CSM Meeting Minutes 3.006 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All this data is potentially out of date, and should be taken with a truckload of salt

[ 2009.08.02 16:02:54 ] Dierdra Vaal > ***** Meeting 6 start :D
[ 2009.08.02 16:02:55 ] Issler Dainze > there are no "one swop of code" issues :P
[ 2009.08.02 16:03:03 ] Dierdra Vaal > first I have one thing to announce
[ 2009.08.02 16:03:13 ] Vuk Lau > you are homo?
[ 2009.08.02 16:03:14 ] Dierdra Vaal > we finally have csm mail, in case you guys didnt see it
[ 2009.08.02 16:03:29 ] Erik Finnegan > I tried
[ 2009.08.02 16:03:31 ] Erik Finnegan > failed
[ 2009.08.02 16:03:31 ] Dierdra Vaal > I put the details on the CSM forum
[ 2009.08.02 16:03:36 ] Dierdra Vaal > it should work?
[ 2009.08.02 16:03:40 ] Erik Finnegan > Can try again now
[ 2009.08.02 16:03:41 ] Avalloc > yup, it was empty
[ 2009.08.02 16:03:58 ] Erik Finnegan > ( or someone used "my" password and blocked my mail ^^ )
[ 2009.08.02 16:03:58 ] Vuk Lau > use https
[ 2009.08.02 16:03:59 ] Dierdra Vaal > anyway, just saying, we have csm mail finally
[ 2009.08.02 16:04:03 ] Larkonis Trassler > it works, haven't tried sending/recieving
[ 2009.08.02 16:04:16 ] Omber Zombie > mine works...
[ 2009.08.02 16:04:27 ] Dierdra Vaal > I've been able to send mail, though the global mailing list seems to be still CSM2 instead of us
[ 2009.08.02 16:04:27 ] Meissa Anunthiel > ((Present: Avalloc, DV, Erik, Issler, Lark, Meissa, Omber, Vuk, Zastrow))
[ 2009.08.02 16:04:40 ] Dierdra Vaal > :)
[ 2009.08.02 16:04:43 ] Dierdra Vaal > ok shall we begin?
[ 2009.08.02 16:05:19 ] Dierdra Vaal > Zastrow, since your issue did not include a wiki link, it will not be voted on today
[ 2009.08.02 16:05:24 ] Dierdra Vaal > moving on to issue 2:
[ 2009.08.02 16:05:30 ] Larkonis Trassler > before we start dv
[ 2009.08.02 16:05:34 ] Zastrow J > wat
[ 2009.08.02 16:05:38 ] Zastrow J > i do hav ea wiki page
[ 2009.08.02 16:05:46 ] mazzilliu > morning all
[ 2009.08.02 16:05:56 ] Dierdra Vaal > and you did give me this link... why?
[ 2009.08.02 16:05:59 ] Larkonis Trassler > my issues haven't been approved yet, despite being submitted in good time, would a link to a screen cap of the wiki page suffice
[ 2009.08.02 16:06:01 ] Dierdra Vaal > I'm not psychic
[ 2009.08.02 16:06:26 ] Omber Zombie > lark, we shuld be able to see the edit
[ 2009.08.02 16:06:43 ] Dierdra Vaal > unfortunately not larkonis, I'm sorry but if you have 2 weeks then submitting issues on time (ie more than 24 hours before the meeting ) should not be a problem
[ 2009.08.02 16:06:46 ] Zastrow J > i swear i posted it, maybe im retarded
[ 2009.08.02 16:06:59 ] Dierdra Vaal > zastrow if you can give me the wiki link now I can go over it..
[ 2009.08.02 16:07:17 ] Dierdra Vaal > otherwise I'm moving on, we have a lot to get through
[ 2009.08.02 16:07:54 ] Zastrow J > http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Station_Owners_Unrent_Offices
[ 2009.08.02 16:08:02 ] Dierdra Vaal > ok then
[ 2009.08.02 16:08:10 ] Dierdra Vaal > 1: Unrenting offices (Zastrow)
[ 2009.08.02 16:08:12 ] Dierdra Vaal > ^^ see link
[ 2009.08.02 16:09:00 ] Zastrow J > ok here's the problem:  right now it can take up to 2 months for offices to expire in an office conquered by an alliance
[ 2009.08.02 16:09:05 ] Zastrow J > this is an unreasonable amount of time
[ 2009.08.02 16:09:29 ] Zastrow J > so my proposal is to let the owning corp of the station unrent hostile offices at will, thus freeing up the slot and impounding anything in their hangars
[ 2009.08.02 16:09:37 ] Zastrow J > any questions?
[ 2009.08.02 16:09:41 ] Omber Zombie > !
[ 2009.08.02 16:09:44 ] Zastrow J > oz go
[ 2009.08.02 16:09:44 ] Larkonis Trassler > !
[ 2009.08.02 16:10:03 ] Omber Zombie > can't you just raise the rental fee to a rediculous amount - max time they can stay then is 1 month (end)
[ 2009.08.02 16:10:04 ] Meissa Anunthiel > !
[ 2009.08.02 16:10:16 ] Dierdra Vaal > !
[ 2009.08.02 16:10:44 ] Zastrow J > it doesnt work like that, they always have a free renewal available at whatever price it was when they last paid
[ 2009.08.02 16:11:18 ] Zastrow J > and 1 day before sovreignty flips they can unrent/rerent/renew for next month to ensure the 2 month timer before the conquering alliance can do anything about it
[ 2009.08.02 16:11:29 ] Zastrow J > larkonis go
[ 2009.08.02 16:11:52 ] Larkonis Trassler > One issue with this is if someone were to do a Haagorath followed by an immeadiate and brutal suprise assault then it would render all corporate assets in said stations unobtainable if a director was unable to get to them in time
[ 2009.08.02 16:12:29 ] Larkonis Trassler > I'd cancel and refund a full month's worth of rental reducing the hold had on offices to a max of one month
[ 2009.08.02 16:12:40 ] Larkonis Trassler > to still maintain a bit of scorched earth etc
[ 2009.08.02 16:12:41 ] Larkonis Trassler > end
[ 2009.08.02 16:12:49 ] Zastrow J > while that's true that is EXCEEDINGLY rare and unusual circumstances.  the recourse would be for the victim alliance to go shoot their stations back into their own control
[ 2009.08.02 16:13:08 ] Zastrow J > meissa gooOOooo
[ 2009.08.02 16:13:18 ] Meissa Anunthiel > Fights over stations have the station change hand a multitude of times (station ping pong) until the sov is obtained. Under your proposal, temporarily stealing a station and closing all offices would require them to be rented again and cause grief.
[ 2009.08.02 16:13:24 ] Meissa Anunthiel > I would agree with your proposal if it requires having the station AND the sov. This would give the previous owner some "grace period" and still accomplish your objective. [/end]
[ 2009.08.02 16:14:23 ] Vuk Lau > !
[ 2009.08.02 16:14:37 ] Zastrow J > that's a good point, but rerenting offices isnt a huge hassle and if sov is neutral a station owner shouldnt be storing anything in a corp hangar in the station yet anyways
[ 2009.08.02 16:14:45 ] Zastrow J > dierdra goooo
[ 2009.08.02 16:14:53 ] Dierdra Vaal > I propose that while you can 'unrent' slots, it should take a week for the office to dissapear? This would avoid the problem Lark described and would maybe give people a chance to evacuate their assets (to personal hangars for example). ...
[ 2009.08.02 16:15:10 ] Dierdra Vaal > ... would you be willing to add this (and meissa's proposal) to your wiki issue? end
[ 2009.08.02 16:16:11 ] Zastrow J > ok that makes sense but there really shouldnt be any "ambush" unrenting off offices because its not like sov flips overnight, invasions take time
[ 2009.08.02 16:16:30 ] Dierdra Vaal > still it would be good to add these safeguards to the proposal
[ 2009.08.02 16:16:31 ] Dierdra Vaal > end
[ 2009.08.02 16:16:38 ] Zastrow J > ok ill concede that point
[ 2009.08.02 16:16:43 ] Dierdra Vaal > ty
[ 2009.08.02 16:16:47 ] Zastrow J > vuk you're up
[ 2009.08.02 16:16:49 ] Vuk Lau > directors can always evacuate impounded assets, and good proposal by Meissa, it could be step between (end)
[ 2009.08.02 16:17:48 ] Zastrow J > i honestly cant remember if you can unimpound without station control, i think if you jumpclone into the station you can unimpound even if its a hostile station
[ 2009.08.02 16:18:02 ] Omber Zombie > you can unimpound at any time
[ 2009.08.02 16:18:27 ] Meissa Anunthiel > (but it's a mess to sort everything back in its right place)
[ 2009.08.02 16:18:37 ] Vuk Lau > you just jump clone and unimpound
[ 2009.08.02 16:18:45 ] Vuk Lau > as Oz said :D i am slow typer
[ 2009.08.02 16:18:54 ] Zastrow J > ok cool
[ 2009.08.02 16:19:00 ] Zastrow J > any other questions/.comments/concerns
[ 2009.08.02 16:19:28 ] Zastrow J > lets vote, proposal ammended to include a grace period before shit goes unrented
[ 2009.08.02 16:19:32 ] Omber Zombie > yes
[ 2009.08.02 16:19:35 ] Dierdra Vaal > yes
[ 2009.08.02 16:19:35 ] Larkonis Trassler > yes
[ 2009.08.02 16:19:37 ] Avalloc > yes
[ 2009.08.02 16:19:39 ] Meissa Anunthiel > yes
[ 2009.08.02 16:19:42 ] Erik Finnegan > yes
[ 2009.08.02 16:20:14 ] Meissa Anunthiel > (Mazz is in da house)
[ 2009.08.02 16:20:19 ] Erik Finnegan > ( the others are busy in the other chat, I guess )
[ 2009.08.02 16:20:21 ] mazzilliu > yoooo
[ 2009.08.02 16:20:23 ] Vuk Lau > YES
[ 2009.08.02 16:20:31 ] mazzilliu > oh
[ 2009.08.02 16:20:33 ] mazzilliu > sorry
[ 2009.08.02 16:20:34 ] mazzilliu > yes
[ 2009.08.02 16:20:39 ] Zastrow J > yee haw
[ 2009.08.02 16:21:02 ] Dierdra Vaal > motion passed 9/0 (assuming zastrow supports his own issue)
[ 2009.08.02 16:21:19 ] Zastrow J > yee haw is how we say yes in american
[ 2009.08.02 16:21:43 ] Dierdra Vaal > I thought you were celebrating that your issue passed, sorry :P
[ 2009.08.02 16:21:51 ] Dierdra Vaal > skipping Larks issue due to lack of wiki
[ 2009.08.02 16:21:55 ] Dierdra Vaal > 3: Allow bigger courier contracts (DV)
[ 2009.08.02 16:21:58 ] Omber Zombie > umm
[ 2009.08.02 16:21:59 ] Dierdra Vaal > http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Allow_bigger_courier_contracts
[ 2009.08.02 16:22:12 ] Larkonis Trassler > i wiki'd it dawg
[ 2009.08.02 16:22:17 ] Meissa Anunthiel > Lark's issue has been wikified but unaproved or not wikified at all?
[ 2009.08.02 16:22:27 ] Dierdra Vaal > unapproved
[ 2009.08.02 16:22:31 ] Dierdra Vaal > and therefore unusable
[ 2009.08.02 16:22:35 ] Omber Zombie > wtf?
[ 2009.08.02 16:22:41 ] Omber Zombie > you can read the history
[ 2009.08.02 16:22:43 ] Meissa Anunthiel > but none of Lark's fault, so we go with lark's
[ 2009.08.02 16:22:50 ] Dierdra Vaal > actually
[ 2009.08.02 16:22:53 ] Meissa Anunthiel > Lark, what's the link?
[ 2009.08.02 16:22:59 ] Dierdra Vaal > Lark submitted the issues 10 days ago
[ 2009.08.02 16:23:11 ] Dierdra Vaal > and waited until 18 hours ago or so to make his wiki
[ 2009.08.02 16:23:28 ] Meissa Anunthiel > well, it was submitted well within the timeframe
[ 2009.08.02 16:23:50 ] Dierdra Vaal > yes but you can expect the wiki documents not to be approved if you submit them on such a short tiumeframe
[ 2009.08.02 16:23:53 ] Dierdra Vaal > timeframe*
[ 2009.08.02 16:23:56 ] Dierdra Vaal > and tbh
[ 2009.08.02 16:24:00 ] Dierdra Vaal > this isnt the first time this happens
[ 2009.08.02 16:24:14 ] Larkonis Trassler > they were submitted within that timeframe for the last meeting
[ 2009.08.02 16:24:15 ] Dierdra Vaal > and I really want it to stop
[ 2009.08.02 16:24:17 ] Larkonis Trassler > and got approved
[ 2009.08.02 16:24:27 ] Meissa Anunthiel > who gives a rat's ass, it's been submitted in time and wikified, unaproved, though none of lark's fault.
[ 2009.08.02 16:24:28 ] Vuk Lau > !
[ 2009.08.02 16:24:43 ] Dierdra Vaal > you guys wish to continue?
[ 2009.08.02 16:24:46 ] Dierdra Vaal > vuk
[ 2009.08.02 16:24:55 ] Avalloc > he submitted it at 12)02 on august 2nd
[ 2009.08.02 16:24:57 ] Vuk Lau > if its passed with CSM1 why to raise it again
[ 2009.08.02 16:25:12 ] Vuk Lau > we all know that CCP has huge backlog
[ 2009.08.02 16:25:13 ] Omber Zombie > http://wiki.eveonline.com/w/index.php?title=Corp_Hangar_Audit_Logs&oldid=63051
[ 2009.08.02 16:25:17 ] Vuk Lau > and raising all old issues
[ 2009.08.02 16:25:30 ] Vuk Lau > just cause they are old is waste of time imho
[ 2009.08.02 16:25:32 ] Vuk Lau > end
[ 2009.08.02 16:25:42 ] Dierdra Vaal > Before launching full force into the issue...
