CSM Meeting Minutes 3.007 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All this data is potentially out of date, and should be taken with a truckload of salt



[ 2009.08.09 16:05:59 ] Dierdra Vaal > ******** CSM3 meeting 7 started :)
[ 2009.08.09 16:05:59 ] Zastrow J > i was trying to slice a watermelon while hammered at like 2am
[ 2009.08.09 16:06:08 ] Zastrow J > and put the knife throgh my index finger
[ 2009.08.09 16:06:18 ] Dierdra Vaal > got a few things to say before getting to the issues:
[ 2009.08.09 16:06:40 ] Dierdra Vaal > 1) Erik, could you finish the meeting notes from meeting 4? It was brought to my attention that these werent complete
[ 2009.08.09 16:06:54 ] Erik Finnegan > :-o
[ 2009.08.09 16:06:57 ] Dierdra Vaal > Meissa, what was missing?
[ 2009.08.09 16:07:30 ] Meissa Anunthiel > The PDF, putting them in the forums both the raw file and a link to the file
[ 2009.08.09 16:07:59 ] Erik Finnegan > Well.....who did I agree with that I'd limit myself to the wiki ?
[ 2009.08.09 16:08:06 ] Erik Finnegan > Maybe myself. :)
[ 2009.08.09 16:08:13 ] Erik Finnegan > Maybe you can help me there, Meissa ?
[ 2009.08.09 16:08:25 ] Dierdra Vaal > the PDF is probably mostly copy paste at this point?
[ 2009.08.09 16:08:33 ] Dierdra Vaal > since you already have the notes
[ 2009.08.09 16:08:40 ] Meissa Anunthiel > I will, I wrote a program to do it all in one fell swoop, I'll make it available to you
[ 2009.08.09 16:08:43 ] Erik Finnegan > PDF is something which I usually READ. Never tried producing one.
[ 2009.08.09 16:08:46 ] Dierdra Vaal > excellent
[ 2009.08.09 16:08:50 ] Dierdra Vaal > 2) Notes from the previous meeting - I understand meissa had a lot of it done but since I asked erik yesterday to fill in, can you two make sure only 1 person gets these done (so we avoid double work)
[ 2009.08.09 16:09:10 ] Erik Finnegan > Consider that one fixed.
[ 2009.08.09 16:09:18 ] Meissa Anunthiel > yeah, we already talked about it
[ 2009.08.09 16:09:24 ] Dierdra Vaal > excellent
[ 2009.08.09 16:09:50 ] Erik Finnegan > ( fixed kinda late....but, HEJ, double work holds forever )
[ 2009.08.09 16:09:56 ] Dierdra Vaal > 3) I asked in my email if you guys could send me topics/issues of old CSMs that you wish to bring up again in iceland.
[ 2009.08.09 16:10:21 ] Dierdra Vaal > now this is _not_ mandatory to bring up new issues, but I think CCP may give us higher quality answers if they have some time to prepare
[ 2009.08.09 16:10:27 ] Erik Finnegan > Did you mention a deadline ?
[ 2009.08.09 16:10:43 ] Dierdra Vaal > no real deadline tho I'd want to send them when we send them our big batch of issues
[ 2009.08.09 16:10:53 ] Dierdra Vaal > for which the deadline is the 20th
[ 2009.08.09 16:11:03 ] Erik Finnegan > Understood
[ 2009.08.09 16:11:15 ] Dierdra Vaal > again, its not strictly mandatory, I just think it could improve ccps reaction :)
[ 2009.08.09 16:11:23 ] Vuk Lau > !
[ 2009.08.09 16:11:26 ] Dierdra Vaal > vuk?
[ 2009.08.09 16:11:31 ] Vuk Lau > as I replied
[ 2009.08.09 16:11:39 ] Vuk Lau > in CSM 2 we went tru all CSM 1 issues
[ 2009.08.09 16:11:44 ] Vuk Lau > we could just ask to do the same now
[ 2009.08.09 16:11:49 ] Vuk Lau > for both CSM 1 and CSM 2 issues
[ 2009.08.09 16:11:52 ] Erik Finnegan > !
[ 2009.08.09 16:11:58 ] Vuk Lau > its actualy prety quick
[ 2009.08.09 16:12:08 ] Dierdra Vaal > I think going through all 100+ issues of CSM1 and 2 would take fairly long
[ 2009.08.09 16:12:12 ] Vuk Lau > but atleast we should do it for CSM 2 issues
[ 2009.08.09 16:12:16 ] Dierdra Vaal > and tbh, most of these issues are irrelevant to us
[ 2009.08.09 16:12:21 ] Vuk Lau > its not actualy
[ 2009.08.09 16:12:36 ] Vuk Lau > but CSM 2 we should do a quick glance
[ 2009.08.09 16:12:47 ] Vuk Lau > its looks like this
[ 2009.08.09 16:12:52 ] Vuk Lau > issue 1 - backlog
[ 2009.08.09 16:12:56 ] Vuk Lau > issue 2 - not possible
[ 2009.08.09 16:13:00 ] Vuk Lau > issue 3 - next patch
[ 2009.08.09 16:13:04 ] Vuk Lau > issue 4 - etc
[ 2009.08.09 16:13:05 ] Dierdra Vaal > I see
[ 2009.08.09 16:13:10 ] Vuk Lau > end
[ 2009.08.09 16:13:15 ] Erik Finnegan > That is a bit disappointing TBH
[ 2009.08.09 16:13:27 ] Dierdra Vaal > well if CCP did that last time they'll probably do it now again
[ 2009.08.09 16:13:41 ] Dierdra Vaal > but for example I have a few issues I want to discuss in more detail with ccp
[ 2009.08.09 16:13:55 ] Dierdra Vaal > so I'm notifying them ahead of time
[ 2009.08.09 16:14:21 ] Dierdra Vaal > I dont want to hear a  "oh we're not sure' answer from ccp on my issues :)
[ 2009.08.09 16:14:29 ] Erik Finnegan > Same here. :)
[ 2009.08.09 16:14:41 ] Dierdra Vaal > ok the last thing I wanted to mention
[ 2009.08.09 16:14:56 ] Dierdra Vaal > 4) this'll be the last meeting where we put issues on the iceland meet agenda.
[ 2009.08.09 16:15:09 ] Zastrow J > i would love for them to tell us what's coming in the december patch so we dont waste timebeing redundant
[ 2009.08.09 16:15:25 ] Dierdra Vaal > During this weak (asap) I will email everyone with a list of ALL of our passed issues for prioritization
[ 2009.08.09 16:15:43 ] Vuk Lau > !
[ 2009.08.09 16:15:54 ] Erik Finnegan > !
[ 2009.08.09 16:16:04 ] Dierdra Vaal > the email will include an explanation, but basically, if for example we'd have 40 issues on our list, you can number the issues from 1 (most important) to 40 (least important)
[ 2009.08.09 16:16:11 ] Dierdra Vaal > this will result in a total prioritization
[ 2009.08.09 16:16:23 ] Dierdra Vaal > this prioritization will only be relevant to what will be discussed first
[ 2009.08.09 16:16:31 ] Dierdra Vaal > it is NOT a prioritization for CCP's development
[ 2009.08.09 16:16:34 ] Dierdra Vaal > vuk?
[ 2009.08.09 16:16:53 ] Meissa Anunthiel > Dude, You're duplicating my work, I already said yesterday I had a document ready for that
[ 2009.08.09 16:17:03 ] Vuk Lau > I know that CSM 2 inherited more then a couple of CSM 1 issues
[ 2009.08.09 16:17:08 ] Meissa Anunthiel > not yesterday, last meeting
[ 2009.08.09 16:17:09 ] Zastrow J > we could probably group all the minor UI issues into 1 aggregate ui issue on the issues list
[ 2009.08.09 16:17:11 ] Vuk Lau > we need to double check
[ 2009.08.09 16:17:19 ] Vuk Lau > can u stfu pls :D
[ 2009.08.09 16:17:31 ] Vuk Lau > meeting started so use ! ktnxbye
[ 2009.08.09 16:17:55 ] Vuk Lau > i am not sure if there are any issues from CSM 2 that we need to bring up to the ICeland
[ 2009.08.09 16:18:04 ] Vuk Lau > I need to doublecheck that cause I honestly dont remember
[ 2009.08.09 16:18:13 ] Vuk Lau > LVV, Eva or OZ should know it
[ 2009.08.09 16:18:21 ] Vuk Lau > but I will check it anyway after the meeting
[ 2009.08.09 16:18:34 ] Dierdra Vaal > ok
[ 2009.08.09 16:18:40 ] Vuk Lau > end
[ 2009.08.09 16:18:52 ] Dierdra Vaal > And meissa, I'm aware you have a document for that and I'm sure that will come in handy :)
[ 2009.08.09 16:18:56 ] Dierdra Vaal > erik?
[ 2009.08.09 16:18:58 ] Erik Finnegan > Dierdra, this list of all passed issues should be visible from the wiki, should it not ? ..... just saying. Saves you time.And what if time is not enough to discuss all of them ? Will they be put to backlog silently ? [FIN]
[ 2009.08.09 16:19:30 ] Dierdra Vaal > I gotta double check that all issues got the proper CSM3 category tag, but ya in theory this should be from the wiki
[ 2009.08.09 16:20:16 ] Dierdra Vaal > if some issues fall outside the time limit then they'll be.. moved to the next meeting I think?
[ 2009.08.09 16:20:19 ] Dierdra Vaal > how did that go last year?
[ 2009.08.09 16:20:26 ] Vuk Lau > we went tru it all
[ 2009.08.09 16:20:30 ] Dierdra Vaal > I c
[ 2009.08.09 16:20:49 ] Erik Finnegan > Well, we might save time on the obvious UI things and stuff.
[ 2009.08.09 16:21:22 ] Dierdra Vaal > CCP grouped UI issues in CSM1, so I suppose they'll do that not again
[ 2009.08.09 16:21:43 ] Dierdra Vaal > do that again*
[ 2009.08.09 16:21:49 ] Dierdra Vaal > (what was 'not' doing there o_O)
[ 2009.08.09 16:22:09 ] Erik Finnegan > Was supposed to be "now" maybe
[ 2009.08.09 16:22:15 ] Dierdra Vaal > I think so
[ 2009.08.09 16:22:20 ] Dierdra Vaal > anyway, make sure you keep an eye on your mailbox
[ 2009.08.09 16:22:34 ] Dierdra Vaal > if you dont send in your priorities before the deadline, they will not be counted
[ 2009.08.09 16:22:51 ] Dierdra Vaal > with that said, lets get to the issues!
[ 2009.08.09 16:22:57 ] Dierdra Vaal > 1: rebalance 0.0 and lowsec ratting (Zastrow)
[ 2009.08.09 16:23:01 ] Dierdra Vaal > http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Individual_Pilot_Income_Generation_in_0.0
[ 2009.08.09 16:23:06 ] mazzilliu > !
[ 2009.08.09 16:23:09 ] mazzilliu > i
[ 2009.08.09 16:23:22 ] Dierdra Vaal > I think zastrow may introduce his issue first?
[ 2009.08.09 16:23:25 ] Zastrow J > oh hello
[ 2009.08.09 16:23:25 ] mazzilliu > i've got to go afk, but im voting yes on this issue
[ 2009.08.09 16:23:56 ] Zastrow J > L4 missions in Highsec are too lucrative for negligible risk. Due to this, most players are unwilling to venture into lowsec or nullsec because it's just not worth the hassle. Lowsec and 0.0 need to be worth the hassle.
[ 2009.08.09 16:24:40 ] Zastrow J > there are several possible solutions to this, i dont know if CCP is alreasdy thinking of something about this in the winter patch
[ 2009.08.09 16:25:13 ] Zastrow J > the main problem is scalability, while a mission hub can supportinfinite players a 0.0 system can only suport a couple
[ 2009.08.09 16:25:22 ] Zastrow J > and a lot of 0.0 or lowsec systems are just "worthless"
[ 2009.08.09 16:25:37 ] Zastrow J > they dont have enough belts, or truesec is o low its only spawning cruiser rats
[ 2009.08.09 16:25:54 ] Dierdra Vaal > !
