.07.05 18:05:42 ] Omber Zombie > every issue we have raised as part of CSm regarding anything to do with WiS
[ 2009.07.05 18:06:07 ] Omber Zombie > (end)
[ 2009.07.05 18:06:08 ] Erik Finnegan > !
[ 2009.07.05 18:06:09 ] Dierdra Vaal > they do not wish to make any promises regarding WIS until they are certain they can guarantee it
[ 2009.07.05 18:06:18 ] Dierdra Vaal > so, they may even reject it now
[ 2009.07.05 18:06:22 ] Dierdra Vaal > while still keeping it in mind
[ 2009.07.05 18:06:28 ] Dierdra Vaal > I know CCP also enjoyed clear skies :)
[ 2009.07.05 18:06:34 ] Dierdra Vaal > and I'm sure they'd like more
[ 2009.07.05 18:06:46 ] Dierdra Vaal > not to mention machinima is great advertisement
[ 2009.07.05 18:06:49 ] Omber Zombie > you are assuming this won't be part of the system already
[ 2009.07.05 18:07:35 ] Dierdra Vaal > well if it is, they can just say "sure we'll do it!"
[ 2009.07.05 18:07:38 ] Dierdra Vaal > :P
[ 2009.07.05 18:07:45 ] Larkonis Trassler > !
[ 2009.07.05 18:07:51 ] Dierdra Vaal > erik
[ 2009.07.05 18:07:56 ] Erik Finnegan > CCP wants to CSM to "set the agenda", which will determine the power the CSM will have. Very well : we will be mentioning this as an idea. DV said, They liked clear skies. No need to discuss it with CCP. We are putting this to iceland as a statement.
[ 2009.07.05 18:08:02 ] Erik Finnegan > Won't take much of meeting time.
[ 2009.07.05 18:08:02 ] Erik Finnegan > FIN
[ 2009.07.05 18:08:23 ] Dierdra Vaal > lark
[ 2009.07.05 18:09:29 ] Larkonis Trassler > Although we don't know a thing about WIS and implementation, it's not really a gameplay or a design issue, just throwing it out there and getting them to keep in mind, won't take time to discuss or time for them to say 'yeah cool' or 'lol no can't do it
[ 2009.07.05 18:09:33 ] Larkonis Trassler > end
[ 2009.07.05 18:10:30 ] Erik Finnegan > Can we vote ?
[ 2009.07.05 18:10:45 ] Meissa Anunthiel > /emote votes yes
[ 2009.07.05 18:10:49 ] mazzilliu > yes
[ 2009.07.05 18:10:53 ] Avalloc > voting yes
[ 2009.07.05 18:10:54 ] Erik Finnegan > /emote votes yes
[ 2009.07.05 18:10:58 ] Vuk Lau > yes
[ 2009.07.05 18:10:58 ] Larkonis Trassler > yes
[ 2009.07.05 18:10:58 ] Dierdra Vaal > si
[ 2009.07.05 18:11:00 ] Omber Zombie > no
[ 2009.07.05 18:11:45 ] Dierdra Vaal > zastrow?
[ 2009.07.05 18:11:55 ] Zastrow J > yes
[ 2009.07.05 18:12:10 ] Dierdra Vaal > motion passes 8/1
[ 2009.07.05 18:12:26 ] Dierdra Vaal > Avalloc and Maz have submitted various wiki issues to me.
[ 2009.07.05 18:12:31 ] Dierdra Vaal > While I originally suspended these issues until next meeting since the wiki was absent, I am willing to go over them now - unless there are objections.
[ 2009.07.05 18:12:45 ] Omber Zombie > can we have links to them please
[ 2009.07.05 18:13:10 ] mazzilliu > if you guys want time to read it i dont mind waiting till next week
[ 2009.07.05 18:13:19 ] Erik Finnegan > !
[ 2009.07.05 18:13:29 ] Avalloc > mine is in wiki list (now)
[ 2009.07.05 18:13:36 ] Vuk Lau > !