[ 2009.08.02 16:26:10 ] Dierdra Vaal > I just want to say its disgracefull and sloppy that you wait this long to submit a wiki issue and to me it is a sign of lack of dedication to the CSM.
[ 2009.08.02 16:26:18 ] Dierdra Vaal > now then, LArk may introduce his issue
[ 2009.08.02 16:26:23 ] Dierdra Vaal > OZ linked it
[ 2009.08.02 16:26:28 ] Larkonis Trassler > ok
[ 2009.08.02 16:26:29 ] Larkonis Trassler > cool beans
[ 2009.08.02 16:26:34 ] Larkonis Trassler > apologies for my tardiness
[ 2009.08.02 16:26:43 ] Larkonis Trassler > It won't happen again
[ 2009.08.02 16:26:49 ] Larkonis Trassler > Basically
[ 2009.08.02 16:27:08 ] Larkonis Trassler > The only way to audit the ins and outs in corp hangars is to use secure containers
[ 2009.08.02 16:27:18 ] Meissa Anunthiel > !
[ 2009.08.02 16:27:27 ] Larkonis Trassler > While this is cool, it's a bit of a hassle and assembled ships cannot be placed in them
[ 2009.08.02 16:27:39 ] Vuk Lau > !
[ 2009.08.02 16:27:42 ] Larkonis Trassler > I propose that an audit log be created for individual hangar tabs
[ 2009.08.02 16:27:58 ] Larkonis Trassler > meissa
[ 2009.08.02 16:28:21 ] Meissa Anunthiel > moving stuff in/out of hangars would cause that much more logging and DB operations. I don't know how CCP handles that internally, and I'll leave that to them to decide, but the hassle of putting things in audit containers may be just to limit the .....
[ 2009.08.02 16:29:09 ] Meissa Anunthiel > amount of DB operations performed and the audit logs. Be prepared to see it turned down for that reason. But that's for CCP to decide, on the face of it it's not a bad idea. [/end]
[ 2009.08.02 16:29:50 ] Dierdra Vaal > !
[ 2009.08.02 16:29:53 ] Larkonis Trassler > ok vuk
[ 2009.08.02 16:30:02 ] Vuk Lau > lets just audit hangars (optionaly) to solve all the problems , this proposal is halfassed solution imho(end)
[ 2009.08.02 16:30:29 ] Larkonis Trassler > Dierdra
[ 2009.08.02 16:30:59 ] Dierdra Vaal > Eve uni uses the audit log container system
[ 2009.08.02 16:31:13 ] Dierdra Vaal > and it can be annoying with all the cans, open, close, etc
[ 2009.08.02 16:31:24 ] Dierdra Vaal > locking/unlocking
[ 2009.08.02 16:31:30 ] Larkonis Trassler > Audit containers are very useful, especially for sorting ammo types and the like
[ 2009.08.02 16:31:38 ] Dierdra Vaal > I think this idea has potention, but same as meissa, I think it could be turned down on technical grounds.
[ 2009.08.02 16:31:39 ] Dierdra Vaal > end
[ 2009.08.02 16:31:44 ] Larkonis Trassler > however, my main concern is assembled ships and the like
[ 2009.08.02 16:31:44 ] Dierdra Vaal > potential*
[ 2009.08.02 16:31:48 ] Larkonis Trassler > any other questions?
[ 2009.08.02 16:31:48 ] Omber Zombie > !
[ 2009.08.02 16:31:51 ] Larkonis Trassler > OZ
[ 2009.08.02 16:32:22 ] Omber Zombie > ignore the possible issues, we're voting on if we thnk this is a good idea. Containers are handy, but not if you need to search corp assets or produce from anything inside them (end)
[ 2009.08.02 16:32:54 ] Larkonis Trassler > Oz raises that point too
[ 2009.08.02 16:33:02 ] Larkonis Trassler > any other q's?
[ 2009.08.02 16:33:08 ] Zastrow J > !
[ 2009.08.02 16:33:13 ] Larkonis Trassler > Zastrow
[ 2009.08.02 16:33:30 ] Zastrow J > i hate cans because directors can't asset search them.  yet they're the only way to stop people stealing all your shit
[ 2009.08.02 16:33:37 ] Zastrow J > ok thats all i have to say
[ 2009.08.02 16:33:46 ] Larkonis Trassler > lets vote then
[ 2009.08.02 16:33:51 ] Omber Zombie > yes
[ 2009.08.02 16:33:54 ] Larkonis Trassler > Yes
[ 2009.08.02 16:33:55 ] Vuk Lau > no
[ 2009.08.02 16:33:56 ] Erik Finnegan > yes
[ 2009.08.02 16:33:56 ] Zastrow J > yes
[ 2009.08.02 16:33:58 ] mazzilliu > yes
[ 2009.08.02 16:33:59 ] Meissa Anunthiel > yes
[ 2009.08.02 16:33:59 ] Dierdra Vaal > si!
[ 2009.08.02 16:34:10 ] Avalloc > qui
[ 2009.08.02 16:34:19 ] Dierdra Vaal > motion passed 8/1
[ 2009.08.02 16:34:34 ] Dierdra Vaal > 3: Allow bigger courier contracts (DV)
[ 2009.08.02 16:34:39 ] Dierdra Vaal > http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Allow_bigger_courier_contracts
[ 2009.08.02 16:34:42 ] Omber Zombie > !
[ 2009.08.02 16:34:48 ] Dierdra Vaal > basically, courier contracts have 2 limits:
[ 2009.08.02 16:34:54 ] Dierdra Vaal > 100 items max, and 120,000m3 max
[ 2009.08.02 16:34:59 ] Vuk Lau > sry
[ 2009.08.02 16:35:07 ] Vuk Lau > wrong chat
[ 2009.08.02 16:35:09 ] Dierdra Vaal > which isnt nearly the limit of what fits in a freighter. I'd like to see this increased.
[ 2009.08.02 16:35:13 ] Dierdra Vaal > OZ
[ 2009.08.02 16:35:15 ] Omber Zombie > asked for, agreed to, no need to raise again (end)
[ 2009.08.02 16:35:20 ] Dierdra Vaal > I disagree
[ 2009.08.02 16:35:27 ] Larkonis Trassler > !
[ 2009.08.02 16:35:32 ] Vuk Lau > !
[ 2009.08.02 16:35:40 ] Dierdra Vaal > increasing the 120,000m3 limit should not take a lot of work. if this was agreed to why is it not ingame?
[ 2009.08.02 16:35:56 ] Dierdra Vaal > lark
[ 2009.08.02 16:36:09 ] Omber Zombie > you can ask them that directly when we discuss all the other things they agreed to do and still haven't done (it's in their backlog)
[ 2009.08.02 16:36:13 ] Larkonis Trassler > Just FYI the hundred item limit can be bypassed with cans, but for the purpose of moving rigged BS (currently not possible in empire) I see this as a benefit
[ 2009.08.02 16:37:17 ] Larkonis Trassler > end
[ 2009.08.02 16:37:25 ] Dierdra Vaal > That is true OZ, and yes lark currently its impossible to courier assembled BC/BS hulled even though they fit in a freighter
[ 2009.08.02 16:37:28 ] Dierdra Vaal > vuk?
[ 2009.08.02 16:37:31 ] Vuk Lau > 1st its was already raised and passed, and 2nd we dont know is it or is it not a lot fo work to increase the limit.
[ 2009.08.02 16:37:50 ] Vuk Lau > and I really see pointless raising already passed issues
[ 2009.08.02 16:37:55 ] Vuk Lau > end
[ 2009.08.02 16:37:55 ] Dierdra Vaal > rgr
[ 2009.08.02 16:37:58 ] Dierdra Vaal > anyone else?
[ 2009.08.02 16:38:27 ] Dierdra Vaal > ok Voting on the courier contract limit increases:
[ 2009.08.02 16:38:30 ] Omber Zombie > no
[ 2009.08.02 16:38:31 ] Larkonis Trassler > Yes
[ 2009.08.02 16:38:32 ] Meissa Anunthiel > /emote votes No. already raised.
[ 2009.08.02 16:38:48 ] Vuk Lau > no
[ 2009.08.02 16:38:49 ] mazzilliu > voting yes
[ 2009.08.02 16:38:53 ] Avalloc > yes
[ 2009.08.02 16:39:25 ] Zastrow J > no, based on it already being raised
[ 2009.08.02 16:39:42 ] Erik Finnegan > no (been raised)
[ 2009.08.02 16:40:02 ] Dierdra Vaal > no - you gentlemen convinced me. However I will still raise it (as OZ pointed out).
[ 2009.08.02 16:40:26 ] Vuk Lau > someone is spolied here
[ 2009.08.02 16:40:31 ] Dierdra Vaal > motion failed (ah my first fail!) 5/3 (who are we missing?)
[ 2009.08.02 16:40:31 ] Vuk Lau > or it is Eva syndrom? :D
[ 2009.08.02 16:40:54 ] Dierdra Vaal > wait its 6/3
[ 2009.08.02 16:40:56 ] Dierdra Vaal > ok
[ 2009.08.02 16:41:00 ] Dierdra Vaal > 4: UI Client remembers passwords between session changes. (Avalloc)
[ 2009.08.02 16:41:04 ] Dierdra Vaal > http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/UI_Client_remembers_passwords_between_session_changes.
[ 2009.08.02 16:41:09 ] Avalloc > Anytime you jump through a gate, through a jump bridge, relog, or do anything else that is considered a "session change" the client forgets any passwords you have entered for your ship.
[ 2009.08.02 16:41:22 ] Avalloc > This is especially frustrating when using "jump bridges" on friendly POS that don't belong to your corporation. Each time you use a bridge the password must be re-entered.
[ 2009.08.02 16:41:44 ] Avalloc > I propose that CCP look into adding the function of EVE client remembering passwords between session changes.
[ 2009.08.02 16:42:05 ] Avalloc > Client (using current system) remembers ship password until the user logs out. OR
[ 2009.08.02 16:42:18 ] Avalloc > A new interface menu is added where user may store a few passwords and chooses which one is "active" at any moment. Each time the user logs in anew they must reselect the "active" password.
[ 2009.08.02 16:42:28 ] Avalloc > (comments?)
[ 2009.08.02 16:42:38 ] Larkonis Trassler > !
[ 2009.08.02 16:42:42 ] Avalloc > lark
[ 2009.08.02 16:42:58 ] Larkonis Trassler > As much as I enjoy racing to enter the pw when logging in at a non corp pos this is long overdue
[ 2009.08.02 16:42:59 ] Larkonis Trassler > end
[ 2009.08.02 16:43:20 ] Avalloc > agreed
[ 2009.08.02 16:43:26 ] Avalloc > anyone else?
[ 2009.08.02 16:43:44 ] Avalloc > vote!
[ 2009.08.02 16:43:45 ] Meissa Anunthiel > /emote votes yes
[ 2009.08.02 16:43:49 ] Dierdra Vaal > yes
[ 2009.08.02 16:43:49 ] Larkonis Trassler > yes
[ 2009.08.02 16:43:50 ] Avalloc > <- yes
[ 2009.08.02 16:43:51 ] Omber Zombie > yes
[ 2009.08.02 16:43:53 ] Erik Finnegan > yes
[ 2009.08.02 16:43:54 ] Vuk Lau > yes
[ 2009.08.02 16:43:55 ] Zastrow J > yeeee
[ 2009.08.02 16:44:26 ] Avalloc > mazz?
[ 2009.08.02 16:44:54 ] Avalloc > your floor, chaiman
[ 2009.08.02 16:45:02 ] Avalloc > ..chairman
[ 2009.08.02 16:45:02 ] Dierdra Vaal > motion passed 8/0 maz did not vote
[ 2009.08.02 16:45:13 ] mazzilliu > voting yes
[ 2009.08.02 16:45:15 ] Dierdra Vaal > 9/0
[ 2009.08.02 16:45:17 ] Dierdra Vaal > 5: Sort ctrl-tab window list by last activation instead of time created (Erik)
[ 2009.08.02 16:45:21 ] Dierdra Vaal > http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Sort_ctrl-tab_window_list_by_last_activation_instead_of_time_created
[ 2009.08.02 16:45:29 ] Erik Finnegan > I am not using CTRL-Tab because it does not work "as expected". Anyone else ?
[ 2009.08.02 16:46:20 ] Omber Zombie > !!
[ 2009.08.02 16:46:30 ] Erik Finnegan > OZ
[ 2009.08.02 16:46:37 ] Erik Finnegan > OZ
[ 2009.08.02 16:46:49 ] Omber Zombie > umm, is anyone (in a larger sense community wise) actually effected by this greatly that we need to spend 20 minutes in iceland discussing it? (end0
[ 2009.08.02 16:47:07 ] Vuk Lau > well 3 ppl replied
[ 2009.08.02 16:47:23 ] Erik Finnegan > Is it 20 min for each issue ?
[ 2009.08.02 16:47:37 ] Erik Finnegan > This can be one minute. :)
[ 2009.08.02 16:47:39 ] Omber Zombie > !
[ 2009.08.02 16:47:42 ] Erik Finnegan > OZ
[ 2009.08.02 16:47:51 ] Dierdra Vaal > !
[ 2009.08.02 16:47:59 ] Omber Zombie > or we can not raise it and just mention it to the UI guy who is currently redoing the entire ui... (end0
[ 2009.08.02 16:48:21 ] Erik Finnegan > Sure, I mean, we've touched other UI aspects. I'm not saying this is a deal breaker.
[ 2009.08.02 16:48:23 ] Erik Finnegan > DV
[ 2009.08.02 16:48:43 ] Dierdra Vaal > OZ - ccp may just say 'yes we can' and the issue doesnt need to take 20minutes, or they add it to a big pile of UI related issues. Point is this single item will most likely not take 20 minutes at the meeting.
[ 2009.08.02 16:48:45 ] Dierdra Vaal > end
[ 2009.08.02 16:48:47 ] Avalloc > !