[ 2009.08.09 16:26:03 ] Erik Finnegan > !
[ 2009.08.09 16:26:06 ] Zastrow J > most space is like this, and it contibutes to 0.0 and lowsec beig a ghost town in most systems
[ 2009.08.09 16:26:09 ] Avalloc > !
[ 2009.08.09 16:26:26 ] Vuk Lau > !
[ 2009.08.09 16:26:48 ] Meissa Anunthiel > !
[ 2009.08.09 16:27:20 ] Zastrow J > i would propos changes to income genertion through either 0.0 missions, cosmic anomaly ncounters, or other means, but the main thing is i just want to have this dicussion with ccp whatever the solution we come up with
[ 2009.08.09 16:27:28 ] Zastrow J > dierdra go
[ 2009.08.09 16:27:29 ] Dierdra Vaal > I think its a good idea in principle. Allowing players to develop their space was one of the things from my campaign and while I think the presented solution may be a bit crude, I think this is a great thing to bring up to CCP ...
[ 2009.08.09 16:27:51 ] Dierdra Vaal > Allowing corps to improve their own (sometimes crappy) space may make it easier for small corps to get into 0.0
[ 2009.08.09 16:28:12 ] Dierdra Vaal > and making it so 0.0 systems can sustain more players may encourage/help small corps further
[ 2009.08.09 16:28:15 ] Dierdra Vaal > end
[ 2009.08.09 16:28:48 ] Zastrow J > right, ideally i wouldlove to see it be feasible for small corps and alliances to try to claim just 1 system or constellation for themslves
[ 2009.08.09 16:28:57 ] Dierdra Vaal > exactly :)
[ 2009.08.09 16:29:03 ] Zastrow J > but current mechanics mean that space wouldnt support them
[ 2009.08.09 16:29:08 ] Zastrow J > not enough belts
[ 2009.08.09 16:29:12 ] Zastrow J > ok erik go
[ 2009.08.09 16:29:21 ] Erik Finnegan > Dierdra argued for corps. But that is not the heart of this proposal. We said that often enough : EVE is about collaboration. With that in mind, and acknowledging that life 0.0 is the holy grail of the game, I do not see why we should put considerable
[ 2009.08.09 16:29:34 ] Erik Finnegan > thought in increasing solo careers there.What lacks just as much - and does require our attention, IMHO - is small gang activities and incentives for alliances to kind of lure and support "regular" Capsuleers do trade and travel there.
[ 2009.08.09 16:29:43 ] Erik Finnegan > THAT is what will increase life and worth of 0.0 on a large scale.I do not think solo'ing 0.0 is of much importance in the overall sense of the game.I am not saying that 0.0 did not merrit improvement. Just on another scale. And as a sid...
[ 2009.08.09 16:29:56 ] Erik Finnegan > e note : isk/h is not the only scale on which to compare ones success in this game.[FIN]
[ 2009.08.09 16:30:05 ] Shatana Fulfairas > !
[ 2009.08.09 16:30:51 ] Dierdra Vaal > (oh btw, since shatana is the only present alt, she's filling in for omber zombie.. I probably should've said this at the start)
[ 2009.08.09 16:31:17 ] Larkonis Trassler > !
[ 2009.08.09 16:31:42 ] Dierdra Vaal > !
[ 2009.08.09 16:31:48 ] Zastrow J > isk/h is the only rea metric we have for judging how productive a solo guy looking to make money is, but yea the heart of the problem is there's just not enough you can do by yourself out in 0.0 or lowsec
[ 2009.08.09 16:32:02 ] Zastrow J > avalloc g
[ 2009.08.09 16:32:04 ] Zastrow J > O
[ 2009.08.09 16:32:07 ] Avalloc > I believe giving players the ability to boost truesec via outposts is a great idea. Truesec worthless constellations could be populated and developed. And since it isn't a POS mod the truesec won't bounce up and down. Plus Outposts = isk sink.. more
[ 2009.08.09 16:33:10 ] Avalloc > As for "solo" concern.. in highsec, the mission runner runs solo but doesn't lose isk to sinks unlike the 0.0 guy who fights for his alliance in pvp... loses ships to raiders
[ 2009.08.09 16:33:29 ] Avalloc > FIN
[ 2009.08.09 16:35:02 ] Zastrow J > personally i dont know how well an outpost upgrade for truesec wuld be, because there's still a lot of systems wiht only like 3 or 4 belts that you just cant sdo anything with.  it could be one of several changes though
[ 2009.08.09 16:35:17 ] Zastrow J > who's next uhh
[ 2009.08.09 16:35:20 ] Zastrow J > VUk goo
[ 2009.08.09 16:35:22 ] Shatana Fulfairas > Vuk
[ 2009.08.09 16:35:52 ] Dierdra Vaal > (give him a sec :) )
[ 2009.08.09 16:36:12 ] Zastrow J > is he afkin ?
[ 2009.08.09 16:36:15 ] Vuk Lau > this was already brought in CSM 2, there is really no need to go tru it again
[ 2009.08.09 16:36:28 ] Vuk Lau > it was part of this discussion
[ 2009.08.09 16:36:29 ] Vuk Lau > http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Incentivizing_0.0
[ 2009.08.09 16:36:41 ] Zastrow J > that is a way overbroad topic
[ 2009.08.09 16:36:50 ] Vuk Lau > yeah but it covered this
[ 2009.08.09 16:37:24 ] Zastrow J > barely, that topic was about incentivizing 0.0 on a macro scale
[ 2009.08.09 16:37:35 ] Zastrow J > and im talking for individuals right now
[ 2009.08.09 16:37:55 ] Vuk Lau > well this issue can be brought on individual scale without includinbg macro scale
[ 2009.08.09 16:37:58 ] Vuk Lau > cause its the same
[ 2009.08.09 16:38:08 ] Vuk Lau > and discussion already went to macro scale
[ 2009.08.09 16:38:19 ] Vuk Lau > just for the record, nothing more nothing less
[ 2009.08.09 16:38:20 ] Vuk Lau > end
[ 2009.08.09 16:39:16 ] Zastrow J > yea it is entirely possible ccp has something in store already but as we know nothing i just want this on the agenda
[ 2009.08.09 16:39:28 ] Zastrow J > shat go
[ 2009.08.09 16:39:54 ] Shatana Fulfairas > actull vuk covered what i was going to ssay
[ 2009.08.09 16:41:08 ] Zastrow J > lark go
[ 2009.08.09 16:41:24 ] Larkonis Trassler > Just to respond to Erik... at the end of the day you won't be able to entice individuals away from empire unless they can see that the individual rewards are greater than what they are currently getting, all this talk of empowering the group dynamic and
[ 2009.08.09 16:41:54 ] Larkonis Trassler > whatnot is all well and good, but most people are lazy and greedy and are out for a quick buck for themselves
[ 2009.08.09 16:41:55 ] Larkonis Trassler > end
[ 2009.08.09 16:42:06 ] Erik Finnegan > :) ok got that one.
[ 2009.08.09 16:42:29 ] Zastrow J > deirdra go
[ 2009.08.09 16:42:42 ] Dierdra Vaal > As vuk said this issue was covered in CSM2. I strongly support the intention but will be voting no as it was covered. However, I strongly suggest taking up with CCP as an old issue, ask what the deal is and if any of these changes are included ...
[ 2009.08.09 16:42:46 ] Dierdra Vaal > ...in the coming 0.0 changes. I think it is important that this IS brought up :)
[ 2009.08.09 16:42:48 ] Dierdra Vaal > end
[ 2009.08.09 16:43:03 ] Zastrow J > making 0.0 worthwhile fo individuals is my #1 priority as  csm
[ 2009.08.09 16:43:20 ] Zastrow J > i would be negligent in my duties if i did not have this topic on my agenda
[ 2009.08.09 16:43:22 ] Meissa Anunthiel > !
[ 2009.08.09 16:43:31 ] Vuk Lau > !
[ 2009.08.09 16:43:31 ] Zastrow J > meissa gO
[ 2009.08.09 16:44:03 ] Meissa Anunthiel > If it is already covered by the incoming discussions that will take place about 0.0 improvement, this will be kindly removed from the agenda, if it's not included, it should be and as such deserves our vote.
[ 2009.08.09 16:44:31 ] Meissa Anunthiel > (by removed from the agenda I mean it will be included in the 0.0 discussion and this issue # will be removed)
[ 2009.08.09 16:44:34 ] Meissa Anunthiel > [/end]
[ 2009.08.09 16:44:39 ] Zastrow J > yep
[ 2009.08.09 16:44:42 ] Zastrow J > vuk go
[ 2009.08.09 16:45:03 ] Vuk Lau > well we should just ask what is going with issue already being raised
[ 2009.08.09 16:45:10 ] Vuk Lau > instead of brining up the similar one
[ 2009.08.09 16:45:13 ] Vuk Lau > end
[ 2009.08.09 16:45:23 ] Meissa Anunthiel > !
[ 2009.08.09 16:46:10 ] Erik Finnegan > !
[ 2009.08.09 16:46:40 ] Zastrow J > 0.0 incentivizaon should be on our aenda i dont care if you want to attatch it to an old unresolved issue from before we were elected
[ 2009.08.09 16:46:47 ] Zastrow J > meissa go
[ 2009.08.09 16:46:48 ] Meissa Anunthiel > The "0.0 incentive" issue covers a bazillion smaller things, this one being partially included. asking status on "incencitivizing 0.0" will not necessarily answer this particular concern. I don't like reraising stuff either, but it's justified... [/end]
[ 2009.08.09 16:47:04 ] Zastrow J > erik go
[ 2009.08.09 16:47:17 ] Erik Finnegan > Can someone knowing about 0.0 more than me flesh out the downsides of the suggested approach ? It is said that the benefits from the proposal might be harvested by alliances blocking off the systems. [FIN]
[ 2009.08.09 16:48:22 ] Dierdra Vaal > !
[ 2009.08.09 16:48:33 ] Zastrow J > it has been suggested that making 0.0 individual income generation would not increase new people exploring 0.0/lowsec but only serve to enrich existing 0.0 entities
[ 2009.08.09 16:48:48 ] Zastrow J > i wholly disagree with it, but that was the counterpoint raised
[ 2009.08.09 16:49:00 ] Zastrow J > dierdra go
[ 2009.08.09 16:49:14 ] Dierdra Vaal > re Erik: Alliances can already block off entrances but its still possible to get into 0.0 with relative easy...
[ 2009.08.09 16:49:52 ] Dierdra Vaal > end
[ 2009.08.09 16:50:01 ] Zastrow J > there's alsoa lot of completely neglected space all over the map because it's just not worth the hassle of living in some space
[ 2009.08.09 16:50:06 ] Erik Finnegan > ! (another question)
[ 2009.08.09 16:50:11 ] Vuk Lau > !
[ 2009.08.09 16:50:13 ] Zastrow J > shot erik
[ 2009.08.09 16:50:24 ] Erik Finnegan > For the record : I approve of high-sec missions to be nerfed. Lvl3 might be enough.  BUT .....
[ 2009.08.09 16:50:33 ] Zastrow J > shoot*  this laptop is awfuland keeps dropping keystrokes
[ 2009.08.09 16:50:51 ] Erik Finnegan > We said earlier (last time - I wrote the minutes) that people need high-sec missions for making the money they need elsewhere.
[ 2009.08.09 16:50:58 ] Erik Finnegan > Does this proposal arrange just THAT ?
[ 2009.08.09 16:51:03 ] Dierdra Vaal > !
[ 2009.08.09 16:51:07 ] Erik Finnegan > So that high sec easy income is not needed anymore ?
[ 2009.08.09 16:51:09 ] Erik Finnegan > FIN
[ 2009.08.09 16:51:19 ] Zastrow J > i would love to see highsecmissions nerfed too but i just dont think ccp will go along with it, so my contingency is to improve encounters or rats in 0.0
[ 2009.08.09 16:51:27 ] Zastrow J > and lowsec
[ 2009.08.09 16:52:04 ] Zastrow J > and i dont like how the best reasonable way for an ndividual to make bux to do otherthings is highsc missions
[ 2009.08.09 16:52:24 ] Erik Finnegan > (I'm with you on that one.)