[ 2009.07.05 18:13:38 ] Dierdra Vaal > http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Visible_Aggression_Indicator_in_0.0_Space
[ 2009.07.05 18:13:51 ] Dierdra Vaal > http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Looting_from_wreck_you_didn%27t_create_%3D_looter_flagged_to_%28wreck%29_killer_in_Empire
[ 2009.07.05 18:14:00 ] Dierdra Vaal > http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Stuff_about_character_transfers_and_problems_caused_by_it
[ 2009.07.05 18:14:04 ] Dierdra Vaal > those 3 I blieve
[ 2009.07.05 18:14:05 ] Vuk Lau > scratch my !
[ 2009.07.05 18:14:10 ] Dierdra Vaal > erik?
[ 2009.07.05 18:14:17 ] Erik Finnegan > I would prefer some more time. And I would rather do an extra meeting next week solely for those missing topics.
[ 2009.07.05 18:14:21 ] Erik Finnegan > FIN
[ 2009.07.05 18:14:35 ] Vuk Lau > !
[ 2009.07.05 18:14:48 ] Dierdra Vaal > vuk
[ 2009.07.05 18:14:49 ] Omber Zombie > agreed, altho the wreck one i already pointed out my issues with to avalloc
[ 2009.07.05 18:14:50 ] Vuk Lau > I am against having a meeting next week solely for those late issues
[ 2009.07.05 18:15:05 ] Vuk Lau > we will either do them now, or to do them on regular meeting
[ 2009.07.05 18:15:09 ] Vuk Lau > next one
[ 2009.07.05 18:15:10 ] Vuk Lau > end
[ 2009.07.05 18:15:26 ] Dierdra Vaal > that does risk increasing the next regular meetings workload a lot
[ 2009.07.05 18:16:02 ] Dierdra Vaal > I understand erik wishes them to be delayed
[ 2009.07.05 18:16:08 ] Dierdra Vaal > does anyone else share this sentiment?
[ 2009.07.05 18:16:16 ] Dierdra Vaal > I will go with the majority
[ 2009.07.05 18:16:24 ] Erik Finnegan > ( I am talking with other people about such suggestions. )
[ 2009.07.05 18:16:26 ] Dierdra Vaal > it is relevant to those 3 issues online
[ 2009.07.05 18:16:34 ] mazzilliu > i have a headache and wouldnt mind doing this some other time
[ 2009.07.05 18:16:34 ] Dierdra Vaal > only*
[ 2009.07.05 18:16:44 ] Dierdra Vaal > anyone else?
[ 2009.07.05 18:16:53 ] Avalloc > i'd like to do aggression one today
[ 2009.07.05 18:16:59 ] Omber Zombie > i don't care
[ 2009.07.05 18:17:23 ] Dierdra Vaal > I think the aggression one is sufficiently simple we can do it now
[ 2009.07.05 18:17:26 ] Dierdra Vaal > we shall move the rest to the next meeting
[ 2009.07.05 18:17:28 ] Dierdra Vaal > ok?
[ 2009.07.05 18:17:32 ] Larkonis Trassler > i'm easy, also i don't mind if we do them now or at a later date
[ 2009.07.05 18:17:37 ] Dierdra Vaal > Visible Aggression Indicator in 0.0 Space (Avalloc)
[ 2009.07.05 18:17:40 ] Dierdra Vaal > http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Visible_Aggression_Indicator_in_0.0_Space
[ 2009.07.05 18:18:00 ] Avalloc > When a player aggresses on another or is aggressed by another in 0.0 space there is no indicator. You've got 15 minutes in which you'll remain in space should you log off or are disconnected.
[ 2009.07.05 18:18:11 ] Avalloc > Add either a visible timer similar to the one from aggression in highsec/lowsec or something along lines of session change timer when undocking or jumping through gates.
[ 2009.07.05 18:18:21 ] Avalloc > questions?
[ 2009.07.05 18:18:35 ] Meissa Anunthiel > Can I vote yes now?
[ 2009.07.05 18:18:46 ] Dierdra Vaal > wait for avalloc to call votes :)
[ 2009.07.05 18:18:52 ] Dierdra Vaal > !
[ 2009.07.05 18:18:55 ] Avalloc > dv
[ 2009.07.05 18:19:18 ] Avalloc > go ahead dv, I mean
[ 2009.07.05 18:19:37 ] Dierdra Vaal > one could argue the lack of a visual indicator can provide a tactical advantage. Would the first titan been killed if it had an indicator like this? How do you feel about this aspect.