[ 2009.08.02 16:48:51 ] Erik Finnegan > Avalloc please
[ 2009.08.02 16:49:24 ] Avalloc > ctrl-tab goes between chat window and contact list for me... where is this switching tabs nonsense? ;) (end)
[ 2009.08.02 16:49:41 ] Erik Finnegan > Votes please........
[ 2009.08.02 16:49:42 ] Avalloc > well, channel occupants list
[ 2009.08.02 16:49:46 ] Dierdra Vaal > (hold down ctrl+tab)
[ 2009.08.02 16:50:00 ] Dierdra Vaal > /emote votes yes
[ 2009.08.02 16:50:04 ] Larkonis Trassler > yes
[ 2009.08.02 16:50:05 ] Erik Finnegan > yes
[ 2009.08.02 16:50:11 ] mazzilliu > voting yes
[ 2009.08.02 16:50:12 ] Meissa Anunthiel > yes
[ 2009.08.02 16:50:14 ] Vuk Lau > yes
[ 2009.08.02 16:50:18 ] Avalloc > yes
[ 2009.08.02 16:50:20 ] Omber Zombie > yes
[ 2009.08.02 16:50:34 ] Dierdra Vaal > zastrow?
[ 2009.08.02 16:50:49 ] Avalloc > (ooooh.. I was using sticky keys.. don't say it vuk.. don't..)
[ 2009.08.02 16:51:12 ] Dierdra Vaal > motion passed 8/0 - zastrow did not vote
[ 2009.08.02 16:51:24 ] Zastrow J > yes
[ 2009.08.02 16:51:35 ] Dierdra Vaal > 9/0
[ 2009.08.02 16:51:37 ] Dierdra Vaal > 6: Move Recover Probes away from Analyze Button (Lark)
[ 2009.08.02 16:51:42 ] Larkonis Trassler > http://wiki.eveonline.com/w/index.php?title=Move_Recover_Probes_Away_From_Analyze_Button&oldid=63052
[ 2009.08.02 16:51:47 ] Larkonis Trassler > Simple UI fix
[ 2009.08.02 16:51:59 ] Dierdra Vaal > !
[ 2009.08.02 16:52:19 ] Larkonis Trassler > when probing plexes or people for those of us with sausage fingers it can be irritating when one 'recovers probes' instead of analyzing
[ 2009.08.02 16:52:22 ] Larkonis Trassler > dierdra
[ 2009.08.02 16:52:24 ] Dierdra Vaal > this happened to me after carefully placing 8 probes around 2 sites at 0.5au range. I'm approving this wholeheartedly. end
[ 2009.08.02 16:52:44 ] Larkonis Trassler > anyone else
[ 2009.08.02 16:52:52 ] Erik Finnegan > sounds good
[ 2009.08.02 16:52:55 ] Meissa Anunthiel > /emote votes yes
[ 2009.08.02 16:52:58 ] Larkonis Trassler > ok lets vote
[ 2009.08.02 16:52:59 ] Larkonis Trassler > yes
[ 2009.08.02 16:53:00 ] Omber Zombie > yes
[ 2009.08.02 16:53:01 ] Erik Finnegan > yes
[ 2009.08.02 16:53:02 ] Dierdra Vaal > yes
[ 2009.08.02 16:53:03 ] mazzilliu > yes
[ 2009.08.02 16:53:08 ] Avalloc > yes
[ 2009.08.02 16:53:40 ] Vuk Lau > yes
[ 2009.08.02 16:53:40 ] Meissa Anunthiel > zastrow? Vuk?
[ 2009.08.02 16:54:26 ] Zastrow J > yes
[ 2009.08.02 16:54:37 ] Dierdra Vaal > motion passed 8/0 (vuk did not vote)
[ 2009.08.02 16:54:43 ] Meissa Anunthiel > he did
[ 2009.08.02 16:54:47 ] Dierdra Vaal > oops
[ 2009.08.02 16:54:51 ] Dierdra Vaal > 9/0
[ 2009.08.02 16:54:57 ] Dierdra Vaal > you ninja voters :/
[ 2009.08.02 16:55:06 ] Dierdra Vaal > 7: Add meta column in item detail list view (DV)
[ 2009.08.02 16:55:10 ] Dierdra Vaal > http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Add_meta_column_in_item_detail_list_view
[ 2009.08.02 16:55:17 ] Dierdra Vaal > yet another minor UI issue
[ 2009.08.02 16:55:37 ] Dierdra Vaal > in the hangar/hold/container item list view you can see attributes like group, slot, etc
[ 2009.08.02 16:55:43 ] Dierdra Vaal > this is a proposal to add the META level
[ 2009.08.02 16:55:54 ] Avalloc > !
[ 2009.08.02 16:55:57 ] Dierdra Vaal > so one can easily sort items by meta level (and trash all the low level meta crap)
[ 2009.08.02 16:56:01 ] Dierdra Vaal > avalloc
[ 2009.08.02 16:56:18 ] Avalloc > I agree, data is there,, just need another field in Show Info
[ 2009.08.02 16:56:22 ] Avalloc > (end)
[ 2009.08.02 16:56:24 ] Erik Finnegan > !
[ 2009.08.02 16:56:41 ] Dierdra Vaal > avalloc, this is not for show info but for the list view of item collections
[ 2009.08.02 16:56:43 ] Dierdra Vaal > erik?
[ 2009.08.02 16:56:44 ] Erik Finnegan > When prioritizing, we can put all "minor UI issues" into one pot. When CCP sees how full it is, they might give a UI session. :) I like this one, too. [FIN]
[ 2009.08.02 16:56:56 ] Avalloc > doh, ok. still good :)
[ 2009.08.02 16:57:01 ] Dierdra Vaal > in CSM1, ccp put all ui issues into one pile already
[ 2009.08.02 16:57:05 ] Dierdra Vaal > so I assume they'll do the same now
[ 2009.08.02 16:57:26 ] Dierdra Vaal > anyone else?
[ 2009.08.02 16:57:38 ] Dierdra Vaal > vote for glory!
[ 2009.08.02 16:57:38 ] Erik Finnegan > /emote votes yes
[ 2009.08.02 16:57:39 ] Dierdra Vaal > yes
[ 2009.08.02 16:57:40 ] Meissa Anunthiel > /emote votes yes
[ 2009.08.02 16:57:41 ] Vuk Lau > yes
[ 2009.08.02 16:57:43 ] Avalloc > yes
[ 2009.08.02 16:57:45 ] Omber Zombie > yes
[ 2009.08.02 16:57:54 ] Larkonis Trassler > yes
[ 2009.08.02 16:57:59 ] mazzilliu > yes
[ 2009.08.02 16:58:42 ] Dierdra Vaal > motion passed 8/0 (I'm redeemed!)
[ 2009.08.02 16:58:58 ] Dierdra Vaal > 8: UI Add support for POS Module Status in Overview (Avalloc)
[ 2009.08.02 16:59:02 ] Dierdra Vaal > http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/UI_Add_support_for_POS_Module_Status_in_Overview
[ 2009.08.02 16:59:04 ] Avalloc > The Overview is normally a very helpful source of information in combat situations. Unfortunately it doesn't offer enough when it comes to POS modules.
[ 2009.08.02 16:59:07 ] Omber Zombie > !
[ 2009.08.02 16:59:10 ] Avalloc > There are only two ways to tell the status of a POS module, one is via the UI at the Control Tower. And the other is by selecting the Modules in space with the Overview.
[ 2009.08.02 16:59:27 ] Avalloc > But wait! With the latter you must then hunt for the target bracket by spinning the camera around and then zooming in to see if it says: Online, Anchored, Unanchored, or Incapacitated.
[ 2009.08.02 16:59:33 ] Erik Finnegan > !
[ 2009.08.02 16:59:53 ] Avalloc > (#  Add another column to the Overview which shows the status of POS Modules.# OR Create a new set of filters associated with Incapacitated, Online, Anchored, and Unanchored.
[ 2009.08.02 17:00:04 ] Avalloc > OR Create color tags/background within Overview for showing the POS Module's status.
[ 2009.08.02 17:00:10 ] Avalloc > oz?
[ 2009.08.02 17:00:11 ] Omber Zombie > why not just have a small indicator similar to the web/scramble etc. that you get when those modules get activated on you, all for some way of telling whatever it is tho (end)
[ 2009.08.02 17:01:00 ] Meissa Anunthiel > !
[ 2009.08.02 17:01:18 ] Avalloc > that is what I'm suggesting, something more than what we get now
[ 2009.08.02 17:01:22 ] Avalloc > ....anything
[ 2009.08.02 17:01:47 ] Avalloc > that answer your question?
[ 2009.08.02 17:02:16 ] Omber Zombie > yup (was just offering an alternate solution)
[ 2009.08.02 17:02:23 ] Avalloc > erik?
[ 2009.08.02 17:02:26 ] Erik Finnegan > With this one, though it sounds good, just enlighten me : if the aggressors would gain an "unfair" advantage with that extra amount of info. I'm comparing it with the "scanner probes in overview filter" issue we talked about and how it would change the
[ 2009.08.02 17:02:28 ] Erik Finnegan > tides of ship hunting. Just a question here.... [FIN]
[ 2009.08.02 17:02:56 ] Dierdra Vaal > !
[ 2009.08.02 17:03:20 ] Avalloc > this benefits defender and agressor.. defender to find things needing repping, aggressor to find stuff that needs to be incapped
[ 2009.08.02 17:03:30 ] Dierdra Vaal > (ignore my !)
[ 2009.08.02 17:03:42 ] Avalloc > good, erik?
[ 2009.08.02 17:03:43 ] Erik Finnegan > ok
[ 2009.08.02 17:03:50 ] Avalloc > meissa?
[ 2009.08.02 17:04:02 ] Meissa Anunthiel > I think OZ's suggestion to be more useful, I don't have room in my OV to add a bazillion columns, and that way I can see the status of the POS modules wether I'm shooting POS, repping, setting up POS, etc. without having the extra column all the time
[ 2009.08.02 17:04:04 ] Meissa Anunthiel > [/end]
[ 2009.08.02 17:04:23 ] Dierdra Vaal > !
[ 2009.08.02 17:04:34 ] Avalloc > true, but that is why we have a filter alternative suggested
[ 2009.08.02 17:04:45 ] Meissa Anunthiel > (but I'll vote yes, any indicator is needed)
[ 2009.08.02 17:05:10 ] Avalloc > to filter out all incapped when attacking, or all online modules when repping
[ 2009.08.02 17:05:29 ] Avalloc > dv?
[ 2009.08.02 17:05:35 ] Dierdra Vaal > dont focus on one solution, as long as ccp is made aware of the issue. end
[ 2009.08.02 17:06:00 ] Avalloc > agreed, which is why I listed a few.
[ 2009.08.02 17:06:05 ] Avalloc > Anyone else?
[ 2009.08.02 17:06:30 ] Avalloc > Vote!
[ 2009.08.02 17:06:31 ] Erik Finnegan > /emote votes yes
[ 2009.08.02 17:06:32 ] Larkonis Trassler > yes
[ 2009.08.02 17:06:33 ] Avalloc > <- yes
[ 2009.08.02 17:06:41 ] Meissa Anunthiel > yes
[ 2009.08.02 17:06:42 ] mazzilliu > yes
[ 2009.08.02 17:06:45 ] Dierdra Vaal > yes
[ 2009.08.02 17:06:45 ] Omber Zombie > yes
[ 2009.08.02 17:06:51 ] Vuk Lau > yes
[ 2009.08.02 17:06:56 ] Zastrow J > yes.
[ 2009.08.02 17:07:00 ] Dierdra Vaal > motion passed 9/0
[ 2009.08.02 17:07:18 ] Dierdra Vaal > ok we've been going pretty fast, the next one is going to be fun! :D
[ 2009.08.02 17:07:19 ] Dierdra Vaal > 9: Mobile Mining Gun (Erik)
[ 2009.08.02 17:07:23 ] Dierdra Vaal > http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Mobile_Mining_Gun
[ 2009.08.02 17:07:45 ] Zastrow J > yea i like the pace we're movin
[ 2009.08.02 17:07:48 ] Erik Finnegan > The suggestion, for pilot, is something between a sentry drone and a POS turret.On a game design level, I think this could be one stone to a better low-sec picture. I am aware we will discuss a "general low-sec" request later.
[ 2009.08.02 17:07:55 ] Erik Finnegan > While this issue goes into details in the suggestion, I am aware that this is something which CCP is to decide ultimately.
[ 2009.08.02 17:08:54 ] Erik Finnegan > Now, this suggests a module to be deployed in low-sec to add "defense" to a mining OP.
[ 2009.08.02 17:09:01 ] Erik Finnegan > What do you think ?
[ 2009.08.02 17:09:09 ] Avalloc > !
[ 2009.08.02 17:09:12 ] Zastrow J > !
[ 2009.08.02 17:09:17 ] Larkonis Trassler > !
[ 2009.08.02 17:09:21 ] Vuk Lau > !
[ 2009.08.02 17:09:27 ] Erik Finnegan > Avalloc go
[ 2009.08.02 17:09:34 ] Dierdra Vaal > !
[ 2009.08.02 17:09:59 ] Avalloc > why should low sec get this and not 0.0 space? we don't even have guns on gates or stations in sov controlled 0.0 (end)
[ 2009.08.02 17:10:53 ] Erik Finnegan > My knowledge ends at the low-sec border. :-} You all know that. This is not a conscious omission. Actually, I might have copy&pasted without noticing this restriction....
[ 2009.08.02 17:11:24 ] Erik Finnegan > ....generally, I'm picking up the commentary in the thread
[ 2009.08.02 17:11:42 ] Erik Finnegan > saying that this could help to improve low-sec. We have discusses low-sec deficiencies before.
[ 2009.08.02 17:11:50 ] Erik Finnegan > Zastro
[ 2009.08.02 17:11:57 ] Zastrow J > adding any kind of sentry turret moves combat away from ships shooting each other to ships shooting at structures.  also this is going to get abused.  people will use them offensively instead of defensively.  anchor them in a belt to deny it to miners
[ 2009.08.02 17:12:33 ] Erik Finnegan > Understood. Do you see any small twist to amend ?