[ 2009.08.09 16:52:51 ] Zastrow J > pilots shouldnt feel like they HVE t do highsec missions because ratting or mining inlow/nullsec just isnt worth it
[ 2009.08.09 16:52:59 ] Zastrow J > deirdr go
[ 2009.08.09 16:53:01 ] Dierdra Vaal > I think this solution may make it less necessary for 0.0 pilots to have a high sec mission alt - but it wouldnt nerf missions as such for pilots who still prefer to stay in high sec.
[ 2009.08.09 16:53:07 ] Vuk Lau > i am before DV
[ 2009.08.09 16:53:19 ] Zastrow J > oh sorry
[ 2009.08.09 16:53:30 ] Zastrow J > didnt even see it vuk go
[ 2009.08.09 16:53:31 ] Erik Finnegan > ( my fault - I shot inbetween )
[ 2009.08.09 16:53:33 ] Vuk Lau > no prob DV can finish
[ 2009.08.09 16:53:52 ] Dierdra Vaal > I think everyone's had their say (well ok after vuk :) ) so I think we'll be ready to vote soon
[ 2009.08.09 16:53:54 ] Vuk Lau > ok then
[ 2009.08.09 16:53:54 ] Dierdra Vaal > end
[ 2009.08.09 16:54:06 ] Vuk Lau > [16:49:43] Zastrow J > there's alsoa lot of completely neglected space all over the map because it's just not worth the hassle of living in some space - this I explicitely showed on Iceland
[ 2009.08.09 16:54:15 ] Vuk Lau > by taking 4 regions
[ 2009.08.09 16:54:26 ] Vuk Lau > and showing that like only 10% of systems or even less
[ 2009.08.09 16:54:33 ] Vuk Lau > had NPCs killed in last 24 hours
[ 2009.08.09 16:54:54 ] Vuk Lau > also u can make shitload of money in lowsec or 0.0 on mission running
[ 2009.08.09 16:54:56 ] Vuk Lau > etc.
[ 2009.08.09 16:55:17 ] Vuk Lau > I just want to say that even if u wanted to make this issue explicit and focused on individual
[ 2009.08.09 16:55:25 ] Vuk Lau > its enormously broad issue
[ 2009.08.09 16:55:37 ] Vuk Lau > which is involving like hundeds of variables into it
[ 2009.08.09 16:55:45 ] Vuk Lau > both empire, lowssec or 0.0 ones
[ 2009.08.09 16:55:54 ] Vuk Lau > I support it fully
[ 2009.08.09 16:56:16 ] Vuk Lau > but I just dont see the point of raising it halfassed when we already have issue passed to CCP which covered all of this
[ 2009.08.09 16:56:19 ] Vuk Lau > end
[ 2009.08.09 16:56:29 ] Zastrow J > yea if you non-0.0 guys dont wander around in 0.0, most sov held in 0.0 is just held with like 1 small moon mining tower and is otherwise never even flown through, so even fi the map looks like people live there, they dont
[ 2009.08.09 16:56:49 ] Vuk Lau > sry its even the same for NPC sov regions
[ 2009.08.09 16:56:53 ] Vuk Lau > dotlan is down atm
[ 2009.08.09 16:57:00 ] Zastrow J > ok anyone else have a comment
[ 2009.08.09 16:57:04 ] Vuk Lau > but u can see that there is npcs killed in like only 10-20% systems
[ 2009.08.09 16:57:07 ] Vuk Lau > in last 24 hours
[ 2009.08.09 16:57:09 ] Vuk Lau > sry end
[ 2009.08.09 16:57:53 ] Zastrow J > ok, lets talk to ccp about pilots trying to make bux in lowsec or 0. and how it just isnt worth it compared to highsec
[ 2009.08.09 16:57:55 ] Zastrow J > elts vote
[ 2009.08.09 16:57:57 ] Zastrow J > i vote ys
[ 2009.08.09 16:58:04 ] Larkonis Trassler > yes
[ 2009.08.09 16:58:08 ] Avalloc > yes
[ 2009.08.09 16:58:10 ] Meissa Anunthiel > yes
[ 2009.08.09 16:58:24 ] Vuk Lau > yes - but with remark I alrady mentioned
[ 2009.08.09 16:58:34 ] Erik Finnegan > yes - Vuk must be right
[ 2009.08.09 16:58:43 ] Vuk Lau > haha
[ 2009.08.09 16:58:51 ] Shatana Fulfairas > yes
[ 2009.08.09 16:58:55 ] Dierdra Vaal > no - it could be rolled into the old issue, but its important to be raised regardless
[ 2009.08.09 16:59:12 ] Dierdra Vaal > maz voted yes
[ 2009.08.09 16:59:14 ] Dierdra Vaal > motion passes 8/1
[ 2009.08.09 16:59:15 ] Zastrow J > ok that dicussion took a long time sorry guys, i dont think we wanted to be here all day today
[ 2009.08.09 16:59:27 ] Dierdra Vaal > sometimes discussion needs to happen :)
[ 2009.08.09 16:59:34 ] Dierdra Vaal > 2: Competence of the GM department (Vuk)
[ 2009.08.09 16:59:38 ] Dierdra Vaal > http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Competence_of_the_GM_department
[ 2009.08.09 16:59:47 ] Vuk Lau > well its simple
[ 2009.08.09 17:00:04 ] Vuk Lau > i am asking for separate meeting with GMs
[ 2009.08.09 17:00:09 ] Vuk Lau > as we had for CSM 2
[ 2009.08.09 17:00:12 ] Vuk Lau > to discuss this issue
[ 2009.08.09 17:00:41 ] Avalloc > ! (when vuk is done)
[ 2009.08.09 17:00:43 ] Vuk Lau > i didnt go much into details
[ 2009.08.09 17:01:21 ] Vuk Lau > esp cause most of the stuff I want to tell to GMs is covered by NDA, EULA, TOS, US constituion and Jamaica Alcohol Prohibition laws
[ 2009.08.09 17:01:44 ] Dierdra Vaal > !
[ 2009.08.09 17:01:50 ] Vuk Lau > I will make nice presentation for that meeting
[ 2009.08.09 17:01:58 ] Vuk Lau > and everyone is welcome to work on it with me
[ 2009.08.09 17:02:07 ] Vuk Lau > Avalloc
[ 2009.08.09 17:02:17 ] Avalloc > while the Summary lists many valid concerns, i'm not comfortable with the Solution.. save for last line, outside the bullets..
[ 2009.08.09 17:02:22 ] Avalloc > FIN
[ 2009.08.09 17:03:14 ] Vuk Lau > DV
[ 2009.08.09 17:03:28 ] Dierdra Vaal > wall of text inc:
[ 2009.08.09 17:03:40 ] Dierdra Vaal > I think this issue is badly formed. It seems whiney (even with the changes), and quite honestly the 'solution' and even the issue itself I think falls greatly out of the scope of the CSM. We cannot really request from CCP that they hire more people....
[ 2009.08.09 17:03:45 ] Dierdra Vaal > I do think it is fair to ask for a discussion with the GM department about their functioning and about how this could be improved, but requesting a 'house cleanup' and hiring more GMs falls way beyond our scope.
[ 2009.08.09 17:03:50 ] Dierdra Vaal > I also think we need to be mindful of the relationship between CCP and CSM. We do not need to be yes-men, but at the same time we cannot presume to tell CCP how to run their company.
[ 2009.08.09 17:03:53 ] Meissa Anunthiel > !
[ 2009.08.09 17:03:57 ] Dierdra Vaal > As such I will be voting no on this issue, though I will support a simple request for a discussion with the GM department. end
[ 2009.08.09 17:04:20 ] Vuk Lau > well
[ 2009.08.09 17:04:24 ] Vuk Lau > I disagree
[ 2009.08.09 17:04:33 ] Vuk Lau > cause we are already doing all of it
[ 2009.08.09 17:04:34 ] Vuk Lau > indirectly
[ 2009.08.09 17:05:00 ] Vuk Lau > and our job IS to suggest CCP how to run their company
[ 2009.08.09 17:05:04 ] Erik Finnegan > !
[ 2009.08.09 17:05:06 ] Vuk Lau > again indirectly
[ 2009.08.09 17:05:17 ] Vuk Lau > GM team is important part of gaming experience
[ 2009.08.09 17:05:33 ] Vuk Lau > and thus should be in workarea of CSM
[ 2009.08.09 17:05:54 ] Vuk Lau > I am sorry for the "whiney" look of the issue
[ 2009.08.09 17:05:58 ] Vuk Lau > but partialy I did it on purpose
[ 2009.08.09 17:06:05 ] Dierdra Vaal > I dont disagree with helping CCP improve the GM dept. I just think the proposed solution isnt good.
[ 2009.08.09 17:06:24 ] Vuk Lau > well then help me preping better solution
[ 2009.08.09 17:06:32 ] Vuk Lau > if this issue gets voted
[ 2009.08.09 17:06:41 ] Vuk Lau > Meissa
[ 2009.08.09 17:06:50 ] Meissa Anunthiel > It deservedly is whiney, the GM team is a bunch of idiots unknowledgeable about the game they're suppose to manage. They're inconsistent and biased. I had one senior GM offer to "fix" the sec status of some people to let him pass unhindered in 0.0. They
[ 2009.08.09 17:06:58 ] Meissa Anunthiel > They're a bunch of mongrels who need a kick in the rear. Expressing disapointment with these carefuly chosen words is very appropriate. Some of them are decent though...
[ 2009.08.09 17:07:16 ] Meissa Anunthiel > the solutions are partial solutions only, but it's a start
[ 2009.08.09 17:07:18 ] Meissa Anunthiel > [/end]
[ 2009.08.09 17:07:27 ] Vuk Lau > /emote bows to Meissa
[ 2009.08.09 17:07:33 ] Vuk Lau > Erik my man
[ 2009.08.09 17:07:40 ] Erik Finnegan > The tones make the music (we Gallente say). And as others said : the reason for this request is valid, but the text sent to CCP should be put way more subtly. The effect will be the same : we talk about this. But we should be professional in how we
[ 2009.08.09 17:07:42 ] Erik Finnegan > raise issues. [FIN]
[ 2009.08.09 17:08:08 ] Vuk Lau > Just for the record
[ 2009.08.09 17:08:13 ] Larkonis Trassler > !
[ 2009.08.09 17:08:15 ] Vuk Lau > I had vast experience with GM team
[ 2009.08.09 17:08:27 ] Vuk Lau > both GM1, GM2 and GM3 ones
[ 2009.08.09 17:08:36 ] Vuk Lau > and trust me when I say they suck royaly
[ 2009.08.09 17:08:49 ] Erik Finnegan > (voting yes assuming that you will re-dress the issue with Dierdra's help as offered :))
[ 2009.08.09 17:09:11 ] Dierdra Vaal > !
[ 2009.08.09 17:09:53 ] Vuk Lau > Lark
[ 2009.08.09 17:10:07 ] Larkonis Trassler > I don't view the proposal as whiney, although I am of the opinion that Vuk should keep his back to the wall in Iceland... I do think the GM department is in need of a shakeup, at the moment they are... consistently inconsistent
[ 2009.08.09 17:10:26 ] Larkonis Trassler > the issue should at the very least be taken to the table
[ 2009.08.09 17:10:26 ] Larkonis Trassler > end
[ 2009.08.09 17:10:42 ] Meissa Anunthiel > (I'm out of smokes, the store closes in 10 minutes, I'm running there and back. Voting yes on this issue)
[ 2009.08.09 17:10:42 ] Vuk Lau > Dierdra lady
[ 2009.08.09 17:10:48 ] Dierdra Vaal > just to clear any confusion - I think requesting a discussion with the GM department is a good. Asking ccp to fire their 'rotten apples' and then hire more gms to 'reduce the workload' is way beyond our scope. We cannot dictate their HR policies. end
[ 2009.08.09 17:11:33 ] Vuk Lau > ok, the point of raising this issue is actualy to have meeting with GMs on this subject
[ 2009.08.09 17:11:46 ] Vuk Lau > I am aware that we can dictate CCP how they will operate
[ 2009.08.09 17:11:49 ] Vuk Lau > but we can suggest
[ 2009.08.09 17:11:56 ] Vuk Lau > anyway should we vote?