[ 2009.07.05 18:19:38 ] Dierdra Vaal > end
[ 2009.07.05 18:20:06 ] Meissa Anunthiel > (hidden information is bad design, he said :p)
[ 2009.07.05 18:20:33 ] Dierdra Vaal > (I'm playing devils advocate)
[ 2009.07.05 18:20:50 ] Avalloc > The first titan wasn't even aware he was aggressed afaik, he was smartbomb aggressed.. How is that fair? if player has dmg indicators off or looks away from screen for sec
[ 2009.07.05 18:20:52 ] Meissa Anunthiel > (Sharlize, is that you? Can I play with you too?)
[ 2009.07.05 18:21:33 ] Avalloc > if you left a drone somewhere, shooting that drone causes continued aggression
[ 2009.07.05 18:21:49 ] Avalloc > followup, dv?
[ 2009.07.05 18:21:56 ] Dierdra Vaal > I am satisfied, thank you
[ 2009.07.05 18:21:57 ] Dierdra Vaal > end
[ 2009.07.05 18:22:06 ] Avalloc > anyone else?
[ 2009.07.05 18:22:26 ] Erik Finnegan > Sounds fair to me
[ 2009.07.05 18:22:30 ] Omber Zombie > /emote votes yes and goes to bed
[ 2009.07.05 18:22:38 ] mazzilliu > voting yes
[ 2009.07.05 18:22:38 ] Dierdra Vaal > bye oz
[ 2009.07.05 18:22:39 ] Erik Finnegan > /emote votes yes
[ 2009.07.05 18:22:41 ] Avalloc > the game tells you if you have session timer delay from undocking or jumping through gate, so aggression one makes sense
[ 2009.07.05 18:22:41 ] Vuk Lau > yes
[ 2009.07.05 18:22:41 ] Dierdra Vaal > yes
[ 2009.07.05 18:22:45 ] Larkonis Trassler > yes
[ 2009.07.05 18:23:01 ] Avalloc > erk, ok... calling for vote :P
[ 2009.07.05 18:23:05 ] Avalloc > yes
[ 2009.07.05 18:23:06 ] Omber Zombie > (i was just pointing out that we should move along)
[ 2009.07.05 18:23:07 ] Meissa Anunthiel > /emote votes yes
[ 2009.07.05 18:23:14 ] Omber Zombie > same as above
[ 2009.07.05 18:23:25 ] Dierdra Vaal > motion passed 8/0
[ 2009.07.05 18:23:34 ] Zastrow J > yaaaay
[ 2009.07.05 18:23:40 ] Dierdra Vaal > Ok, next meeting will be 2 weeks from now
[ 2009.07.05 18:23:43 ] Dierdra Vaal > same time as today?
[ 2009.07.05 18:23:47 ] Vuk Lau > ok with me
[ 2009.07.05 18:23:48 ] Dierdra Vaal > (16:00)
[ 2009.07.05 18:23:49 ] Erik Finnegan > Yup
[ 2009.07.05 18:23:54 ] Larkonis Trassler > would that be 1600 or 1700 :)
[ 2009.07.05 18:23:54 ] Dierdra Vaal > ok
[ 2009.07.05 18:23:57 ] Avalloc > fine with me
[ 2009.07.05 18:24:02 ] Zastrow J > i thought it was 1800 x(
[ 2009.07.05 18:24:05 ] Dierdra Vaal > please try to get your issues IN WIKI FORM submitted on time
[ 2009.07.05 18:24:08 ] Zastrow J > i was logging in like hell yeah im ontime
[ 2009.07.05 18:24:10 ] Dierdra Vaal > this means before the deadline
[ 2009.07.05 18:24:14 ] Zastrow J > welp
[ 2009.07.05 18:24:20 ] EVE System > Channel MOTD changed to "Welcome to the Council of Stellar Management. For continuity, all past, present and future csm and alts are invited to "eve-csm" channel.Next Meeting: CSM 3 Meeting 4 - Sunday july 19th, 16:00: Get your issues in before july 4th 16:00! Remember to wikify them! just a link to the thread is not sufficient for the meeting! BTW we have a forum now!" by Omber Zombie
[ 2009.07.05 18:24:25 ] Dierdra Vaal > ****** Meeting closed