[ 2009.08.02 17:13:05 ] Zastrow J > i dont see any way to implement this that it wouldnt get abused
[ 2009.08.02 17:13:16 ] Erik Finnegan > hmm, ok. Larkonis, please.
[ 2009.08.02 17:13:28 ] Larkonis Trassler > if one is mining in 0.0 then generally you have the advantage of defense gangs, intel channels and you're own eyes watching local, it's hard enough catching miners as it is and you want to enable them to erect a
[ 2009.08.02 17:13:52 ] Larkonis Trassler > for want of a better term 'rape sphere' around a belt, if you control space you should be able to defend it too, as for lowsec, mining there is without profit over highsec at the moment but that's another issue
[ 2009.08.02 17:14:20 ] Larkonis Trassler > the costs incurred by operating these in lowsec would make them unworkable
[ 2009.08.02 17:14:41 ] Larkonis Trassler > i'm also against taking defence out of the hands of players and putting them in the hands of robots
[ 2009.08.02 17:14:43 ] Larkonis Trassler > end
[ 2009.08.02 17:15:12 ] Erik Finnegan > Vuk ?
[ 2009.08.02 17:15:19 ] Vuk Lau > how about...NO
[ 2009.08.02 17:15:30 ] Vuk Lau > this totaly unbalanced and imho stupid proposal
[ 2009.08.02 17:15:33 ] Vuk Lau > end
[ 2009.08.02 17:15:41 ] Erik Finnegan > Thank you for your open words.
[ 2009.08.02 17:15:58 ] Erik Finnegan > Adds ground for discussion.
[ 2009.08.02 17:15:59 ] Erik Finnegan > Dv, please
[ 2009.08.02 17:16:04 ] Dierdra Vaal > While I agree that low sec mining is in need of help, one of the biggest problems is the simply fact that right now it makes less isk/h than high sec. Even if it was safe, miners wouldnt go to low sec. Additionally....
[ 2009.08.02 17:16:11 ] Dierdra Vaal > I think there are too many questions around this and may be too easily exploitable.For example, does this gun automatically shoot all other pilots? If so, the miner would quickly incurr negative sec status. If not, pirates can still take out the ...
[ 2009.08.02 17:16:34 ] Dierdra Vaal > relatively weak mining ships and get out before a sentry gun can do any real damage (afterall, pirates tank gateguns as well)
[ 2009.08.02 17:17:11 ] Dierdra Vaal > I also do not entirely like the way to circumvents player based assistance
[ 2009.08.02 17:17:41 ] Dierdra Vaal > so while low sec (mining) needs help, I am not convinced this gun is the right thing.
[ 2009.08.02 17:17:42 ] Dierdra Vaal > end
[ 2009.08.02 17:18:00 ] Erik Finnegan > So, in all, the low-sec is better discussed on a more general level later, as I interprete your comments.
[ 2009.08.02 17:18:23 ] Zastrow J > when i first read mining laser i thought to myself miners that could shoot other ships like lasers and honestly i think that's a better idea than this turret thing
[ 2009.08.02 17:18:33 ] Zastrow J > and i'd fly battle barges into combat
[ 2009.08.02 17:18:38 ] Dierdra Vaal > lol
[ 2009.08.02 17:18:39 ] Erik Finnegan > Some one did
[ 2009.08.02 17:18:49 ] Erik Finnegan > isn't there videos of a Hulk hunting pirates on youtube ?
[ 2009.08.02 17:18:50 ] Dierdra Vaal > !
[ 2009.08.02 17:18:58 ] Erik Finnegan > DV
[ 2009.08.02 17:19:48 ] Dierdra Vaal > while this issue may not succeed, perhaps a special crystal that can turn a mining laser into a pew pew laser could somewhat alleviate the 'mining ships are defenseless' problem.
[ 2009.08.02 17:19:58 ] Dierdra Vaal > it would however require a new assembly hall topic. just an idea. end
[ 2009.08.02 17:20:29 ] Erik Finnegan > Ok, we should just keep discussing options, then. :)
[ 2009.08.02 17:20:43 ] Vuk Lau > or proceed to voting?
[ 2009.08.02 17:20:45 ] Erik Finnegan > This idea was to give the  low-end miners more defense, who cannot "afford" an escort fleet
[ 2009.08.02 17:20:52 ] Erik Finnegan > yes, vote here :
[ 2009.08.02 17:20:55 ] Vuk Lau > no
[ 2009.08.02 17:20:56 ] Omber Zombie > no
[ 2009.08.02 17:20:58 ] Zastrow J > no, mobile turrets are awful
[ 2009.08.02 17:20:58 ] Larkonis Trassler > no
[ 2009.08.02 17:21:01 ] Meissa Anunthiel > no
[ 2009.08.02 17:21:11 ] mazzilliu > voting no what an awful idea
[ 2009.08.02 17:21:15 ] Avalloc > sorry, but no
[ 2009.08.02 17:21:19 ] Dierdra Vaal > no, sorry
[ 2009.08.02 17:21:36 ] Erik Finnegan > Yes ( you didn't convince that it cannot be usefully employed, ;)
[ 2009.08.02 17:21:50 ] Dierdra Vaal > motion fails 1/8
[ 2009.08.02 17:21:59 ] Dierdra Vaal > 10: Retweak Minmatar Ewar Ship Web Abilities (Lark)
[ 2009.08.02 17:22:10 ] Dierdra Vaal > http://wiki.eveonline.com/w/index.php?title=Retweak_Minmatar_Ewar_Ship_Web_Abilities&oldid=63053
[ 2009.08.02 17:22:18 ] Larkonis Trassler > sniped me :(
[ 2009.08.02 17:22:19 ] Larkonis Trassler > Ok
[ 2009.08.02 17:22:39 ] Dierdra Vaal > page 1 snipa
[ 2009.08.02 17:22:42 ] Larkonis Trassler > basically since the 'nano nerf' Minmatar Ewar ships have been a bit of a shadow of their former selves
[ 2009.08.02 17:22:59 ] Meissa Anunthiel > !
[ 2009.08.02 17:23:03 ] Larkonis Trassler > with the reduction in web strength it is much harder for them to dictate range
[ 2009.08.02 17:23:09 ] Dierdra Vaal > !
[ 2009.08.02 17:23:20 ] Larkonis Trassler > Looking at the ships and bonii
[ 2009.08.02 17:23:38 ] Zastrow J > !
[ 2009.08.02 17:23:46 ] Larkonis Trassler > I'm proposing the Huginn gets a dual bonus to it's primary ewar (llike the curse does)
[ 2009.08.02 17:23:55 ] Larkonis Trassler > and the hyena drops it's sig radius bonus
[ 2009.08.02 17:24:04 ] Larkonis Trassler > the huginn will lose it's launcher ROF bonus
[ 2009.08.02 17:24:13 ] Larkonis Trassler > the rapier remains unchanged
[ 2009.08.02 17:24:40 ] Larkonis Trassler > even at max skill level webs will only have 75% strength, but might make people more inclined to fly huginns
[ 2009.08.02 17:24:45 ] Larkonis Trassler > Meissa
[ 2009.08.02 17:25:03 ] Meissa Anunthiel > I agree they're frankly much less useful, but I'm not sure making races more alike is the solution. Huggin getting web primary is not too bad, but the hyena should stay TP... [/end]
[ 2009.08.02 17:25:44 ] Dierdra Vaal > the original webs (and minni recons) were too powerful, a specific boost just to the minmatar recons is fair - as long as it doesnt get to the same level as it used to be before the patch....
[ 2009.08.02 17:26:20 ] Dierdra Vaal > as meissa said though, the hyena (as well as the recons) should retain their TP bonus, since all ewar ships retain the type of ewar of their T1 base ship.
[ 2009.08.02 17:26:26 ] Dierdra Vaal > end
[ 2009.08.02 17:26:42 ] Larkonis Trassler > Oh no, 75% is still less than half as effective as pre nerf webs
[ 2009.08.02 17:27:03 ] Meissa Anunthiel > it's 2.5 times less effective ;-)
[ 2009.08.02 17:27:05 ] Larkonis Trassler > WRT the hyena i was referring to the sig radius reduction it gets per level of EAS skill
[ 2009.08.02 17:27:25 ] Larkonis Trassler > I still use target painters on occassion
[ 2009.08.02 17:27:34 ] Larkonis Trassler > Zastrow
[ 2009.08.02 17:27:39 ] Dierdra Vaal > ok, can you clarify that in the wiki? I thought it was about the TP bonus
[ 2009.08.02 17:27:48 ] Larkonis Trassler > sure i'll tidy it up
[ 2009.08.02 17:27:50 ] Zastrow J > every recon has been nerfed and none of them are what they used to be.  i dont think minmatar needs to be singled out as the only recon thats suffered
[ 2009.08.02 17:27:58 ] Dierdra Vaal > !
[ 2009.08.02 17:27:59 ] Zastrow J > end
[ 2009.08.02 17:28:06 ] Larkonis Trassler > I'll counter that
[ 2009.08.02 17:28:30 ] Larkonis Trassler > Gallente got a bit of a tweak with the changes to scrams
[ 2009.08.02 17:28:37 ] Larkonis Trassler > Curse is still very useful
[ 2009.08.02 17:28:50 ] Dierdra Vaal > scratch my !
[ 2009.08.02 17:28:55 ] Larkonis Trassler > Falcon is still a godsend to a small gang
[ 2009.08.02 17:29:25 ] Larkonis Trassler > Minmatar recons at the moment are probably my least preferred for including in a roving gang
[ 2009.08.02 17:29:42 ] Erik Finnegan > !
[ 2009.08.02 17:29:47 ] Larkonis Trassler > erik
[ 2009.08.02 17:30:09 ] Larkonis Trassler > I meant in general, not my preferences btw
[ 2009.08.02 17:30:38 ] Erik Finnegan > Do all factions need to have a good selection of each type of .... ship ? Or should the game "require" mixed race fleets ?
[ 2009.08.02 17:31:03 ] Erik Finnegan > FIN
[ 2009.08.02 17:31:44 ] Dierdra Vaal > !
[ 2009.08.02 17:32:09 ] Larkonis Trassler > I think a fleet taking elements of every race will consistently outperform a single racial fleet, but that's neither here nor there
[ 2009.08.02 17:32:11 ] Larkonis Trassler > dierdra
[ 2009.08.02 17:32:43 ] Dierdra Vaal > I dont quite understand what you mean erik? this issue isnt about giving the minnie ships more abilities - just fixing/improving their current abilities. end
[ 2009.08.02 17:33:03 ] Larkonis Trassler > any other questions?
[ 2009.08.02 17:33:44 ] Larkonis Trassler > lets voat
[ 2009.08.02 17:33:51 ] Vuk Lau > no
[ 2009.08.02 17:33:54 ] Larkonis Trassler > yes
[ 2009.08.02 17:33:56 ] Dierdra Vaal > yes
[ 2009.08.02 17:34:01 ] Omber Zombie > yes
[ 2009.08.02 17:34:15 ] Meissa Anunthiel > /emote votes yes... no... wait, no! errr... that's it, yes... /me votes yes
[ 2009.08.02 17:34:16 ] mazzilliu > voting yes
[ 2009.08.02 17:34:28 ] Avalloc > no
[ 2009.08.02 17:34:35 ] Vuk Lau > my man
[ 2009.08.02 17:34:58 ] Erik Finnegan > yes
[ 2009.08.02 17:35:38 ] Larkonis Trassler > zastrow?
[ 2009.08.02 17:35:39 ] Dierdra Vaal > Zastrow?
[ 2009.08.02 17:36:05 ] Dierdra Vaal > motion passed 6/2 (zastrow didnt vote)
[ 2009.08.02 17:36:12 ] Dierdra Vaal > 11: sound engine woes (DV)
[ 2009.08.02 17:36:16 ] Dierdra Vaal > http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Sound_engine_woes
[ 2009.08.02 17:36:52 ] Meissa Anunthiel > (eve has sound?)
[ 2009.08.02 17:36:56 ] Dierdra Vaal > Long story short: sound in eve is terrible. It doesnt add a whole lot to the game, certain sound effects (shield boosters for example) are overpoweringly loud, and the sound pops and stutters on certain occasions
[ 2009.08.02 17:37:23 ] Dierdra Vaal > I think meissa says it best - the 'eve has sound?' joke shows exactly in what a sad state sound in eve is.
[ 2009.08.02 17:38:00 ] Avalloc > !
[ 2009.08.02 17:38:00 ] Dierdra Vaal > this issue requests that more development effort is put into fixing the many sound problems (CCP did recently hire a sound engineer so who knows :D) as well as..
[ 2009.08.02 17:38:22 ] Dierdra Vaal > asking ccp to consider hiring a sound designer to make sound a more valuable/useful part of the game.
[ 2009.08.02 17:38:24 ] Dierdra Vaal > avalloc?
[ 2009.08.02 17:38:44 ] Zastrow J > sorry im back did i miss anything.
[ 2009.08.02 17:38:52 ] Dierdra Vaal > you missed a vote but it passed :)
[ 2009.08.02 17:38:52 ] Zastrow J > oh a vote.  ill vote no on the last one
[ 2009.08.02 17:38:54 ] Avalloc > I wouldn't mind seeing sound options seperated further. As in get warping an gate avtivating sounds, but rest off. Or whatever. (end)
[ 2009.08.02 17:38:58 ] Zastrow J > just for the record
[ 2009.08.02 17:39:23 ] Omber Zombie > !
[ 2009.08.02 17:39:33 ] Dierdra Vaal > oz
[ 2009.08.02 17:40:01 ] Omber Zombie > i think this is already being worked on as it has changed since the intitial rework with apocrypha, but no hurt in asking them wtf is going on (end)
[ 2009.08.02 17:40:25 ] Erik Finnegan > !