[ 2009.08.09 17:12:18 ] Vuk Lau > ok lets vote
[ 2009.08.09 17:12:30 ] Vuk Lau > yes ofc
[ 2009.08.09 17:12:36 ] Larkonis Trassler > yes
[ 2009.08.09 17:12:37 ] Dierdra Vaal > vote no.
[ 2009.08.09 17:12:38 ] mazzilliu > voting yes
[ 2009.08.09 17:12:54 ] Vuk Lau > Meissa voted yes
[ 2009.08.09 17:12:56 ] Shatana Fulfairas > yes
[ 2009.08.09 17:13:00 ] Erik Finnegan > ye
[ 2009.08.09 17:13:21 ] Zastrow J > ugh, i dunno, i guess il vote yes but honestly i dont think we're going to be able to change this, call me cynical
[ 2009.08.09 17:13:31 ] Vuk Lau > i call you pussy :D
[ 2009.08.09 17:13:41 ] Vuk Lau > Avalloc
[ 2009.08.09 17:13:50 ] Zastrow J > keep your back to the wall in iceland, (and dont bend over)
[ 2009.08.09 17:13:55 ] Avalloc > hrmmmm
[ 2009.08.09 17:14:20 ] Avalloc > no, I stand by original remark
[ 2009.08.09 17:14:27 ] Dierdra Vaal > motion passed 7/2
[ 2009.08.09 17:14:49 ] Dierdra Vaal > 3: Black Ops and Titan able to lock on POS Cyno Beacons (Avalloc)
[ 2009.08.09 17:14:52 ] Vuk Lau > DV and Avalloc should watch their asses tbh
[ 2009.08.09 17:14:55 ] Dierdra Vaal > http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Black_Ops_and_Titan_able_to_lock_on_POS_Cyno_Beacons
[ 2009.08.09 17:15:03 ] Vuk Lau > I am bigged danger to asses then whole CCP
[ 2009.08.09 17:15:22 ] Dierdra Vaal > /emote has special mousetrap-pants
[ 2009.08.09 17:15:32 ] Dierdra Vaal > anyway, on topic, avalloc:
[ 2009.08.09 17:15:36 ] Avalloc > Currently the Black Ops and Titan jump bridge UI can only open bridges to a cyno broadcast via another ship.
[ 2009.08.09 17:15:44 ] Vuk Lau > not correct
[ 2009.08.09 17:15:57 ] Avalloc > The proposal is to allow the Titan and the Black Op ship types to create bridges to POS Cyno Beacons in the same manner capital ships can jump to them normally.
[ 2009.08.09 17:15:57 ] Zastrow J > i swear ive bridged to beacons before
[ 2009.08.09 17:16:13 ] Vuk Lau > titan can bridge to beacons
[ 2009.08.09 17:16:29 ] Vuk Lau > dunno for blackops
[ 2009.08.09 17:16:42 ] Avalloc > hrmm
[ 2009.08.09 17:16:50 ] Dierdra Vaal > !
[ 2009.08.09 17:16:51 ] Zastrow J > blackops can only bridge to covert cynos so no beacons, but im pretty sure tits can already do this
[ 2009.08.09 17:17:04 ] Vuk Lau > i am sure titans can do it
[ 2009.08.09 17:17:12 ] Vuk Lau > cause I am doing it every day
[ 2009.08.09 17:17:18 ] Avalloc > dv?
[ 2009.08.09 17:17:38 ] Avalloc > we can strike it then... got  conflicting info
[ 2009.08.09 17:17:44 ] Dierdra Vaal > I think it is fair to restrict blackops to covert portals. As it seems titans can already bridge to beacons, I think that makes this issue fairly irrelevant. end
[ 2009.08.09 17:17:51 ] Dierdra Vaal > do you wish to remove it from the agenda avalloc?
[ 2009.08.09 17:18:09 ] Avalloc > yup, kill it
[ 2009.08.09 17:18:12 ] Dierdra Vaal > ok
[ 2009.08.09 17:18:13 ] Dierdra Vaal > next!
[ 2009.08.09 17:18:18 ] Dierdra Vaal > 4: Docking subcapital ships into (super)capital ships (Zastrow)
[ 2009.08.09 17:18:22 ] Dierdra Vaal > http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Docking_in_Capital_Ships
[ 2009.08.09 17:19:15 ] Vuk Lau > !
[ 2009.08.09 17:19:33 ] Meissa Anunthiel > (back)
[ 2009.08.09 17:19:34 ] Zastrow J > yea this is entirely self explanatory.  i think it would be awesome and i really think motherships and titans at least should be able ot do this
[ 2009.08.09 17:19:58 ] Dierdra Vaal > !
[ 2009.08.09 17:20:15 ] Zastrow J > i hate doomsdays (even though i am a titan pilot) and i think this is a way we could give supercaps a useful role
[ 2009.08.09 17:20:20 ] Zastrow J > vuk go
[ 2009.08.09 17:20:44 ] Vuk Lau > as Avalloc stated in Wiki CCP said this is practicaly impossible to implement, and they said the same to us on ICeland
[ 2009.08.09 17:20:59 ] Vuk Lau > cause the idea was already raised
[ 2009.08.09 17:21:07 ] Vuk Lau > as titans as stations
[ 2009.08.09 17:21:11 ] Vuk Lau > I cant find it on wiki
[ 2009.08.09 17:21:17 ] Zastrow J > i looked for it too
[ 2009.08.09 17:21:26 ] Vuk Lau > anyway
[ 2009.08.09 17:21:30 ] Vuk Lau > they said its nto possible
[ 2009.08.09 17:21:33 ] Larkonis Trassler > !
[ 2009.08.09 17:21:36 ] Vuk Lau > end
[ 2009.08.09 17:21:50 ] Zastrow J > but the game is constantly changing so i'd at least like to ask them about th feasibility
[ 2009.08.09 17:22:08 ] Zastrow J > lark go
[ 2009.08.09 17:22:10 ] Zastrow J > oh shit
[ 2009.08.09 17:22:14 ] Zastrow J > dierdra
[ 2009.08.09 17:22:24 ] Zastrow J > dierdra go
[ 2009.08.09 17:22:45 ] Dierdra Vaal > I'm a bit torn on this issue. For one, I feel there is a risk that this further overpowers hotdrops, as you could more easily bring your support fleet with the hotdrop....
[ 2009.08.09 17:22:49 ] Dierdra Vaal > Sure, you can only fit very few battleships into a carrier but what about HACs/HICs/Recons? ...
[ 2009.08.09 17:22:59 ] Dierdra Vaal > On the other hand, I also think this is awesome and it does make sense to give this functionality to motherships (imo, motherships only). ...
[ 2009.08.09 17:23:37 ] Dierdra Vaal > it may be technically very hard to implement but that may just mean it becomes a long term goal for CCP. Right now I'm just more worried on the balance implications of this proposal.
[ 2009.08.09 17:23:38 ] Dierdra Vaal > end
[ 2009.08.09 17:24:01 ] Zastrow J > on the issue of hotdrops, you can already send a support fleet though a titan bridge, though at a shorter range
[ 2009.08.09 17:24:17 ] Dierdra Vaal > !
[ 2009.08.09 17:24:24 ] Zastrow J > so i dont know how much effect it would have on that at least
[ 2009.08.09 17:24:31 ] Zastrow J > go ahead and respond if you're responding to this
[ 2009.08.09 17:24:38 ] Dierdra Vaal > perhaps increasing the jump fuel cost for a 'loaded mom' would be a way to balance it
[ 2009.08.09 17:24:45 ] Dierdra Vaal > since it would increase the ships mass drastically
[ 2009.08.09 17:24:55 ] Dierdra Vaal > or reducing jump range somewhat
[ 2009.08.09 17:24:59 ] Dierdra Vaal > end
[ 2009.08.09 17:25:13 ] Zastrow J > tope cost wouldnt be a bad idea
[ 2009.08.09 17:25:16 ] Zastrow J > ok lar go
[ 2009.08.09 17:25:20 ] Larkonis Trassler > In terms of mechanics I'm sure there can be some sort of work around ie instead of docking the other ship 'attaches' or 'atunes jump harmonics' or whatever... with reference to the general idea, i'm still in two minds
[ 2009.08.09 17:25:36 ] Larkonis Trassler > Part of the risk of hotdropping someone is you generally don't go without support
[ 2009.08.09 17:25:47 ] Larkonis Trassler > or the support fleet is already there
[ 2009.08.09 17:25:58 ] Larkonis Trassler > And wrt titans, not everyone has access
[ 2009.08.09 17:26:08 ] Larkonis Trassler > I do admit it would make things a bit more spicey
[ 2009.08.09 17:26:23 ] Vuk Lau > !
[ 2009.08.09 17:26:58 ] Larkonis Trassler > Although it's pretty gash there are ways and means to do this already via clone vat bays and the like
[ 2009.08.09 17:27:48 ] Larkonis Trassler > I really like the idea, and i hotdrop people a lot, but i think this is a tad overpowered if applied to carriers and moms, perhaps just restrict to moms
[ 2009.08.09 17:27:49 ] Larkonis Trassler > end
[ 2009.08.09 17:27:52 ] Zastrow J > vuk gO
[ 2009.08.09 17:28:24 ] Vuk Lau > i am kinda divided on this issue. From one side it is giving another aspect to 0.0 warfare, but from the other side I see a lot of problems in balancing this. I would give it a go as general idea but only for moms.
[ 2009.08.09 17:28:36 ] Erik Finnegan > !
[ 2009.08.09 17:28:45 ] Vuk Lau > end
[ 2009.08.09 17:29:08 ] Meissa Anunthiel > !
[ 2009.08.09 17:29:09 ] Dierdra Vaal > !
[ 2009.08.09 17:29:12 ] Zastrow J > yea i like it for moms at least because moms i honestly think moms are just not worth building currently
[ 2009.08.09 17:29:25 ] Zastrow J > erik go
[ 2009.08.09 17:29:35 ] Shatana Fulfairas > !
[ 2009.08.09 17:29:41 ] Erik Finnegan > I have the same worries with regards to balance. How about "trying" this feature - and how to balance it - with docking or passengers on less substantial combat ships ?Unless that might take the push out of the issue as CCP does not see relevanc...
[ 2009.08.09 17:29:45 ] Erik Finnegan > then.... [FIN]
[ 2009.08.09 17:31:01 ] Zastrow J > since we're not even sure it's feasible, at this point we can just vote to ask ccp if its possible to code before having an in-depth balance idscussion
[ 2009.08.09 17:31:15 ] Zastrow J > shat go
[ 2009.08.09 17:31:19 ] Shatana Fulfairas > i agree to the point of limiting to the MS class only as with the aomount of titans some alliances bring to the field the abuse of it with them could be horrifc  "END"
[ 2009.08.09 17:32:09 ] Vuk Lau > !