[ 2009.08.02 17:40:41 ] Dierdra Vaal > a request for more info ( a devblog was promised but not delivered) is included in the issue, in the case that ccp is already working on it :)
[ 2009.08.02 17:40:42 ] Dierdra Vaal > erik?
[ 2009.08.02 17:40:47 ] Erik Finnegan > I like the stance in the issue on putting more importance to sound.
[ 2009.08.02 17:41:08 ] Erik Finnegan > It seems to me a bit as if the low quality has - in a vicious circle - led to a neglection.
[ 2009.08.02 17:41:14 ] Dierdra Vaal > yes I, and many pilots, feel that sound has been thoroughly underused in the game for years.
[ 2009.08.02 17:41:20 ] Erik Finnegan > ( while I am aware of accessibility issues that might pose )
[ 2009.08.02 17:41:49 ] Erik Finnegan > didn't any one of us already comment in that sense : accessibility ?
[ 2009.08.02 17:42:00 ] Erik Finnegan > But generally, sound adds immersion
[ 2009.08.02 17:42:06 ] Erik Finnegan > I want more of it
[ 2009.08.02 17:42:07 ] Erik Finnegan > FIN
[ 2009.08.02 17:42:11 ] Dierdra Vaal > anyone else?
[ 2009.08.02 17:42:27 ] Dierdra Vaal > ok Voting on the sound issue!
[ 2009.08.02 17:42:30 ] Erik Finnegan > yes
[ 2009.08.02 17:42:32 ] Dierdra Vaal > yes
[ 2009.08.02 17:42:35 ] Larkonis Trassler > yes
[ 2009.08.02 17:42:36 ] Omber Zombie > yes
[ 2009.08.02 17:42:39 ] mazzilliu > yes
[ 2009.08.02 17:42:40 ] Meissa Anunthiel > yes
[ 2009.08.02 17:42:41 ] Zastrow J > sure
[ 2009.08.02 17:42:53 ] Avalloc > yes, even if I'm partially deaf
[ 2009.08.02 17:43:25 ] Dierdra Vaal > (note: making a game depend on a certain sound for critical feedback is just bad game design, so I'm sure ccp wouldnt go that far)
[ 2009.08.02 17:43:39 ] Dierdra Vaal > vuk?
[ 2009.08.02 17:43:41 ] Vuk Lau > yes
[ 2009.08.02 17:43:47 ] Dierdra Vaal > motion passed 9/0
[ 2009.08.02 17:43:55 ] Dierdra Vaal > ok guys we're halfway!
[ 2009.08.02 17:43:56 ] Dierdra Vaal > 12: AFK/Busy/Available Indicator (Avalloc)
[ 2009.08.02 17:44:00 ] Dierdra Vaal > http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/AFK/Busy/Available_Indicator
[ 2009.08.02 17:44:31 ] Avalloc > There is no direct way to inform other players in EVE Online that you may be AFK or busy for the moment. Unless you consider the option of denying all conversation requests but that doesn't give the other player any useful information concerning your st
[ 2009.08.02 17:44:41 ] Avalloc > status.This is compounded by the having the person in your addressbook which means the conversation is accepted automatically whether you'd like it to or not. And if you're AFK they'll never know it and it could lead to a "Diplomatic Incident" (...
[ 2009.08.02 17:45:07 ] Avalloc > Add the ability for a player to voluntarily toggle themselves AFK/Busy/Available. This could then be conveyed by way of an icon on your portrait within all Channels (including Local.)
[ 2009.08.02 17:45:19 ] Avalloc > And if a person convos you it'll tell them if you're AFK or Busy especially if the conversation auto-accepts. A solution might be to not auto-accept but instead pop-up the acceptance interface.
[ 2009.08.02 17:45:33 ] Avalloc > Should you be Available then the system will act as it does now.
[ 2009.08.02 17:45:52 ] Avalloc > Another solution might be to have it Standings dependent. Only those who are set "Blue", in Corporation, or same Alliance would see the status icon in Local or People & Places
[ 2009.08.02 17:45:55 ] Meissa Anunthiel > !
[ 2009.08.02 17:46:08 ] Avalloc > go go meissa!
[ 2009.08.02 17:46:14 ] Erik Finnegan > !
[ 2009.08.02 17:46:28 ] Meissa Anunthiel > I agree with the thing as long as it's totally voluntary. Any "automatic" switching could be used as free intel that someone is or isn't afk etc.
[ 2009.08.02 17:46:46 ] Meissa Anunthiel > so no automatic, only manual, and that's fine with me [/end]
[ 2009.08.02 17:46:54 ] Avalloc > Correct, I'm saying it should be voluntary.
[ 2009.08.02 17:47:02 ] Avalloc > erik?
[ 2009.08.02 17:47:11 ] Meissa Anunthiel > (you did, I'm pointing out it matters :p)
[ 2009.08.02 17:47:29 ] Dierdra Vaal > !
[ 2009.08.02 17:47:31 ] Erik Finnegan > I like this. And I was asked to bring it up in CSM. I think, in the current proposal now, the visibility issues are not well enough thought threw.
[ 2009.08.02 17:48:05 ] Erik Finnegan > Meissa stated similar, I see......I was pretyping.....
[ 2009.08.02 17:48:06 ] Erik Finnegan > FIN
[ 2009.08.02 17:48:24 ] Avalloc > how isn't it thought through?
[ 2009.08.02 17:49:02 ] Erik Finnegan > I might have missed somethin in the doc....but it said "visible in local".....
[ 2009.08.02 17:49:22 ] Erik Finnegan > which seemed a bit too broad.
[ 2009.08.02 17:49:39 ] Erik Finnegan > But I know, it contains also "only to blue" and such.
[ 2009.08.02 17:50:01 ] Erik Finnegan > FIN
[ 2009.08.02 17:50:27 ] Avalloc > well, the info will get out if you have spies
[ 2009.08.02 17:50:34 ] Avalloc > and it is set to blue
[ 2009.08.02 17:50:41 ] Avalloc > dv?
[ 2009.08.02 17:51:02 ] Dierdra Vaal > I approve of this idea, but I faintly seem to think it was brought up already? I cant seem to find any evidence of that though o_O
[ 2009.08.02 17:51:07 ] Dierdra Vaal > end
[ 2009.08.02 17:51:35 ] Avalloc > I checked, and didn't see anything.
[ 2009.08.02 17:51:49 ] Avalloc > anyone else?
[ 2009.08.02 17:52:03 ] Avalloc > vote!
[ 2009.08.02 17:52:07 ] Dierdra Vaal > yes!
[ 2009.08.02 17:52:08 ] Avalloc > <- yes
[ 2009.08.02 17:52:12 ] Larkonis Trassler > yes
[ 2009.08.02 17:52:17 ] mazzilliu > yes
[ 2009.08.02 17:52:19 ] Meissa Anunthiel > yes
[ 2009.08.02 17:52:22 ] Omber Zombie > yes
[ 2009.08.02 17:52:43 ] Vuk Lau > yes
[ 2009.08.02 17:52:48 ] Zastrow J > yes
[ 2009.08.02 17:52:53 ] Erik Finnegan > yes
[ 2009.08.02 17:53:50 ] Dierdra Vaal > motion passed 9/0
[ 2009.08.02 17:54:02 ] Dierdra Vaal > 13: Dynamic Missions (Erik)
[ 2009.08.02 17:54:06 ] Dierdra Vaal > http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Dynamic_Missions
[ 2009.08.02 17:54:20 ] Erik Finnegan > The suggestion targets the mission runner crowd who take pleasure in doing so. Generally, adding more parameters of uncertainty....wait, adding ANY parameters of uncertainty to the missions would give them long-term fun. After all, long term fun of the
[ 2009.08.02 17:54:24 ] Erik Finnegan > game might not only come by moving to PVP and lower-sec over time.In a discussion it was brought up that the dynamic in mission setup could stem from the state of events in FW.
[ 2009.08.02 17:54:29 ] Erik Finnegan > It was objected that dynamic missions would negatively impact their use for the grinders who only need missions to rebump their wallet and dive back to what they do else.
[ 2009.08.02 17:54:34 ] Erik Finnegan > This is a request for discussion with CCP about what is possible. "Epic missions is the answer" would be a bit too weak for my taste.Yours ?
[ 2009.08.02 17:55:42 ] Avalloc > !
[ 2009.08.02 17:55:49 ] Erik Finnegan > Avalloc, please
[ 2009.08.02 17:56:04 ] Dierdra Vaal > !
[ 2009.08.02 17:56:06 ] Vuk Lau > !
[ 2009.08.02 17:56:30 ] Avalloc > I wouldn't mind having a sitdown with ccp concerning topic of missions.. be it balancing the income they generate or expanding them towards a dynamic nature.
[ 2009.08.02 17:56:37 ] Avalloc > (end)
[ 2009.08.02 17:56:50 ] Erik Finnegan > DV go
[ 2009.08.02 17:57:16 ] Dierdra Vaal > I personally do understand this issue, and I think its a fair request so I will support it. ...
[ 2009.08.02 17:57:37 ] Erik Finnegan > :) Vuk ?
[ 2009.08.02 17:57:41 ] Vuk Lau > hehe
[ 2009.08.02 17:57:45 ] Dierdra Vaal > not dont yet!
[ 2009.08.02 17:57:46 ] Dierdra Vaal > done
[ 2009.08.02 17:58:02 ] Erik Finnegan > sorry [...]
[ 2009.08.02 17:58:09 ] Dierdra Vaal > however, since I feel missions are mainly a way to make isk for the 'real' part of eve (which involves player interaction, I will not be giving this a high priority come prioritization. end
[ 2009.08.02 17:58:31 ] Erik Finnegan > Fair enough. Vuk  now :)
[ 2009.08.02 17:59:12 ] Vuk Lau > well using promo one liners from some midget fantasy MMOs is not a way to compare PVE content of eve
[ 2009.08.02 17:59:21 ] Vuk Lau > but I wholeheartleady support this issue
[ 2009.08.02 17:59:28 ] Vuk Lau > as frequent mission runner :D
[ 2009.08.02 17:59:38 ] Vuk Lau > I would like dynamic content
[ 2009.08.02 17:59:50 ] Vuk Lau > i support this
[ 2009.08.02 17:59:51 ] Vuk Lau > end
[ 2009.08.02 18:00:34 ] Erik Finnegan > Sounds good. Any one else ? Or do you ALL agree ?!
[ 2009.08.02 18:01:14 ] Erik Finnegan > OZ ? You had objections......
[ 2009.08.02 18:01:23 ] Omber Zombie > none worth stating
[ 2009.08.02 18:01:26 ] Erik Finnegan > kk
[ 2009.08.02 18:01:31 ] Erik Finnegan > Votes then.................
[ 2009.08.02 18:01:34 ] Zastrow J > making missions fun is fine i dont have a problem, just nerf highsec income generation to make me happy
[ 2009.08.02 18:01:34 ] Vuk Lau > yes
[ 2009.08.02 18:01:35 ] Larkonis Trassler > yes
[ 2009.08.02 18:01:38 ] Omber Zombie > yes
[ 2009.08.02 18:01:40 ] Erik Finnegan > yes
[ 2009.08.02 18:01:41 ] Dierdra Vaal > yes
[ 2009.08.02 18:01:42 ] Zastrow J > yea
[ 2009.08.02 18:01:44 ] mazzilliu > yes
[ 2009.08.02 18:01:45 ] Meissa Anunthiel > yes
[ 2009.08.02 18:01:49 ] Avalloc > yes
[ 2009.08.02 18:02:03 ] Dierdra Vaal > motion passed, 9/0, a victory for the carebears in all of us
[ 2009.08.02 18:02:16 ] Dierdra Vaal > 14: Faction Vessels (Lark)
[ 2009.08.02 18:02:26 ] Larkonis Trassler > http://wiki.eveonline.com/w/index.php?title=Faction_Vessels&oldid=63060
[ 2009.08.02 18:02:29 ] Larkonis Trassler > sniped
[ 2009.08.02 18:02:30 ] Larkonis Trassler > Ok
[ 2009.08.02 18:02:59 ] Meissa Anunthiel > !
[ 2009.08.02 18:03:06 ] Erik Finnegan > !
[ 2009.08.02 18:03:40 ] Larkonis Trassler > Basically with the Empyrean Age expansion and the upgrades that the Navy Cruisers recieved a lot of the pirate faction vessels, notably in the frigate and cruiser class are no longer used or useful
[ 2009.08.02 18:03:48 ] Larkonis Trassler > Sanshas did get an overhaul
[ 2009.08.02 18:04:12 ] Larkonis Trassler > but I'd like CCP to look at the other Pirate Faction vessels, notably in the frigate and cruiser sized department
[ 2009.08.02 18:04:17 ] Larkonis Trassler > Meissa
[ 2009.08.02 18:04:28 ] Meissa Anunthiel > Angel ships suck, I approve of your issue. However with empire faction ships becoming very cheap through FW, we don't want them overpowered so stuff we have to work hard for (pirate ships) are of value...
[ 2009.08.02 18:04:32 ] Meissa Anunthiel > [/end]
[ 2009.08.02 18:04:37 ] Vuk Lau > !
[ 2009.08.02 18:04:41 ] Dierdra Vaal > !
[ 2009.08.02 18:04:43 ] Larkonis Trassler > erik
[ 2009.08.02 18:04:45 ] Erik Finnegan > While I like the general RP side of this, say again: is it done with "balancing" ? You do not want to have more Fac ships. Right ?
[ 2009.08.02 18:04:47 ] Erik Finnegan > FIN
[ 2009.08.02 18:04:53 ] Larkonis Trassler > No
[ 2009.08.02 18:04:55 ] Erik Finnegan > ok
[ 2009.08.02 18:05:11 ] Dierdra Vaal > scratch my !
[ 2009.08.02 18:05:25 ] Larkonis Trassler > this is simply to upgrade the current line of pirate faction ships which at the moment have retarded slot layouts and crappy fitting
[ 2009.08.02 18:05:32 ] Larkonis Trassler > Vuk
[ 2009.08.02 18:05:38 ] Vuk Lau > gurista ships are utter crap f.e.
[ 2009.08.02 18:05:53 ] Vuk Lau > I support this
[ 2009.08.02 18:05:54 ] Vuk Lau > end
[ 2009.08.02 18:06:08 ] Larkonis Trassler > Keep in mind this isn't buffing them for the sake of it
[ 2009.08.02 18:06:26 ] Larkonis Trassler > Navy cruisers got some love and pirate vessels did not (apart from sanshas)
[ 2009.08.02 18:06:31 ] Larkonis Trassler > anyway
[ 2009.08.02 18:06:35 ] Larkonis Trassler > any other questions?
[ 2009.08.02 18:06:49 ] Larkonis Trassler > lets vote
[ 2009.08.02 18:06:53 ] Meissa Anunthiel > yes
[ 2009.08.02 18:06:56 ] Larkonis Trassler > yes
[ 2009.08.02 18:06:59 ] Vuk Lau > yes
[ 2009.08.02 18:07:01 ] Erik Finnegan > yes
[ 2009.08.02 18:07:08 ] Avalloc > yes
[ 2009.08.02 18:07:10 ] Dierdra Vaal > yes
[ 2009.08.02 18:07:46 ] Omber Zombie > yes
[ 2009.08.02 18:08:15 ] Meissa Anunthiel > mazz? Zastrow?
[ 2009.08.02 18:08:55 ] Meissa Anunthiel > issue: implement a buzzer so you can produce a sound for people in the channel to hear. Let's vote? :p
[ 2009.08.02 18:08:57 ] Dierdra Vaal > motion passed 7/0
[ 2009.08.02 18:08:57 ] Zastrow J > yes
[ 2009.08.02 18:09:11 ] Erik Finnegan > Like MSN messenger has that ring
[ 2009.08.02 18:09:13 ] Erik Finnegan > would be cool
[ 2009.08.02 18:09:20 ] Dierdra Vaal > 8/0.. Zastrow you've been slow all meeting. Please try to pay attention
[ 2009.08.02 18:09:32 ] Dierdra Vaal > dock up if needed :P
[ 2009.08.02 18:09:35 ] Issler Dainze > who isn't voting?
[ 2009.08.02 18:09:41 ] Meissa Anunthiel > mazz
[ 2009.08.02 18:09:44 ] Meissa Anunthiel > this once
[ 2009.08.02 18:09:49 ] Dierdra Vaal > issler, vote for mazz
[ 2009.08.02 18:09:54 ] Issler Dainze > yes
[ 2009.08.02 18:09:55 ] Dierdra Vaal > if she wants to vote she'll have to pay attention
[ 2009.08.02 18:09:58 ] Dierdra Vaal > 9/0
[ 2009.08.02 18:10:00 ] Dierdra Vaal > 15: Hangar organizing improvements (DV)
[ 2009.08.02 18:10:02 ] Zastrow J > im docked in an atlas station.  local here is distracting
[ 2009.08.02 18:10:10 ] Dierdra Vaal > http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Personal_hangar_improvements
[ 2009.08.02 18:10:30 ] Dierdra Vaal > Essentially, a better way to organise all the crap in a personal hangar is requested
[ 2009.08.02 18:10:47 ] Dierdra Vaal > a suggestion is hangar divisions, another suggestion is to make containers transparent to the assets window
[ 2009.08.02 18:11:03 ] Dierdra Vaal > or filtering options for your hangar contents, similar to the overview
[ 2009.08.02 18:11:07 ] Dierdra Vaal > questions/comments?
[ 2009.08.02 18:11:10 ] Erik Finnegan > !
[ 2009.08.02 18:11:17 ] Meissa Anunthiel > !
[ 2009.08.02 18:11:17 ] mazzilliu > hey, i gotta go out of the house
[ 2009.08.02 18:11:21 ] Zastrow J > !
[ 2009.08.02 18:11:32 ] Erik Finnegan > I like it. I really don't know which DB issue is making cans opaque...... /me votes yes
[ 2009.08.02 18:11:42 ] Dierdra Vaal > ok mazz, issler can take over for you :)
[ 2009.08.02 18:11:44 ] mazzilliu > if you guys dont mind, i want to vote yes on this issue, and yes on the forum profanity filter issue, and dont care about anything else you can let a sub do it or whatever
[ 2009.08.02 18:11:44 ] Dierdra Vaal > Erik?
[ 2009.08.02 18:11:50 ] Dierdra Vaal > rgr
[ 2009.08.02 18:11:52 ] mazzilliu > cya guys later
[ 2009.08.02 18:12:06 ] Erik Finnegan > FI
[ 2009.08.02 18:12:08 ] Erik Finnegan > N
[ 2009.08.02 18:12:20 ] Dierdra Vaal > issler, you can vote for mazz on all items except this one and the profanity one, ok?
[ 2009.08.02 18:12:37 ] Dierdra Vaal > meissa
[ 2009.08.02 18:12:40 ] Issler Dainze > sure
[ 2009.08.02 18:12:51 ] Meissa Anunthiel > The reason assets are not searchable through the asset window is because the DB stores only the parent container. You can find everything in  office/stations with one query, traversing the parent tree doesn't work, ie, they won't do it.
[ 2009.08.02 18:13:20 ] Meissa Anunthiel > and hasn't the personal hangar division been voted on already?
[ 2009.08.02 18:13:23 ] Dierdra Vaal > Technical issues is something for them to figure out, and its not the only solution I'm offering.
[ 2009.08.02 18:13:33 ] Dierdra Vaal > they said reload all weapons with different ammo wasnt possible
[ 2009.08.02 18:13:39 ] Dierdra Vaal > but weapon grouping made it possible
[ 2009.08.02 18:13:43 ] Dierdra Vaal > so they can figure it out :)
[ 2009.08.02 18:13:51 ] Meissa Anunthiel > and what "other filtering options" would you want
[ 2009.08.02 18:13:54 ] Meissa Anunthiel > [/end]
[ 2009.08.02 18:14:00 ] Dierdra Vaal > and the issue you may be thinking of may be Personal Wallet Divisions?
[ 2009.08.02 18:14:08 ] Dierdra Vaal > for example "Show only ammo"
[ 2009.08.02 18:14:18 ] Dierdra Vaal > or Show only midslots of meta 3 or higher
[ 2009.08.02 18:14:32 ] Dierdra Vaal > just examples ofcourse
[ 2009.08.02 18:14:54 ] Dierdra Vaal > Zastrow
[ 2009.08.02 18:14:57 ] Zastrow J > this is the same problem i had with the corp hangar audit issue.  anything in a can you can't asset search and it's really annoying ok end i'm dne now
[ 2009.08.02 18:15:06 ] Dierdra Vaal > :)
[ 2009.08.02 18:15:08 ] Dierdra Vaal > anyone else?
[ 2009.08.02 18:15:22 ] Dierdra Vaal > lets vote then
[ 2009.08.02 18:15:26 ] Dierdra Vaal > mazz voted yes
[ 2009.08.02 18:15:27 ] Vuk Lau > yes
[ 2009.08.02 18:15:28 ] Dierdra Vaal > yes
[ 2009.08.02 18:15:29 ] Larkonis Trassler > yes
[ 2009.08.02 18:15:33 ] Meissa Anunthiel > yes
[ 2009.08.02 18:15:36 ] Avalloc > yes
[ 2009.08.02 18:15:47 ] Erik Finnegan > yes
[ 2009.08.02 18:15:58 ] Omber Zombie > yes
[ 2009.08.02 18:16:07 ] Zastrow J > yes
[ 2009.08.02 18:16:09 ] Dierdra Vaal > motion passed 9/0
[ 2009.08.02 18:16:15 ] Dierdra Vaal > 16: Toggle Logging On/Off for each Chat Channel  (Avalloc)
[ 2009.08.02 18:16:19 ] Dierdra Vaal > http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Toggle_Logging_On/Off_for_each_Chat_Channel
[ 2009.08.02 18:16:21 ] Avalloc > Right now the logging of chat channels is "all or nothing." You're either logging every single thing or you're logging nothing at all.
[ 2009.08.02 18:16:27 ] Avalloc > It isn't very flexible considering there are sometimes you want to have a channel while other times you'd rather not, especially Local when you're in Jita.
[ 2009.08.02 18:16:45 ] Avalloc > Solution: Add a toggle for each chat channel where you can enable or disable logging. It could be done the same way you turn channel blinking on and off.
[ 2009.08.02 18:16:50 ] Avalloc > questions?
[ 2009.08.02 18:17:00 ] Dierdra Vaal > !
[ 2009.08.02 18:17:08 ] Avalloc > go go dv
[ 2009.08.02 18:17:27 ] Dierdra Vaal > I've always wondered how much system resources would be used by the client for its massive logging. Its good if we could selectively log stuff. end
[ 2009.08.02 18:17:45 ] Avalloc > anyone else?
[ 2009.08.02 18:18:04 ] Avalloc > vote
[ 2009.08.02 18:18:06 ] Vuk Lau > yes
[ 2009.08.02 18:18:08 ] Avalloc > <- yes
[ 2009.08.02 18:18:10 ] Omber Zombie > yes
[ 2009.08.02 18:18:10 ] Zastrow J > yes
[ 2009.08.02 18:18:11 ] Erik Finnegan > yes
[ 2009.08.02 18:18:12 ] Issler Dainze > yes
[ 2009.08.02 18:18:12 ] Dierdra Vaal > yes
[ 2009.08.02 18:18:14 ] Larkonis Trassler > yes
[ 2009.08.02 18:18:18 ] Meissa Anunthiel > (practically none DV, writing at the end of a file takes basically no time. Just parsing the directory at launch takes time)
[ 2009.08.02 18:18:20 ] Meissa Anunthiel > /emote votes yes
[ 2009.08.02 18:18:22 ] Zastrow J > i wish all issues were that fast
[ 2009.08.02 18:19:10 ] Dierdra Vaal > motion passed 9/0
[ 2009.08.02 18:19:18 ] Dierdra Vaal > 17: Send hail message on convo invite (Erik)
[ 2009.08.02 18:19:22 ] Dierdra Vaal > http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Send_Hail_Message_On_Convo_Invite
[ 2009.08.02 18:19:57 ] Erik Finnegan > Ok, this is kind of building on Avallocs "show pilot info" request last time. Because I would like to give the invitee more information on why he's being invited
[ 2009.08.02 18:20:17 ] Erik Finnegan > the invitor should be able to add a sentence, which is shown in convo invite and later as MOTD of the chat channel.
[ 2009.08.02 18:20:44 ] Erik Finnegan > That could allow a medium setting between "accept all" and "accept no" convos.
[ 2009.08.02 18:20:47 ] Vuk Lau > !
[ 2009.08.02 18:21:01 ] Erik Finnegan > Of, course, "block" would still block all convos
[ 2009.08.02 18:21:13 ] Erik Finnegan > to block spam and offensive behaviour.
[ 2009.08.02 18:21:26 ] Erik Finnegan > Vuk ?
[ 2009.08.02 18:22:02 ] Vuk Lau > well
[ 2009.08.02 18:22:07 ] Vuk Lau > nice idea
[ 2009.08.02 18:22:23 ] Vuk Lau > but it would interupt you during pvp in the same or similar way as it does now
[ 2009.08.02 18:22:27 ] Vuk Lau > right?
[ 2009.08.02 18:22:52 ] Meissa Anunthiel > !
[ 2009.08.02 18:22:59 ] Erik Finnegan > It is possible to completely block convos, is it not ?
[ 2009.08.02 18:23:05 ] Vuk Lau > it is
[ 2009.08.02 18:23:12 ] Vuk Lau > or it should be
[ 2009.08.02 18:23:20 ] Vuk Lau > i would like to have a popup
[ 2009.08.02 18:23:26 ] Vuk Lau > which will not interupt you
[ 2009.08.02 18:23:35 ] Vuk Lau > something like your adressbook buddy comes online
[ 2009.08.02 18:23:42 ] Meissa Anunthiel > (non-modal notification)
[ 2009.08.02 18:23:45 ] Vuk Lau > which u can answer when u find time
[ 2009.08.02 18:23:46 ] Erik Finnegan > some blinking on the side. Like writing on a chat channel
[ 2009.08.02 18:23:50 ] Vuk Lau > yes
[ 2009.08.02 18:23:52 ] Erik Finnegan > that is not focussed
[ 2009.08.02 18:23:55 ] Vuk Lau > i will add only that
[ 2009.08.02 18:23:58 ] Vuk Lau > to the issue
[ 2009.08.02 18:24:01 ] Vuk Lau > otherwise its cool
[ 2009.08.02 18:24:03 ] Vuk Lau > end
[ 2009.08.02 18:24:16 ] Erik Finnegan > Meissa please
[ 2009.08.02 18:24:44 ] Meissa Anunthiel > I don't care so much about this issue, but if you want my vote make notification non-modal (ie, not something I have to click on to get rid off)
[ 2009.08.02 18:25:13 ] Meissa Anunthiel > (endà
[ 2009.08.02 18:25:40 ] Erik Finnegan > Hmm, this is definitely needed. Can't we ahve a convo issue in every CSM meeting now on ?
[ 2009.08.02 18:25:55 ] Erik Finnegan > ;)
[ 2009.08.02 18:25:59 ] Dierdra Vaal > :P
[ 2009.08.02 18:26:25 ] Erik Finnegan > Ok, I guess the "non-modality" will do fine as an addition here.
[ 2009.08.02 18:26:39 ] Erik Finnegan > Any other comments.....ELSE than on eve-csm ? :o)
[ 2009.08.02 18:27:14 ] Erik Finnegan > Seems like everyone wants to vote yes...................
[ 2009.08.02 18:27:23 ] Dierdra Vaal > yes!