[ 2009.08.09 17:32:17 ] Zastrow J > vuK go
[ 2009.08.09 17:32:20 ] Dierdra Vaal > dont forget me and meissa :P
[ 2009.08.09 17:32:20 ] Vuk Lau > there is 10 times more moms then titan s:D
[ 2009.08.09 17:32:25 ] Vuk Lau > end
[ 2009.08.09 17:33:14 ] Zastrow J > man i am bad at this ! thing
[ 2009.08.09 17:33:20 ] Zastrow J > meissa go
[ 2009.08.09 17:33:25 ] Meissa Anunthiel > The idea is great for moms/titans, other than that it'd make sneaky deployment of troops too easy. Vuk pointed balance issues and technical problems. I'll add my own concerns on these 2 points. From what I know of the game, that's something they'd have
[ 2009.08.09 17:33:32 ] Meissa Anunthiel > To spend many man-months on. And the resulting thing would be inevitably buggy. I don't know that it's worth the hassle... Will vote yes just to see what they say, but without any hope of seeing it in game ever. [/end]
[ 2009.08.09 17:34:19 ] Erik Finnegan > ( Meissa and DB worries..... neverending story )
[ 2009.08.09 17:34:34 ] Zastrow J > deirdraaa a a a goo o o o o
[ 2009.08.09 17:34:37 ] Dierdra Vaal > Given the current attitudes of the CSM, may I suggest that the wiki item is adjusted now so it specifically states this would only apply to moms? end
[ 2009.08.09 17:35:24 ] Zastrow J > im down with that
[ 2009.08.09 17:36:21 ] Zastrow J > hey lets vote on asking ccp if this is even possible, and we'll preliminarily limit the questin to motherships before we talk anymore about balancing it
[ 2009.08.09 17:36:34 ] Zastrow J > im votin, look at me, im votin yes
[ 2009.08.09 17:36:42 ] Avalloc > yes
[ 2009.08.09 17:36:52 ] Vuk Lau > no
[ 2009.08.09 17:36:54 ] mazzilliu > yes
[ 2009.08.09 17:36:56 ] Erik Finnegan > /emote votes yes
[ 2009.08.09 17:36:57 ] Dierdra Vaal > yes
[ 2009.08.09 17:37:09 ] Larkonis Trassler > yes
[ 2009.08.09 17:37:17 ] Meissa Anunthiel > bah, yes
[ 2009.08.09 17:38:29 ] Dierdra Vaal > shan?
[ 2009.08.09 17:38:34 ] Shatana Fulfairas > yes
[ 2009.08.09 17:38:41 ] Dierdra Vaal > motion passed 8/1
[ 2009.08.09 17:38:50 ] Dierdra Vaal > 5: Split the show Effects setting into separate options.‎ (Avalloc)
[ 2009.08.09 17:38:54 ] Dierdra Vaal > http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Split_the_show_Effects_setting_into_separate_options.
[ 2009.08.09 17:38:56 ] Avalloc > The graphics affected by "Effects" option under Effects in Display & Graphics menu covers too many graphical effects. f you have it turned off you miss seeing Doomsdays and useful things like being able to tell is a ship is being repaired remotely o
[ 2009.08.09 17:39:02 ] Avalloc > or in Triage. If you have it turned on you are overwhelmed by seeing everyone who is sensor boosting along with everything else.
[ 2009.08.09 17:39:16 ] Avalloc > Create three new options: Combat Effects (i.e. doomsdays), Projected Effects (i.e. remote reps), and Localized Effects (i.e. sensor boosters.) It could be expanded even further to distinguish between helpful and hurtful effects.
[ 2009.08.09 17:39:46 ] Avalloc > questions?
[ 2009.08.09 17:39:57 ] Erik Finnegan > !
[ 2009.08.09 17:39:58 ] Vuk Lau > !
[ 2009.08.09 17:40:03 ] Avalloc > erik
[ 2009.08.09 17:40:12 ] Erik Finnegan > Goes in line with the "split sound effects" option requested..... is it later today this one ?
[ 2009.08.09 17:40:20 ] Erik Finnegan > I'm for this [FIN]
[ 2009.08.09 17:40:42 ] Avalloc > I'm not doing split sound. ;)
[ 2009.08.09 17:40:45 ] Avalloc > vuk?
[ 2009.08.09 17:40:55 ] Vuk Lau > i am not sure it is THAT bad as u wrote, cause even with effects off u can see doomsdays and many other effects, but I support this totaly
[ 2009.08.09 17:40:58 ] Vuk Lau > end
[ 2009.08.09 17:41:13 ] Meissa Anunthiel > !
[ 2009.08.09 17:41:32 ] Avalloc > I've never seen a dd with all my effects off.
[ 2009.08.09 17:41:38 ] Avalloc > meissa
[ 2009.08.09 17:42:01 ] Meissa Anunthiel > Nice idea, I feel very sorry for the poor dev who's going to have to implement it however. 3 options is more than enough though, more than that and you end up with too much control, which is bad for newbies trying to configure stuff [/end]
[ 2009.08.09 17:42:17 ] Vuk Lau > i am afk 2 mins, I vote yes on this
[ 2009.08.09 17:42:27 ] Avalloc > anyone else?
[ 2009.08.09 17:42:44 ] Avalloc > vote!
[ 2009.08.09 17:42:47 ] Zastrow J > es
[ 2009.08.09 17:42:48 ] Zastrow J > y
[ 2009.08.09 17:42:49 ] Dierdra Vaal > yes
[ 2009.08.09 17:42:51 ] Erik Finnegan > /emote votes yes
[ 2009.08.09 17:42:52 ] Avalloc > yes
[ 2009.08.09 17:42:54 ] Larkonis Trassler > yes
[ 2009.08.09 17:42:59 ] Shatana Fulfairas > yes
[ 2009.08.09 17:43:09 ] Meissa Anunthiel > yes
[ 2009.08.09 17:43:10 ] mazzilliu > yes
[ 2009.08.09 17:43:14 ] Dierdra Vaal > motion passed 9/0!
[ 2009.08.09 17:43:30 ] Dierdra Vaal > avalloc has a lot of talking to do this meeting
[ 2009.08.09 17:43:31 ] Dierdra Vaal > 6: Add skill which reduces Jump Clone timer just a little bit.‎ (Avalloc)
[ 2009.08.09 17:43:37 ] Dierdra Vaal > http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Add_skill_which_reduces_Jump_Clone_timer_just_a_little_bit.
[ 2009.08.09 17:43:38 ] Avalloc > The Jump Clone timer is 24 hours. This restriction can create quite a lot of problems for players who have limited play time and want to utilize this time to the best of their ability.
[ 2009.08.09 17:43:44 ] Dierdra Vaal > !
[ 2009.08.09 17:43:45 ] Avalloc > Case in point you normally log in at 8pm and play until Midnight. On Monday you log in with a fresh timer seeking something to do. At 10pm, in another Region a battle calls for your participation.
[ 2009.08.09 17:43:59 ] Avalloc > You have a Jump Clone stored there and make the jump and have a merry good time until Midnight when you log off. Tuesday you log in at 8pm and discover there is action taking place in your home Region. Unfortunately you still have two hours to wait out
[ 2009.08.09 17:44:15 ] Zastrow J > hey guys my ride is leaving i have to go.  8 hours of drivin til home .  you can count me as a yes on al of avalloc's issues
[ 2009.08.09 17:44:17 ] Avalloc > the timer and have to miss out.
[ 2009.08.09 17:44:27 ] Meissa Anunthiel > !
[ 2009.08.09 17:44:37 ] Avalloc > I propose that a new skill be added that reduces the Jump Clone timer. It can even be a Rank 10 (or higher) skill. The purpose here is to give players a little more flexibility if they're willing to train for it.
[ 2009.08.09 17:44:53 ] Avalloc > Potential Options:    * Add skill which decreases Jump Clone timer by # hours per rank.    * OR Allow for use of Jump Clone switching twice each 48 hour period.
[ 2009.08.09 17:45:05 ] Avalloc > meissa?
[ 2009.08.09 17:45:19 ] Meissa Anunthiel > The JC timer gives the knowledge to people being attacked somewhere that a counterstroke away from where they are will be less defended, or the other way around. (continuing)
[ 2009.08.09 17:45:44 ] Dierdra Vaal > (dont forget my !)
[ 2009.08.09 17:45:51 ] Meissa Anunthiel > as it is, it gives an indication and the 24h gives time for people to prepare something if they're able to do so. I hate the restriction as much as everyone else, but maybe it's not all bad [/end]
[ 2009.08.09 17:46:58 ] Avalloc > People can still pod jump.. And the  big thing here is the 24 hor thing.. it really hurts players who have set playtimes daily
[ 2009.08.09 17:47:00 ] Avalloc > dv?
[ 2009.08.09 17:47:02 ] Dierdra Vaal > this was raised (and shot down) before. I dont think it actually made it to CCP. I still think the jumpclones make travel through eve a bit trivial. Making it faster makes it even more trivial and with jump bridges, cynos and JCs we soon wont need gates
[ 2009.08.09 17:47:16 ] Dierdra Vaal > I also think, as meissa pointed out, that the timer is a consequence of using your JC
[ 2009.08.09 17:47:39 ] Dierdra Vaal > its something to keep in mind - is it worth the jump if it means you'll be 'stuck' somewhere else for 24 hrs. end
[ 2009.08.09 17:47:54 ] Larkonis Trassler > !
[ 2009.08.09 17:47:56 ] Erik Finnegan > !
[ 2009.08.09 17:48:22 ] mazzilliu > !
[ 2009.08.09 17:48:27 ] Avalloc > lark?
[ 2009.08.09 17:49:01 ] Larkonis Trassler > i'm with dv, the universe is too small as it is with all these enhanced ways of getting around, if a CTA is that urgent then you can pod yourself closer to the action
[ 2009.08.09 17:49:14 ] Larkonis Trassler > end
[ 2009.08.09 17:49:55 ] Avalloc > well, podding results in loss of isk and/or implants
[ 2009.08.09 17:50:21 ] Larkonis Trassler > hence i said if it's 'that urgent'
[ 2009.08.09 17:50:23 ] Avalloc > I'm not asking for anything big in reduction.
[ 2009.08.09 17:50:42 ] Avalloc > we're talking a few hours, max.. at level 5
[ 2009.08.09 17:50:57 ] Avalloc > 30min per level in skill, is something
[ 2009.08.09 17:51:10 ] Avalloc > erik?
[ 2009.08.09 17:51:19 ] Erik Finnegan > Travelling is really easy nowadays it seems. How about increasing JC timer standard to 48 hours and allowing skilled reduction to 20 ? [FIN]
[ 2009.08.09 17:52:27 ] Avalloc > Then you're pentalizing the new players.
[ 2009.08.09 17:52:45 ] Larkonis Trassler > !
[ 2009.08.09 17:52:56 ] Avalloc > in Empire this isn't such a big issue
[ 2009.08.09 17:53:17 ] Avalloc > but in lowsec or 0.0 it is bigger when implants come into play
[ 2009.08.09 17:53:36 ] Avalloc > mazz?
[ 2009.08.09 17:53:45 ] mazzilliu > I think that the intended consequence of JC's is that you use it once every day max.  the unescapable consequences of real life just make that not work very well all the time.  i think reducing it by one or even two hours would drastically increase usab
[ 2009.08.09 17:53:54 ] mazzilliu > usability without forcing people to resort to workarounds like podding oneself, and without allowing players to "abuse" it, since it will still happen "approximately" once per day.
[ 2009.08.09 17:54:01 ] mazzilliu > so i totally suport this
[ 2009.08.09 17:54:19 ] mazzilliu > end
[ 2009.08.09 17:54:51 ] Avalloc > right, my key emphasis here is helping people participate more and have fun with pvp, etc...
[ 2009.08.09 17:55:04 ] Avalloc > lark?
[ 2009.08.09 17:55:27 ] Larkonis Trassler > Sod the new players, in my day we didn't have jump clones, bridges, accelerated training, fancy tutorials, we had to warp to 15 and vagas were 300 mil.As long as we are talking about a maximum of 30 mins to 1 hour per level i suppose i can live
[ 2009.08.09 17:55:28 ] Larkonis Trassler > with it
[ 2009.08.09 17:55:56 ] Larkonis Trassler > end
[ 2009.08.09 17:55:58 ] Dierdra Vaal > did you have to warp through 3 ft of snow, with no shoes? and uphill both ways?
[ 2009.08.09 17:56:02 ] Dierdra Vaal > (sorry I couldnt resist)
[ 2009.08.09 17:56:16 ] Avalloc > I'm talking about this being a high rank skill, too..
[ 2009.08.09 17:56:49 ] Avalloc > give it a tens of million isk cost too
[ 2009.08.09 17:57:22 ] Avalloc > or require minimum infomorph skill level to train
[ 2009.08.09 17:57:25 ] Erik Finnegan > !
[ 2009.08.09 17:57:36 ] Avalloc > erik?
[ 2009.08.09 17:57:41 ] Erik Finnegan > In the end....24h was meant to restrict usage to once per day.
[ 2009.08.09 17:57:49 ] Erik Finnegan > It was short sighted maybe to choose 24h
[ 2009.08.09 17:58:09 ] Erik Finnegan > Cause daily play will bring you online roughly at 20h +-
[ 2009.08.09 17:58:19 ] Meissa Anunthiel > !
[ 2009.08.09 17:58:28 ] Erik Finnegan > So from that end I can support the request. [FIN]
[ 2009.08.09 17:59:38 ] Avalloc > exactly.. I know people who don't even log in till 2nd day after a jc use, and that is unfortunate that their playtime is affected by this.. they want to enjoy the game like everyone else and just a minor cut to delay would impact them
[ 2009.08.09 17:59:44 ] Avalloc > meissa
[ 2009.08.09 17:59:49 ] Meissa Anunthiel > How does making it high rank and very expensive help with the stated objective of "helping noobs take part in faraway PvP". If you have to reduce the timer, reduce it for everyone and be done with it.
[ 2009.08.09 18:00:04 ] Erik Finnegan > Also true ^^
[ 2009.08.09 18:00:25 ] Meissa Anunthiel > I still think travelling should be harder than it is today. And using the "suiciding back is already an option but too costly" is not an excuse to make traveling easier, on the contrary.
[ 2009.08.09 18:01:06 ] Meissa Anunthiel > if you need to move fast enough that it warrants losing implants/clone fee, you'll do it, but it has to be costly, lest travel becomes too trivial and there's no sense of belonging anywhere
[ 2009.08.09 18:01:41 ] Meissa Anunthiel > also it prevents one large group of players (say, goons) from having JCs in 5 non-adjacent regions and jumping happily from one place to another with ease
[ 2009.08.09 18:02:11 ] Meissa Anunthiel > as it is, JC timer at least helps control some of the "overexpansionists" among the populace ;-)
[ 2009.08.09 18:02:14 ] mazzilliu > !
[ 2009.08.09 18:02:16 ] Meissa Anunthiel > [/end]
[ 2009.08.09 18:02:22 ] Avalloc > the option is there, reduce for everyone.. or add a skill, but i'd like ccp to consider a reduction of some sort to help people enjoy their (potentially) limited playtime more
[ 2009.08.09 18:03:16 ] Dierdra Vaal > I think we can vote
[ 2009.08.09 18:03:29 ] Avalloc > concerning goons example, or anyone.. have 5 jc spread about isn't realistic.. due to logistics.. etc
[ 2009.08.09 18:03:38 ] Avalloc > even if timerr was shortened
[ 2009.08.09 18:03:42 ] Avalloc > mazz?
[ 2009.08.09 18:04:04 ] Avalloc > zastrow crash?
[ 2009.08.09 18:04:22 ] mazzilliu > in responce to meissa's comment- this change isn't going to change the landscape of EVE at all.  for a large alliance in order to fight on two fronts, you also need all the ships in place which is a huge undertaking.  it's a usability change.
[ 2009.08.09 18:04:24 ] Dierdra Vaal > he had to go (but he's voting yes on all your issues)
[ 2009.08.09 18:04:27 ] mazzilliu > and people can still pod themselves
[ 2009.08.09 18:04:33 ] mazzilliu > that was all
[ 2009.08.09 18:04:51 ] mazzilliu > votng yes
[ 2009.08.09 18:04:54 ] Avalloc > ok, vote is up :)
[ 2009.08.09 18:04:58 ] Meissa Anunthiel > voting no
[ 2009.08.09 18:05:02 ] Avalloc > <- yes
[ 2009.08.09 18:05:05 ] Dierdra Vaal > no
[ 2009.08.09 18:05:22 ] Dierdra Vaal > (zastrow is voting yes)
[ 2009.08.09 18:05:32 ] Shatana Fulfairas > no
[ 2009.08.09 18:05:32 ] Vuk Lau > no
[ 2009.08.09 18:05:35 ] Larkonis Trassler > hmmm no
[ 2009.08.09 18:05:48 ] Erik Finnegan > /emote votes no
[ 2009.08.09 18:06:02 ] Dierdra Vaal > motion failed 3/6
[ 2009.08.09 18:06:20 ] Dierdra Vaal > ok guys we are 2hrs in but we still have a lot of issues to go. I hope we can get through them quickly :)
[ 2009.08.09 18:06:22 ] Dierdra Vaal > 7: Improve refresh time on loading Corporate Hangar contents.‎ (Avalloc)
[ 2009.08.09 18:06:36 ] Dierdra Vaal > http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Improve_refresh_time_on_loading_Corporate_Hangar_contents.
[ 2009.08.09 18:06:36 ] Meissa Anunthiel > votes yes
[ 2009.08.09 18:06:41 ] Avalloc > There can be a substantial delay with the UI revealing hangar contents when clicking between tabs in a Corporate Hangar, whether it is within a Station, POS Module, or Capital Ship. This is especially troublesome when you're in a hurry to find something
[ 2009.08.09 18:06:58 ] Dierdra Vaal > !
[ 2009.08.09 18:06:59 ] Avalloc > and have to suffer this wait.
[ 2009.08.09 18:07:10 ] Avalloc > I propose that CCP investigate whether improvements to refresh rate of Hangar contents loading can be improved.
[ 2009.08.09 18:07:14 ] Avalloc > dv?
[ 2009.08.09 18:07:26 ] Dierdra Vaal > I cant imagine that CCP has deliberately put a delay into this - So wouldnt the latency be simply a result of the inventory system?
[ 2009.08.09 18:07:27 ] Dierdra Vaal > end
[ 2009.08.09 18:07:53 ] Avalloc > Won't know unless we ask.
[ 2009.08.09 18:08:03 ] Avalloc > anyone else?
[ 2009.08.09 18:08:29 ] Vuk Lau > i will vote yes, but I never had a aproblem with it
[ 2009.08.09 18:08:39 ] Avalloc > vote open
[ 2009.08.09 18:08:40 ] Meissa Anunthiel > it's a pain in labs
[ 2009.08.09 18:08:45 ] Dierdra Vaal > (Z votes yes)
[ 2009.08.09 18:08:45 ] Meissa Anunthiel > /emote votes yes
[ 2009.08.09 18:08:47 ] Dierdra Vaal > no
[ 2009.08.09 18:08:47 ] Erik Finnegan > /emote votes yes
[ 2009.08.09 18:08:49 ] Vuk Lau > yes
[ 2009.08.09 18:08:50 ] mazzilliu > voting yes
[ 2009.08.09 18:08:50 ] Shatana Fulfairas > yes no harm in asking
[ 2009.08.09 18:08:50 ] Avalloc > yes
[ 2009.08.09 18:08:57 ] Larkonis Trassler > ys
[ 2009.08.09 18:09:00 ] Dierdra Vaal > motion passes 8/1
[ 2009.08.09 18:09:12 ] Dierdra Vaal > 8: Ship fittings visible via Show Info without boarding ship.‎  (Avalloc)
[ 2009.08.09 18:09:16 ] Dierdra Vaal > http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Ship_fittings_visible_via_Show_Info_without_boarding_ship.
[ 2009.08.09 18:09:17 ] Avalloc > It is not possible to determine what the fittings are on an assembled ship unless you are in the ship. Alright that isn't completely true. You can create a contract and see everything listed by that is hardly reasonable.
[ 2009.08.09 18:09:28 ] Avalloc > Add the capability to see ship fittings with Show Info whether you're in the ship or not.
[ 2009.08.09 18:09:37 ] Avalloc > comments?
[ 2009.08.09 18:09:41 ] Erik Finnegan > /emote votes yes
[ 2009.08.09 18:09:45 ] Vuk Lau > yes
[ 2009.08.09 18:09:53 ] Larkonis Trassler > yes
[ 2009.08.09 18:09:55 ] Shatana Fulfairas > Yes
[ 2009.08.09 18:09:55 ] Dierdra Vaal > !
[ 2009.08.09 18:09:59 ] Avalloc > dv
[ 2009.08.09 18:10:11 ] Dierdra Vaal > it should be clarified that this relates to ships in your hangar only
[ 2009.08.09 18:10:28 ] Meissa Anunthiel > yes
[ 2009.08.09 18:10:30 ] Vuk Lau > naturaly
[ 2009.08.09 18:10:30 ] Dierdra Vaal > I'm sure that is your intention, but I wouldnt want ccp to interpret as all ships (including enemy ships in space)
[ 2009.08.09 18:10:31 ] Dierdra Vaal > end
[ 2009.08.09 18:10:38 ] mazzilliu > yes
[ 2009.08.09 18:10:39 ] Erik Finnegan > ^^
[ 2009.08.09 18:10:45 ] Dierdra Vaal > so the wiki would need a small adjustment
[ 2009.08.09 18:10:53 ] Avalloc > yes, anything you can see under assets
[ 2009.08.09 18:10:54 ] Avalloc > yes
[ 2009.08.09 18:11:01 ] Dierdra Vaal > thats all :)
[ 2009.08.09 18:11:17 ] Avalloc > everyone vote?
[ 2009.08.09 18:11:24 ] Dierdra Vaal > yes
[ 2009.08.09 18:11:30 ] Vuk Lau > yes
[ 2009.08.09 18:11:34 ] Erik Finnegan > yes
[ 2009.08.09 18:11:42 ] Shatana Fulfairas > yes
[ 2009.08.09 18:11:53 ] Avalloc > <- yes
[ 2009.08.09 18:11:53 ] Dierdra Vaal > Z votes yes
[ 2009.08.09 18:12:01 ] Larkonis Trassler > ys
[ 2009.08.09 18:12:46 ] Meissa Anunthiel > yes
[ 2009.08.09 18:12:49 ] Dierdra Vaal > motion passed 9/0
[ 2009.08.09 18:13:14 ] Dierdra Vaal > 9: Store bookmark folders server-side. (Guess who!)
[ 2009.08.09 18:13:18 ] Dierdra Vaal > http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Store_bookmark_folders_server-side.
[ 2009.08.09 18:13:20 ] Avalloc > The average EVE player may not be aware that they have to save their settings folder periodically or they risk losing Overview settings and Bookmark folder organization in the event of a hard drive crash/wipe.
[ 2009.08.09 18:13:26 ] Avalloc > The task a repopulating your bookmark folders when they've all been dumped into main space within People & Places is a frustrating one.SolutionSave bookmark folders server-side. Bookmarks are already preserved that way so maintai...
[ 2009.08.09 18:13:40 ] Avalloc > folder structure is the next logical step towards making EVE more user friendly.
[ 2009.08.09 18:13:44 ] Dierdra Vaal > !
[ 2009.08.09 18:13:48 ] Avalloc > dv?
[ 2009.08.09 18:13:56 ] Erik Finnegan > !
[ 2009.08.09 18:14:30 ] Dierdra Vaal > According to CCP in the past, the bookmark system has been fairly DB intensive (hence why WT0 was introduced). Would this not increase the bookmark lags?
[ 2009.08.09 18:14:31 ] Dierdra Vaal > end
[ 2009.08.09 18:15:23 ] Avalloc > well, maybe we could have synced file with ccp?
[ 2009.08.09 18:15:53 ] Avalloc > the folder structure file is dl'ed each time you connect
[ 2009.08.09 18:16:00 ] Avalloc > hrmm..
[ 2009.08.09 18:16:19 ] Avalloc > maybe not on that sync idea
[ 2009.08.09 18:16:24 ] Avalloc > erik?
[ 2009.08.09 18:16:36 ] Erik Finnegan > Hasn't that been asked for already : to store more settings serverside ?And in response to Dierdra : store and reload may happen at log on / log off. That would do for syncing with clients on other computers. [FIN]
[ 2009.08.09 18:16:52 ] Meissa Anunthiel > (it wouldn't increase lag, one DB tuple is one DB tuple, wether it has 5 fields or one, all it increases is the amount of data transfered, the CPU increase is negligible for something like that)
[ 2009.08.09 18:18:04 ] Avalloc > right, just add a folder "field" to each bookmark
[ 2009.08.09 18:18:26 ] Avalloc > anyone else?