[ 2009.08.02 18:27:27 ] Issler Dainze > yes
[ 2009.08.02 18:27:28 ] Vuk Lau > yes
[ 2009.08.02 18:27:30 ] Larkonis Trassler > yes
[ 2009.08.02 18:27:31 ] Erik Finnegan > yes
[ 2009.08.02 18:27:41 ] Omber Zombie > no (why not :p)
[ 2009.08.02 18:27:44 ] Avalloc > yes
[ 2009.08.02 18:27:54 ] Meissa Anunthiel > is the non-modality included?
[ 2009.08.02 18:28:00 ] Erik Finnegan > I will add that, yes
[ 2009.08.02 18:28:05 ] Meissa Anunthiel > then yes
[ 2009.08.02 18:28:11 ] Zastrow J > yes
[ 2009.08.02 18:28:22 ] Dierdra Vaal > motion passed 8/1
[ 2009.08.02 18:28:36 ] Dierdra Vaal > 18: Travel through a Concord system no longer gives GCC (Lark)
[ 2009.08.02 18:28:40 ] Dierdra Vaal > http://wiki.eveonline.com/w/index.php?title=Travelling_through_Concord_Space_no_longer_randomly_gives_GCC&oldid=63063
[ 2009.08.02 18:28:47 ] Larkonis Trassler > Ok
[ 2009.08.02 18:29:47 ] Larkonis Trassler > As it stands if you travel through Concord sov space, not neccesarily as an outlaw but if your security status is low enough to incur a faction police spawn in a system of that security rating there is a chance you will get a GCC
[ 2009.08.02 18:30:01 ] Larkonis Trassler > (roughly 30-50% in my experience)
[ 2009.08.02 18:30:20 ] Dierdra Vaal > !
[ 2009.08.02 18:30:30 ] Larkonis Trassler > This leaves the player unable to leave system, or dock for 15 minutes and usually results in his death
[ 2009.08.02 18:30:58 ] Larkonis Trassler > It also comes with no prior warning either before entering the system or after you have entered it
[ 2009.08.02 18:31:13 ] Larkonis Trassler > Proposal is change this behaviour
[ 2009.08.02 18:31:15 ] Larkonis Trassler > Dierdra
[ 2009.08.02 18:31:18 ] Meissa Anunthiel > !
[ 2009.08.02 18:31:25 ] Dierdra Vaal > I understand this is a hassle for outlaws but imo thats part of the outlaw life. If you're a wanted man, you cant expect to take a little stroll through a police station and walk out again. Since this only happens in concord systems...
[ 2009.08.02 18:31:36 ] Dierdra Vaal > I think it is fine, outlaws should just avoid concord space.
[ 2009.08.02 18:31:39 ] Dierdra Vaal > end
[ 2009.08.02 18:31:40 ] Erik Finnegan > !
[ 2009.08.02 18:31:52 ] Larkonis Trassler > It's not just a hassle for outlaws though
[ 2009.08.02 18:32:12 ] Larkonis Trassler > even someone who is a little bit naughty (say -2.01 in a 1.0 system) can get pinged by it
[ 2009.08.02 18:32:39 ] Dierdra Vaal > even so
[ 2009.08.02 18:32:55 ] Larkonis Trassler > Also the GCC and concord spawning is there essentially to punish players for hostile actions against other law abiding players
[ 2009.08.02 18:33:08 ] Larkonis Trassler > by all means make the faction police in concord sov more aggressive
[ 2009.08.02 18:33:53 ] Larkonis Trassler > Meissa
[ 2009.08.02 18:33:55 ] Meissa Anunthiel > I like outlaws out of highsec. -2.01 should get concordokken'ed in 1.0 no matter who has sov imho.. allow pod travel and that's it. Step in a ship anywhere in space and die. [/end]
[ 2009.08.02 18:33:57 ] Dierdra Vaal > !
[ 2009.08.02 18:34:19 ] Larkonis Trassler > in response to that
[ 2009.08.02 18:35:21 ] Larkonis Trassler > some of us operate in isolated lowsec pockets, outside of employing a carrier pilot or having multiple bases it would be impossible to move around to other pastures
[ 2009.08.02 18:35:26 ] Larkonis Trassler > erik
[ 2009.08.02 18:35:36 ] Erik Finnegan > I tend to agree with one of the comments in the thread stating that travelling through space should make a difference by occupation or sovereignty. Ok, making that difference with CONCORD might be unfortunate because NPC reaction is quite heavy.
[ 2009.08.02 18:35:47 ] Erik Finnegan > But I don't want this issue to block any further development of increased importance of the "ownership" of the system to the space population.
[ 2009.08.02 18:35:52 ] Erik Finnegan > And, as Dierdra said, the effect is limited to CONCORD space. That can be avoided, if you are an enemy of CONCORD.
[ 2009.08.02 18:36:18 ] Erik Finnegan > I would keep it as is.
[ 2009.08.02 18:36:19 ] Erik Finnegan > FIN
[ 2009.08.02 18:36:47 ] Larkonis Trassler > Dierdra again
[ 2009.08.02 18:36:48 ] Dierdra Vaal > You say the faction police in concord sov could be more aggressive.. but CONCORD _is_ the faction police in their space. Seems to me they're doing fine. end
[ 2009.08.02 18:37:19 ] Larkonis Trassler > Ok
[ 2009.08.02 18:37:21 ] Larkonis Trassler > lets vote
[ 2009.08.02 18:37:26 ] Dierdra Vaal > no
[ 2009.08.02 18:37:28 ] Larkonis Trassler > if there are no other questions
[ 2009.08.02 18:37:40 ] Larkonis Trassler > yes
[ 2009.08.02 18:37:54 ] Erik Finnegan > no
[ 2009.08.02 18:38:15 ] Issler Dainze > no
[ 2009.08.02 18:38:31 ] Vuk Lau > no
[ 2009.08.02 18:38:41 ] Zastrow J > no
[ 2009.08.02 18:38:43 ] Omber Zombie > no
[ 2009.08.02 18:38:57 ] Avalloc > >.< I guess no.
[ 2009.08.02 18:39:02 ] Meissa Anunthiel > no
[ 2009.08.02 18:39:11 ] Dierdra Vaal > motion fails, 8/1
[ 2009.08.02 18:39:23 ] Dierdra Vaal > 19: Drone stance interface (DV)
[ 2009.08.02 18:39:27 ] Dierdra Vaal > http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Drone_stance_interface
[ 2009.08.02 18:39:34 ] Dierdra Vaal > a minor UI thing again
[ 2009.08.02 18:39:45 ] Dierdra Vaal > basically there's no quick way to see if your drones are set to aggressive or passive
[ 2009.08.02 18:39:48 ] Omber Zombie > /emote votes yes
[ 2009.08.02 18:39:54 ] Meissa Anunthiel > /emote votes yes
[ 2009.08.02 18:39:55 ] Erik Finnegan > yes
[ 2009.08.02 18:39:56 ] Dierdra Vaal > I'd like to add something
[ 2009.08.02 18:39:58 ] Dierdra Vaal > err
[ 2009.08.02 18:39:59 ] Omber Zombie > lol
[ 2009.08.02 18:40:01 ] Dierdra Vaal > ok.. we vote?
[ 2009.08.02 18:40:12 ] Dierdra Vaal > or are there questions
[ 2009.08.02 18:40:14 ] Issler Dainze > yes
[ 2009.08.02 18:40:37 ] Dierdra Vaal > can we just vote under this line to make life for meissa a bit easier?
[ 2009.08.02 18:40:38 ] Dierdra Vaal > =================
[ 2009.08.02 18:40:41 ] Meissa Anunthiel > yes
[ 2009.08.02 18:40:41 ] Dierdra Vaal > yes
[ 2009.08.02 18:40:42 ] Erik Finnegan > yes
[ 2009.08.02 18:40:44 ] Omber Zombie > yes
[ 2009.08.02 18:40:46 ] Larkonis Trassler > yes
[ 2009.08.02 18:40:48 ] Issler Dainze > yes
[ 2009.08.02 18:40:51 ] Vuk Lau > yes
[ 2009.08.02 18:40:55 ] Zastrow J > y
[ 2009.08.02 18:41:00 ] Avalloc > yes
[ 2009.08.02 18:41:03 ] Dierdra Vaal > motion passed 9/0
[ 2009.08.02 18:41:08 ] Dierdra Vaal > 20: Ship Crews (Erik)
[ 2009.08.02 18:41:12 ] Dierdra Vaal > http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Ship_Crews
[ 2009.08.02 18:41:14 ] Erik Finnegan > Ship crews at the base would be some kind of "dynamic rig" in that you would need a rig to put "crew" into your ship, and what "crew" does is improve certain aspects of your ship. Just like rigs. Only that crew can be exchanged when docked.
[ 2009.08.02 18:41:18 ] Erik Finnegan > Also, crew would have a lot more mechanic added to it, which should add, well.....RP realism, and a pile of new skills included. You can train crew.
[ 2009.08.02 18:41:26 ] Erik Finnegan > And a feature which I particularly like : comparable to T3 that is motivating early eject to save skill points, crew would be a "bonus" which you would keep only if you eject early. Else, crew is destroyed.
[ 2009.08.02 18:41:30 ] Erik Finnegan > This crew thing can be extended later, to add importance in the effect it does. Right now, to start out slow, the complexity of the issue might seem too big for the result.
[ 2009.08.02 18:41:39 ] Erik Finnegan > Your questions and comments ?
[ 2009.08.02 18:41:43 ] Larkonis Trassler > !
[ 2009.08.02 18:41:50 ] Erik Finnegan > Larkonis, please
[ 2009.08.02 18:41:56 ] Dierdra Vaal > !
[ 2009.08.02 18:41:57 ] Larkonis Trassler > This all seems far too complicated to me
[ 2009.08.02 18:43:03 ] Larkonis Trassler > I believe i posted in that thread a possible suggestion, crews are non transferable, have no upkeep and gain 'experience'... i like the idea of 'crews' like rigs and stuff, butwhat you propose is far far too involved for the average player
[ 2009.08.02 18:43:10 ] Zastrow J > voting no, afk a minute
[ 2009.08.02 18:43:29 ] Larkonis Trassler > end
[ 2009.08.02 18:43:31 ] Meissa Anunthiel > !
[ 2009.08.02 18:43:44 ] Erik Finnegan > DV please
[ 2009.08.02 18:44:02 ] Dierdra Vaal > I am torn on this issue. At the one hand I'm not sure if further customization of ships is required and in fact preferred. On the other, I do think its an interesting concept....
[ 2009.08.02 18:44:09 ] Dierdra Vaal > Additionally, I would like to say that according to chronicles, (almost) all ships already have crews. In the thread someone suggested to add 'specialists' instead of generic crews - though I suppose thats a syntax thing.
[ 2009.08.02 18:44:29 ] Dierdra Vaal > I'm a bit on the fence on this one... :/
[ 2009.08.02 18:44:30 ] Dierdra Vaal > end
[ 2009.08.02 18:44:44 ] Erik Finnegan > Let's hear Meissa
[ 2009.08.02 18:44:50 ] Meissa Anunthiel > this may appear complicated, but so do rigs and implants and fitting and most of eve. This thing on the face of it appears complicated but that's a lack of familiarity. The concept is intringuing enough that CCP might want to make something out of it,
[ 2009.08.02 18:45:08 ] Meissa Anunthiel > even if it isn't sticking totally to the proposal as laid out... (continuing)
[ 2009.08.02 18:45:44 ] Issler Dainze > !
[ 2009.08.02 18:46:25 ] Meissa Anunthiel > Adding something "different" from modules and rigs would allow for (yet) more diversity and give a non-transferable asset [also an isk sink] that I think could be welcome. I don't agree with all the points, but the idea itself is enough to warrant being
[ 2009.08.02 18:46:43 ] Meissa Anunthiel > put for "discussion" (presentation rather, it's too big to be discussed in 20 minutes) with CCP [/end]
[ 2009.08.02 18:47:24 ] Erik Finnegan > I agree that much detail is in that suggestion, which is ultimately CCP's designing task
[ 2009.08.02 18:47:32 ] Erik Finnegan > Issler, please
[ 2009.08.02 18:47:35 ] Issler Dainze > I think it is an interesting idea and suggesting some sort of "crew" idea to CCP would be someting I support (end)
[ 2009.08.02 18:48:26 ] Erik Finnegan > Other thoughts on it ?
[ 2009.08.02 18:48:40 ] Erik Finnegan > Lark, Meissa responded to you on the "complexity" worry.
[ 2009.08.02 18:48:48 ] Meissa Anunthiel > !
[ 2009.08.02 18:48:53 ] Erik Finnegan > Meissa go
[ 2009.08.02 18:49:21 ] Meissa Anunthiel > Let's also keep in mind that CCP said a few times they're happy to hear new ideas, even though they may make something out of them that's different from what is being presented. It's worth a shot *shrug*[/end]
[ 2009.08.02 18:49:28 ] Zastrow J > ok im back
[ 2009.08.02 18:49:52 ] Erik Finnegan > Not much to read up on, Zastrow. :)
[ 2009.08.02 18:50:20 ] Erik Finnegan > So, we should vote on the "crew" concept (some other thing than a module) to be discussed with CCP :
[ 2009.08.02 18:50:35 ] Dierdra Vaal > yes
[ 2009.08.02 18:50:36 ] Erik Finnegan > /emote votes yes
[ 2009.08.02 18:50:37 ] Meissa Anunthiel > yes
[ 2009.08.02 18:50:37 ] Omber Zombie > yes
[ 2009.08.02 18:50:39 ] Larkonis Trassler > yes
[ 2009.08.02 18:50:44 ] Issler Dainze > yes
[ 2009.08.02 18:50:46 ] Avalloc > yes
[ 2009.08.02 18:50:51 ] Vuk Lau > yes
[ 2009.08.02 18:50:53 ] Zastrow J > no
[ 2009.08.02 18:50:56 ] Dierdra Vaal > motion passed 8/1
[ 2009.08.02 18:51:08 ] Dierdra Vaal > 21: The Future of Lowsec: A request for a discussion with CCP. (Lark)
[ 2009.08.02 18:51:15 ] Omber Zombie > !