[ 2009.08.09 18:18:48 ] Avalloc > vote!
[ 2009.08.09 18:18:51 ] Dierdra Vaal > yes
[ 2009.08.09 18:18:53 ] Avalloc > <-yes
[ 2009.08.09 18:18:54 ] Larkonis Trassler > yes
[ 2009.08.09 18:18:57 ] Erik Finnegan > /emote votes yes ( all settings should be stored serverside when logging IMHO ! )
[ 2009.08.09 18:19:04 ] Meissa Anunthiel > yes
[ 2009.08.09 18:19:05 ] Dierdra Vaal > zastrow votes yes
[ 2009.08.09 18:19:49 ] Shatana Fulfairas > yes
[ 2009.08.09 18:19:54 ] Vuk Lau > yes
[ 2009.08.09 18:20:31 ] Dierdra Vaal > motion passed 8/0 (maz did not vote)
[ 2009.08.09 18:20:35 ] Dierdra Vaal > 10: Improve People & Places search results for Solar Systems.‎ (Avalloc)
[ 2009.08.09 18:20:40 ] Dierdra Vaal > http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Improve_People_%26_Places_search_results_for_Solar_Systems.
[ 2009.08.09 18:20:41 ] Avalloc > When looking up a solar system in the People and Places screen, you aren't informed how far away anything is nor which Region it is in. This causes extra confusion when looking for two similarly-named systems.
[ 2009.08.09 18:20:47 ] Avalloc > The top one? The bottom one? Which is it? The only way to figure it out is to either pull up the map or set destination to each one and see where it leads.
[ 2009.08.09 18:20:56 ] mazzilliu > oh, meant to vote yes
[ 2009.08.09 18:21:06 ] Larkonis Trassler > !
[ 2009.08.09 18:21:08 ] Avalloc > Solution: Provide the Region name of solar system and/or the number of jumps in the search results window.
[ 2009.08.09 18:21:13 ] Avalloc > lark?
[ 2009.08.09 18:21:14 ] Dierdra Vaal > !
[ 2009.08.09 18:21:19 ] Larkonis Trassler > you can right click on each result and check show info
[ 2009.08.09 18:21:25 ] Dierdra Vaal > you can right click -> show info -> route
[ 2009.08.09 18:21:28 ] Larkonis Trassler > shows you distance and region
[ 2009.08.09 18:21:41 ] Erik Finnegan > Click-o-rama
[ 2009.08.09 18:21:47 ] Avalloc > still an extra step
[ 2009.08.09 18:22:23 ] Vuk Lau > afk 2 mins, I vote yes on this issue
[ 2009.08.09 18:22:32 ] Erik Finnegan > !
[ 2009.08.09 18:22:35 ] Larkonis Trassler > end btw
[ 2009.08.09 18:22:40 ] Avalloc > dv?
[ 2009.08.09 18:23:34 ] Dierdra Vaal > sorry, disregard my !. it was the same as lark
[ 2009.08.09 18:23:41 ] Avalloc > erik?
[ 2009.08.09 18:23:42 ] Erik Finnegan > Goes in line with last week's proposal asking for meta level info in hangar IMO. The info is too obvious, and it is really not critical to hide it three clicks away. [FIN]
[ 2009.08.09 18:24:36 ] Avalloc > the more systems listed, the more clicking to figure which one it is
[ 2009.08.09 18:25:18 ] Avalloc > "set destination to xg-mumble mumble" is an often time stress for me with each imparement on ts
[ 2009.08.09 18:25:29 ] Avalloc > vote is open!
[ 2009.08.09 18:25:40 ] Meissa Anunthiel > yes
[ 2009.08.09 18:25:44 ] Erik Finnegan > /emote votes yes
[ 2009.08.09 18:25:46 ] Avalloc > each = hearing
[ 2009.08.09 18:25:53 ] Larkonis Trassler > yes
[ 2009.08.09 18:25:57 ] Vuk Lau > yes
[ 2009.08.09 18:26:12 ] Shatana Fulfairas > yes
[ 2009.08.09 18:26:20 ] Avalloc > (as in I only catch afew letters and start guessing game without disrupting ts)
[ 2009.08.09 18:26:24 ] Avalloc > <- yes
[ 2009.08.09 18:26:38 ] Dierdra Vaal > yes
[ 2009.08.09 18:26:48 ] mazzilliu > yes
[ 2009.08.09 18:26:55 ] Dierdra Vaal > motion passed 9/0
[ 2009.08.09 18:27:05 ] Dierdra Vaal > 11: Improve the Market UI for identifying your own Buy & Sell. (Avalloc)
[ 2009.08.09 18:27:10 ] Dierdra Vaal > http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Improve_the_Market_UI_for_identifying_your_own_Buy_%26_Sell.
[ 2009.08.09 18:27:11 ] Avalloc > The main UI for looking at Market Buy/Sell orders doesn't give any insight into which ones belong to you. Therefore you can't easily right-click the order and modify it from that screen. You instead have to flip back and forth between two.
[ 2009.08.09 18:27:24 ] Avalloc > Highlight Buy and Sell orders which belong to you in another color. And add the ability to change the orders from the main screen where list is generated.
[ 2009.08.09 18:27:44 ] Avalloc > comments?
[ 2009.08.09 18:27:50 ] Erik Finnegan > !
[ 2009.08.09 18:27:56 ] Avalloc > erik
[ 2009.08.09 18:28:08 ] Meissa Anunthiel > !
[ 2009.08.09 18:28:14 ] Erik Finnegan > Sorry that I did not read all issues in detail : is this about combining info from the other tabs of the market with the main window lists ?
[ 2009.08.09 18:28:16 ] Erik Finnegan > [FIN]
[ 2009.08.09 18:28:54 ] Avalloc > no, just putting color to your own orders in main results screen
[ 2009.08.09 18:29:04 ] Avalloc > for region/system/station
[ 2009.08.09 18:29:36 ] Erik Finnegan > Ok, so putting some of the info from the "My orders" tab into the main lists.
[ 2009.08.09 18:29:47 ] Erik Finnegan > colour-coded
[ 2009.08.09 18:29:49 ] Avalloc > and letting you adjust your order due to that
[ 2009.08.09 18:30:36 ] Avalloc > just to show which belong to you, yes
[ 2009.08.09 18:30:56 ] Avalloc > meissa?
[ 2009.08.09 18:30:58 ] Meissa Anunthiel > Actually, you can view your own orders through the wallet window and see details in the trade window. So navigating both is easy. Highlighting your own orders in the market window makes it insanely easy to -0.01 on macro, or at least notify you that you
[ 2009.08.09 18:31:07 ] Meissa Anunthiel > don't have the top position anymore. As it is macro -0.01ers have to resort to OCR'ing and using a fixed "last decimal places" to get notifications, which can easily be gamed.
[ 2009.08.09 18:31:16 ] Meissa Anunthiel > This highlighting is a bad idea as far as I'm concerned. If it's ease of management you want, use wallet+market windows and that's it. [/end]
[ 2009.08.09 18:32:08 ] Avalloc > right, but why should average user have to results to such techniques?
[ 2009.08.09 18:32:20 ] Erik Finnegan > ( Darn macro'ing .... didn't think of that :-< )
[ 2009.08.09 18:32:22 ] Meissa Anunthiel > because the alternative is abusable
[ 2009.08.09 18:32:39 ] Meissa Anunthiel > and would deprise the average user of capabilities of marketing their own stuff
[ 2009.08.09 18:33:04 ] Meissa Anunthiel > you said it's cumbersome because you have to change tabs, I say it isn't, open two windows...
[ 2009.08.09 18:33:42 ] Vuk Lau > !
[ 2009.08.09 18:33:50 ] Avalloc > I guess I disagree. :)
[ 2009.08.09 18:33:53 ] Avalloc > vuk
[ 2009.08.09 18:33:55 ] Meissa Anunthiel > (end btw, sorry for speaking out of turn, was replying to your comment)
[ 2009.08.09 18:33:55 ] Vuk Lau > I agree with Meissa, atleast its how I am doing
[ 2009.08.09 18:33:56 ] Vuk Lau > end
[ 2009.08.09 18:34:14 ] Avalloc > anyone else?
[ 2009.08.09 18:34:29 ] Avalloc > vote!
[ 2009.08.09 18:34:34 ] Meissa Anunthiel > /emote votes no.
[ 2009.08.09 18:34:39 ] Vuk Lau > no
[ 2009.08.09 18:34:43 ] Larkonis Trassler > no
[ 2009.08.09 18:34:54 ] Dierdra Vaal > no
[ 2009.08.09 18:34:58 ] mazzilliu > no
[ 2009.08.09 18:34:59 ] Shatana Fulfairas > no
[ 2009.08.09 18:35:02 ] Erik Finnegan > no
[ 2009.08.09 18:35:17 ] Avalloc > yes
[ 2009.08.09 18:35:19 ] Dierdra Vaal > motion fails 2/7
[ 2009.08.09 18:35:31 ] Dierdra Vaal > 12: Add the feature of switching characters without relogging.‎ (Avalloc)
[ 2009.08.09 18:35:35 ] Dierdra Vaal > http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Add_the_feature_of_switching_characters_without_relogging.
[ 2009.08.09 18:35:48 ] Vuk Lau > lets vote?
[ 2009.08.09 18:35:56 ] Meissa Anunthiel > !
[ 2009.08.09 18:36:02 ] Dierdra Vaal > !
[ 2009.08.09 18:36:05 ] Avalloc > meissa?
[ 2009.08.09 18:36:07 ] Vuk Lau > bah
[ 2009.08.09 18:36:08 ] Erik Finnegan > !
[ 2009.08.09 18:36:24 ] Meissa Anunthiel > "logging out" insures that memory is cleared, that may be why. That's all I have to say, I want this :p
[ 2009.08.09 18:36:27 ] Meissa Anunthiel > [/end]
[ 2009.08.09 18:36:44 ] Avalloc > dv?
[ 2009.08.09 18:37:08 ] Dierdra Vaal > given how long it took ccp to even make a 'log out', I wonder how much work would be involved in implementing this, and I doubt it would be worth it to save the few extra seconds you'd otherwise spend logging in.
[ 2009.08.09 18:37:09 ] Dierdra Vaal > end
[ 2009.08.09 18:37:53 ] Avalloc > erik?
[ 2009.08.09 18:37:59 ] Erik Finnegan > Is this supposed to abolish a 20 second "cool down" after relogging ? If not, where is the hassle ? [FIN]
[ 2009.08.09 18:38:46 ] Avalloc > you have to reconnect to game server completely
[ 2009.08.09 18:38:53 ] Avalloc > enter in login/pw
[ 2009.08.09 18:39:05 ] Avalloc > very disruptive, imho
[ 2009.08.09 18:39:30 ] Avalloc > anyone else?
[ 2009.08.09 18:39:41 ] Avalloc > vote
[ 2009.08.09 18:39:44 ] Meissa Anunthiel > yes
[ 2009.08.09 18:39:44 ] Vuk Lau > yes
[ 2009.08.09 18:39:45 ] Avalloc > <- yes
[ 2009.08.09 18:39:47 ] Shatana Fulfairas > Yes
[ 2009.08.09 18:39:49 ] Larkonis Trassler > yes
[ 2009.08.09 18:39:50 ] mazzilliu > yes
[ 2009.08.09 18:39:51 ] Erik Finnegan > yes
[ 2009.08.09 18:39:52 ] Dierdra Vaal > no
[ 2009.08.09 18:40:01 ] Dierdra Vaal > motion passed 8/1
[ 2009.08.09 18:40:06 ] Dierdra Vaal > 13: UI Improve Fleet Commander UI by showing fleet composition.‎ (Avalloc)
[ 2009.08.09 18:40:10 ] Avalloc > A Fleet Commander has no quick (and easy) way to know the composition of the fleet he is leading. In fact the popular way of taking stock is to say in gang, "Everyone in a Battleship X up" which is a low tech as it gets.