[ 2009.08.02 18:51:15 ] Dierdra Vaal > this had no link, similar to OZ's RMT issue
[ 2009.08.02 18:51:24 ] Omber Zombie > this is an AOB issue
[ 2009.08.02 18:51:27 ] Meissa Anunthiel > (doesn't need one either)
[ 2009.08.02 18:51:51 ] Dierdra Vaal > let lark introduce is before saying stuff :)
[ 2009.08.02 18:51:56 ] Dierdra Vaal > it*3
[ 2009.08.02 18:52:22 ] Larkonis Trassler > I'd like to spend some time in Iceland discussing what, if anything is being done about lowsec, especially the non FW areas in terms of risk/reward, introducing ways to entice people into lowsec etc
[ 2009.08.02 18:52:50 ] Larkonis Trassler > While I realise many of you have nothing to do with lowsec your input would be valuable as well
[ 2009.08.02 18:53:27 ] Larkonis Trassler > questions queries?
[ 2009.08.02 18:53:39 ] Omber Zombie > !
[ 2009.08.02 18:53:44 ] Larkonis Trassler > OZ
[ 2009.08.02 18:53:46 ] Omber Zombie > i just want to point out (even tho i love this topic) that the info sessions we had lasted about an hour each and we only had tie for 4 of them, so pelase keep in mind that while we can request discussion on things, ccp may already have put things on
[ 2009.08.02 18:54:06 ] Omber Zombie > the agenda. That said, i think this is a very important topic to discuss (end)
[ 2009.08.02 18:54:20 ] Issler Dainze > !
[ 2009.08.02 18:54:23 ] Larkonis Trassler > Issler
[ 2009.08.02 18:54:37 ] Erik Finnegan > !
[ 2009.08.02 18:54:52 ] Issler Dainze > Low sec is broken and at the moment wasted space, i think it is fair to ask CCP what they have planned to address that. (end)
[ 2009.08.02 18:54:57 ] Larkonis Trassler > Erik
[ 2009.08.02 18:55:16 ] Erik Finnegan > I have been discussing a concept of player policing, which could be added to low-sec. In order to motivate people to move there. More population: more movement. More good. But that is not yet mature enough to be torn apart here. :)
[ 2009.08.02 18:55:20 ] Erik Finnegan > And my previous subject on "mining gun" did also address the low-sec topic.So, yes, I want to discuss low-sec options on Iceland.
[ 2009.08.02 18:55:57 ] Erik Finnegan > FIUN
[ 2009.08.02 18:56:01 ] Larkonis Trassler > Any other questions?
[ 2009.08.02 18:56:34 ] Larkonis Trassler > COMMENCE VOTING
[ 2009.08.02 18:56:35 ] Meissa Anunthiel > /emote votes yes
[ 2009.08.02 18:56:38 ] Dierdra Vaal > yes
[ 2009.08.02 18:56:38 ] Larkonis Trassler > yes
[ 2009.08.02 18:56:38 ] Erik Finnegan > /emote votes yes
[ 2009.08.02 18:56:39 ] Issler Dainze > yes
[ 2009.08.02 18:56:46 ] Omber Zombie > yes
[ 2009.08.02 18:56:57 ] Avalloc > yes
[ 2009.08.02 18:57:10 ] Vuk Lau > yes
[ 2009.08.02 18:57:14 ] Zastrow J > ok i guess, this is really broad and kind of pointless
[ 2009.08.02 18:57:40 ] Dierdra Vaal > motion passed 9/0
[ 2009.08.02 18:57:43 ] Omber Zombie > lark, you want me to add this to my request mail, or do you want to send it yourself?
[ 2009.08.02 18:58:02 ] Dierdra Vaal > if I can suggest doing it in the same mail?
[ 2009.08.02 18:58:04 ] Larkonis Trassler > Add it to yours please
[ 2009.08.02 18:58:06 ] Larkonis Trassler > ya
[ 2009.08.02 18:58:07 ] Omber Zombie > kk
[ 2009.08.02 18:58:16 ] Dierdra Vaal > 22: Forum profanity filter (DV)
[ 2009.08.02 18:58:20 ] Dierdra Vaal > http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Forum_profanity_filter
[ 2009.08.02 18:58:29 ] Dierdra Vaal > make the profanity filter optional in the new COSMOS forums
[ 2009.08.02 18:58:32 ] Dierdra Vaal > questions?
[ 2009.08.02 18:58:34 ] Omber Zombie > !
[ 2009.08.02 18:58:37 ] Dierdra Vaal > oz
[ 2009.08.02 18:59:00 ] Omber Zombie > eve is rated 13+, to keep that rating they need the profanity filter, modifying it so it doesn't block normal words is fine by me tho (end)
[ 2009.08.02 18:59:11 ] Larkonis Trassler > !
[ 2009.08.02 18:59:12 ] Meissa Anunthiel > !
[ 2009.08.02 18:59:25 ] Dierdra Vaal > I think they dont lose the rating by making the filter optional
[ 2009.08.02 18:59:34 ] Dierdra Vaal > WoW has an optional filter and I thought that was PG13 too
[ 2009.08.02 18:59:44 ] Dierdra Vaal > besides, there are very few 13 year olds playing this game
[ 2009.08.02 18:59:47 ] Dierdra Vaal > (thank god)
[ 2009.08.02 18:59:48 ] Dierdra Vaal > lark
[ 2009.08.02 18:59:51 ] Larkonis Trassler > To be honest most of the words that are filtered out shouldn't be known by a 13 year old kid, and if he does know what they mean then he's a dirty little bugger
[ 2009.08.02 18:59:52 ] Larkonis Trassler > end
[ 2009.08.02 18:59:53 ] Erik Finnegan > !
[ 2009.08.02 19:00:01 ] Dierdra Vaal > meissa
[ 2009.08.02 19:00:15 ] Meissa Anunthiel > While I agree with removing the profanity filter, I don't want the forums to turn into a curse-haven. There's a barrier between expressing one's frustration with occasional swearing and spouting hateful tirades.
[ 2009.08.02 19:00:20 ] Meissa Anunthiel > [/end]
[ 2009.08.02 19:00:36 ] Dierdra Vaal > I want it to be clear I'm only asking for the filter to be _optional_
[ 2009.08.02 19:00:41 ] Dierdra Vaal > so you can leave it turned on
[ 2009.08.02 19:01:02 ] Dierdra Vaal > or turn it off since I know when I see "**** you you mother****er" what it means
[ 2009.08.02 19:01:11 ] Dierdra Vaal > erik
[ 2009.08.02 19:01:20 ] Erik Finnegan > Scripted censorship does not work. And I don't know of European regulation which would influence the age clearance based on any such filter.
[ 2009.08.02 19:01:30 ] Erik Finnegan > It is enough IMHO and more efficient to work with posting ratings, and with peer review - and delete posts if pointed out to moderators.
[ 2009.08.02 19:01:42 ] Erik Finnegan > Filter go away.
[ 2009.08.02 19:01:43 ] Erik Finnegan > FIN
[ 2009.08.02 19:01:50 ] Dierdra Vaal > anyone else?
[ 2009.08.02 19:01:53 ] Larkonis Trassler > sorry gents i've got to dash out, voting yes on this and the next topic
[ 2009.08.02 19:02:01 ] Dierdra Vaal > ok lark
[ 2009.08.02 19:02:11 ] Dierdra Vaal > guess we can vote
[ 2009.08.02 19:02:14 ] Meissa Anunthiel > yes
[ 2009.08.02 19:02:15 ] Dierdra Vaal > lark and maz votes yes
[ 2009.08.02 19:02:18 ] Dierdra Vaal > yes
[ 2009.08.02 19:02:22 ] Erik Finnegan > /emote votes yes
[ 2009.08.02 19:02:31 ] Avalloc > yes
[ 2009.08.02 19:02:49 ] Omber Zombie > yes
[ 2009.08.02 19:02:52 ] Zastrow J > y
[ 2009.08.02 19:02:55 ] Zastrow J > es
[ 2009.08.02 19:03:11 ] Dierdra Vaal > mr vuk?
[ 2009.08.02 19:03:39 ] Dierdra Vaal > motion passed 8/0
[ 2009.08.02 19:03:47 ] Dierdra Vaal > last item!
[ 2009.08.02 19:03:49 ] Dierdra Vaal > 23: Factional Warfare - NPC Review (Erik)
[ 2009.08.02 19:03:53 ] Dierdra Vaal > http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Factional_Warfare_-_NPC_Review
[ 2009.08.02 19:03:55 ] Erik Finnegan > It has been reported that FW NPCs are imbalanced. While it is always possible that it is only whining of the losing Faction, I think the selection of suggested solutions allows for a balancing talk with CCP.
[ 2009.08.02 19:03:59 ] Erik Finnegan > I cannot see any near solution which would go like "replacing FW NPCs with human pilots", which is what I would prefer above any machine tweaking. Eve is about interaction in the end.
[ 2009.08.02 19:04:03 ] Erik Finnegan > Hence, the FW AI needs to be looked at.
[ 2009.08.02 19:04:10 ] Vuk Lau > [19:03:03] Dierdra Vaal > mr vuk? - yes
[ 2009.08.02 19:05:12 ] Erik Finnegan > Comments ?
[ 2009.08.02 19:05:13 ] Omber Zombie > /emote has to go (yes vote on this one)
[ 2009.08.02 19:05:19 ] Dierdra Vaal > !
[ 2009.08.02 19:05:21 ] Erik Finnegan > DV
[ 2009.08.02 19:05:49 ] Dierdra Vaal > I'm not fond of removing ewar. While yes, npc ewar cheats, removing it would homogenize the different npcs even more
[ 2009.08.02 19:05:51 ] Dierdra Vaal > end
[ 2009.08.02 19:06:28 ] Erik Finnegan > The EWAR is only one of the suggestions.
[ 2009.08.02 19:06:45 ] Erik Finnegan > I leave the balancing to the more expereicned.
[ 2009.08.02 19:07:08 ] Erik Finnegan > What is important, I guess, is the perceived "inaccuracy" in the current settings. :)
[ 2009.08.02 19:07:22 ] Erik Finnegan > Other FW pilots here ?
[ 2009.08.02 19:07:43 ] Dierdra Vaal > my main is a FW corp ceo...
[ 2009.08.02 19:07:52 ] Dierdra Vaal > but I only played it speedtanking amarr plexes in my rifter...
[ 2009.08.02 19:07:53 ] Dierdra Vaal > :D
[ 2009.08.02 19:08:11 ] Dierdra Vaal > err my alt is*
[ 2009.08.02 19:08:15 ] Erik Finnegan > :)
[ 2009.08.02 19:08:27 ] Dierdra Vaal > Thukk U
[ 2009.08.02 19:08:32 ] Erik Finnegan > See, that happens when you use other chars. :)
[ 2009.08.02 19:08:32 ] Meissa Anunthiel > (this goes in the minutes as "DV confessed to be a amar plexes speed-tanking noob")
[ 2009.08.02 19:08:57 ] Erik Finnegan > I'm always myself......no less noob though O_o
[ 2009.08.02 19:09:12 ] Erik Finnegan > Ok, so we shall vote on FW AI balance discussion :
[ 2009.08.02 19:09:19 ] Meissa Anunthiel > let's keep to the topic still, who is or isn't in FW makes no difference as to the voting
[ 2009.08.02 19:09:20 ] Dierdra Vaal > yes, a review is fine
[ 2009.08.02 19:09:47 ] Meissa Anunthiel > /emote votes yes
[ 2009.08.02 19:09:47 ] Erik Finnegan > /emote votes yes
[ 2009.08.02 19:10:11 ] Issler Dainze > sure, yes to ask for a review
[ 2009.08.02 19:10:29 ] Vuk Lau > yes
[ 2009.08.02 19:10:35 ] Avalloc > hrmmm
[ 2009.08.02 19:10:42 ] Avalloc > yeah, ok.. yes
[ 2009.08.02 19:10:46 ] Dierdra Vaal > lark voted yes
[ 2009.08.02 19:11:12 ] Zastrow J > ok
[ 2009.08.02 19:11:28 ] Dierdra Vaal > motion passed 8/0
[ 2009.08.02 19:11:32 ] Dierdra Vaal > did oz leave a vote?
[ 2009.08.02 19:11:36 ] Meissa Anunthiel > no
[ 2009.08.02 19:11:42 ] Dierdra Vaal > he did
[ 2009.08.02 19:11:45 ] Meissa Anunthiel > did he?
[ 2009.08.02 19:11:46 ] Dierdra Vaal > [19:05:13] Omber Zombie > /emote has to go (yes vote on this one)
[ 2009.08.02 19:11:46 ] Vuk Lau > he did
[ 2009.08.02 19:11:50 ] Dierdra Vaal > so 9/0
[ 2009.08.02 19:11:54 ] Dierdra Vaal > ok
[ 2009.08.02 19:11:59 ] Dierdra Vaal > before I close the meeting
[ 2009.08.02 19:12:00 ] Erik Finnegan > *phew*
[ 2009.08.02 19:12:05 ] Meissa Anunthiel > ah, my bad, thought it was the previous
[ 2009.08.02 19:12:06 ] Dierdra Vaal > I'd like to remind you all of our CSM mails!
[ 2009.08.02 19:12:16 ] Dierdra Vaal > if it doesnt work, get in touch with me and/or petur
[ 2009.08.02 19:12:22 ] Erik Finnegan > It does not work ! My user is rejected.
[ 2009.08.02 19:12:22 ] Erik Finnegan > ok
[ 2009.08.02 19:12:26 ] Dierdra Vaal > if it does, please check it regulary!
[ 2009.08.02 19:12:27 ] Meissa Anunthiel > thanks for keeping the conversation repeats to a minimum, this will make writing the minutes less of a chore
[ 2009.08.02 19:12:37 ] Dierdra Vaal > other than that, meeting closed at 19:12
[ 2009.08.02 19:12:38 ] Vuk Lau > yup this was good meeting
[ 2009.08.02 19:12:39 ] Dierdra Vaal > *******