[ 2009.08.09 18:40:11 ] Dierdra Vaal > http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/UI_Improve_Fleet_Commander_UI_by_showing_fleet_composition.
[ 2009.08.09 18:40:22 ] Avalloc > Counting ships via the Overview or short Scan isn't perfect either because pilots that aren't in system won't be counted.
[ 2009.08.09 18:40:48 ] Vuk Lau > semiafk 5 mins, I vote no on this one
[ 2009.08.09 18:40:50 ] Avalloc > solution That a new tab be created in the fleet window UI (or elsewhere) that is only visible to Fleet Commander and/or gang Boss. This list would show a breakdown of all pilots grouped into sections based on the ship they're currently piloting.
[ 2009.08.09 18:41:10 ] Avalloc > If they aren't in system their ship type wouldn't be counted to save on server load. This list would be created as a person joins the fleet and would only need to be updated when a ship is destroyed. Or the pilot undocks from a Station.
[ 2009.08.09 18:41:20 ] Avalloc > questions?
[ 2009.08.09 18:41:32 ] Dierdra Vaal > !
[ 2009.08.09 18:41:47 ] Avalloc > dv
[ 2009.08.09 18:42:01 ] Dierdra Vaal > I'd perfect a rightclick on fleet/wing/squad and select "get composition" which shows a new window with a list of your assets
[ 2009.08.09 18:42:12 ] Dierdra Vaal > accessible for fleet/wing/squad commanders + fleet boss
[ 2009.08.09 18:42:17 ] Dierdra Vaal > I'd prefer***
[ 2009.08.09 18:42:44 ] Dierdra Vaal > (obviously SC's can only request the composition of the squad)
[ 2009.08.09 18:42:45 ] Dierdra Vaal > end
[ 2009.08.09 18:43:05 ] Avalloc > main point is fc and/or boss sees this
[ 2009.08.09 18:43:13 ] Avalloc > not everyone else
[ 2009.08.09 18:43:23 ] Avalloc > just to add clarification
[ 2009.08.09 18:43:28 ] Avalloc > anyone else?
[ 2009.08.09 18:43:38 ] Avalloc > vote!
[ 2009.08.09 18:43:40 ] Meissa Anunthiel > yes
[ 2009.08.09 18:43:45 ] mazzilliu > yes
[ 2009.08.09 18:43:49 ] Larkonis Trassler > yes
[ 2009.08.09 18:43:50 ] Avalloc > yes
[ 2009.08.09 18:43:54 ] Shatana Fulfairas > yes
[ 2009.08.09 18:44:04 ] Erik Finnegan > yes
[ 2009.08.09 18:44:05 ] Dierdra Vaal > si
[ 2009.08.09 18:45:07 ] Dierdra Vaal > motion passed 8/0 (vuk did not vote)
[ 2009.08.09 18:45:15 ] Meissa Anunthiel > he voted no
[ 2009.08.09 18:45:21 ] Dierdra Vaal > did he?
[ 2009.08.09 18:45:23 ] Meissa Anunthiel > [18:40:46] Vuk Lau > semiafk 5 mins, I vote no on this one
[ 2009.08.09 18:45:26 ] Dierdra Vaal > motion passed 8/1 then
[ 2009.08.09 18:45:33 ] Dierdra Vaal > 14: POS Reduce pod fuel requirements for Jump Bridges back to zero.‎  (Avalloc)
[ 2009.08.09 18:45:36 ] Dierdra Vaal > http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/POS_Reduce_pod_fuel_requirements_for_Jump_Bridges_back_to_zero.
[ 2009.08.09 18:45:38 ] Avalloc > The use of a Jump Bridge in 0.0 space while piloting a pod requires 1 unit of Liquid Ozone. This wasn't always the case, the change to require any Liquid Ozone for pods is a newer requirement. This is a problem because a pod is unable to carry Liquid Oz
[ 2009.08.09 18:45:52 ] Avalloc > Ozone it is unable to use an empty Bridge.
[ 2009.08.09 18:45:56 ] Larkonis Trassler > !
[ 2009.08.09 18:45:58 ] Dierdra Vaal > !
[ 2009.08.09 18:46:12 ] Avalloc > I propose: Return the Liquid Ozone use for pods back to being 0 units.
[ 2009.08.09 18:46:16 ] Avalloc > lark?
[ 2009.08.09 18:47:09 ] Larkonis Trassler > I'm pretty sure ccp changed this for a reason and it wasn't to troll you... I would think most people who make use of JBs in pods are those who have lost ships and returning along the network back for a new one, giving the sov holder a significant
[ 2009.08.09 18:47:11 ] Larkonis Trassler > advantage
[ 2009.08.09 18:47:33 ] Larkonis Trassler > So you either pod yourself costing you money or slowboat costing you time
[ 2009.08.09 18:47:35 ] Larkonis Trassler > end
[ 2009.08.09 18:47:57 ] Meissa Anunthiel > /emote agrees with lark's comment
[ 2009.08.09 18:48:10 ] Avalloc > The pod can't add fuel.
[ 2009.08.09 18:48:23 ] Avalloc > pod has zero offensive capability
[ 2009.08.09 18:48:30 ] Meissa Anunthiel > !
[ 2009.08.09 18:48:42 ] Avalloc > dv?
[ 2009.08.09 18:48:46 ] Larkonis Trassler > I think you're missing my point avalloc
[ 2009.08.09 18:48:49 ] Larkonis Trassler > but nm
[ 2009.08.09 18:48:56 ] Dierdra Vaal > I agree with lark. You can always put shuttles in your SMA's and ozone in your hangar arrays and let people travel that way. I feel it is not necessary to revert this change
[ 2009.08.09 18:48:57 ] Dierdra Vaal > end
[ 2009.08.09 18:49:52 ] Avalloc > how much lo can a shuttle hold?
[ 2009.08.09 18:49:59 ] Meissa Anunthiel > 10m³
[ 2009.08.09 18:50:01 ] Dierdra Vaal > 10m3
[ 2009.08.09 18:50:21 ] Dierdra Vaal > replace shuttles with rifters if needed - my point stands
[ 2009.08.09 18:50:49 ] Avalloc > and if pilot can't fly rifter.. sol
[ 2009.08.09 18:51:03 ] Dierdra Vaal > rifters/kestrels/incursus/etc etc etc
[ 2009.08.09 18:51:32 ] Avalloc > if the pos is out of lo on jump briidge, yes... ships won't get through
[ 2009.08.09 18:51:42 ] Avalloc > but why pentalize pods, it is trivial
[ 2009.08.09 18:51:48 ] Erik Finnegan > !
[ 2009.08.09 18:51:50 ] Larkonis Trassler > !
[ 2009.08.09 18:51:50 ] Dierdra Vaal > !
[ 2009.08.09 18:51:56 ] Avalloc > erik
[ 2009.08.09 18:52:04 ] Meissa Anunthiel > (you forgot me)
[ 2009.08.09 18:52:13 ] Avalloc > ah crap
[ 2009.08.09 18:52:20 ] Avalloc > meissa after erik
[ 2009.08.09 18:52:25 ] Vuk Lau > bah wife agro I vote no on this one aswell
[ 2009.08.09 18:52:30 ] Erik Finnegan > I tend to go with Dierdra's point. This seems to aggravate travel for those who have been killed. And there is a reason for it. [FIN]
[ 2009.08.09 18:52:50 ] Meissa Anunthiel > it's not about pod offensive capability, when you're on a field of battle, the two options you now have are self-destructing home or slowboating and potentially wasting lots of time getting back into a ship to join combat again. This is a good thing, no
[ 2009.08.09 18:52:58 ] Meissa Anunthiel > not a bad one. Fast travel is not good... [/end]
[ 2009.08.09 18:53:21 ] Avalloc > "congrats! you survived getting podded by hostiles.. now seelf destruct anyways"
[ 2009.08.09 18:53:32 ] Meissa Anunthiel > don't have to
[ 2009.08.09 18:53:34 ] Erik Finnegan > ^^
[ 2009.08.09 18:53:42 ] Meissa Anunthiel > just don't join the field of battle immediately again
[ 2009.08.09 18:53:47 ] Meissa Anunthiel > your choice. It has a cost is all
[ 2009.08.09 18:54:07 ] Vuk Lau > !
[ 2009.08.09 18:54:11 ] Avalloc > lark?
[ 2009.08.09 18:54:13 ] Erik Finnegan > !
[ 2009.08.09 18:54:32 ] Avalloc > then dv, then vuk, then erik
[ 2009.08.09 18:54:39 ] Larkonis Trassler > Was just going to reiterate that pods should be penalized
[ 2009.08.09 18:54:58 ] Avalloc > dv?
[ 2009.08.09 18:55:01 ] Dierdra Vaal > As lark said, no cost for pods gives the jump bridge network owner a big advantage. too big imo - as 0.0 sov (the current system) is already way too defense-advantageous. end
[ 2009.08.09 18:55:06 ] Larkonis Trassler > It speeds up getting back to a place where they have ships without penalty, thus giving the defender an unfair advantage
[ 2009.08.09 18:55:07 ] Larkonis Trassler > end
[ 2009.08.09 18:55:33 ] Avalloc > vuk?
[ 2009.08.09 18:55:38 ] Vuk Lau > just to explain my no
[ 2009.08.09 18:56:09 ] Vuk Lau > 1st the chance that JB has ZERO ozone is lets say....minimal
[ 2009.08.09 18:56:16 ] Vuk Lau > 2nd
[ 2009.08.09 18:56:24 ] Vuk Lau > keep your JBs fueled
[ 2009.08.09 18:56:34 ] Vuk Lau > end
[ 2009.08.09 18:56:42 ] Avalloc > erik?
[ 2009.08.09 18:56:45 ] Erik Finnegan > Wouldn't a good fleet have backups moved in from .... well, behind (VUK, DON'T SAY IT !) so that you don't have to travel all the way in a pod ? [FIN]
[ 2009.08.09 18:57:40 ] Avalloc > in home area? not so much
[ 2009.08.09 18:57:45 ] Avalloc > ok, vote is open
[ 2009.08.09 18:57:51 ] Larkonis Trassler > no
[ 2009.08.09 18:57:56 ] Meissa Anunthiel > no
[ 2009.08.09 18:57:57 ] Erik Finnegan > no
[ 2009.08.09 18:58:38 ] Vuk Lau > no
[ 2009.08.09 18:58:43 ] Dierdra Vaal > no
[ 2009.08.09 18:58:47 ] mazzilliu > yes
[ 2009.08.09 18:58:48 ] Shatana Fulfairas > no
[ 2009.08.09 18:59:11 ] Avalloc > (btw, removing next issue to save time, assume in with ui overhaul ccp is supposed to be doing)
[ 2009.08.09 18:59:15 ] Avalloc > yes
[ 2009.08.09 18:59:18 ] Dierdra Vaal > motion fails 3/6
[ 2009.08.09 18:59:37 ] Dierdra Vaal > so remove the jump to issue?
[ 2009.08.09 18:59:40 ] Dierdra Vaal > ok that leaves
[ 2009.08.09 18:59:41 ] Dierdra Vaal > 16: Faster CSM Process for Minor Issues (Avalloc)
[ 2009.08.09 18:59:46 ] Dierdra Vaal > http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Faster_CSM_Process_for_Minor_Issues
[ 2009.08.09 18:59:50 ] Dierdra Vaal > !
[ 2009.08.09 19:00:01 ] Avalloc > dv?
[ 2009.08.09 19:00:12 ] Dierdra Vaal > you may introduce it first :)
[ 2009.08.09 19:00:32 ] Avalloc > All issues raised by the CSM go through the same process, whether they are minor UI tweaks or massive overhauls of sovereignty and POS mechanics.
[ 2009.08.09 19:00:43 ] Meissa Anunthiel > !
[ 2009.08.09 19:00:46 ] Avalloc > Allow issues to be tagged by users as "Minor" and put through a simpler process, requiring less effort on the part of the CSM and CCP. Specifically, do not require explicit CCP answers, and have minimal time for debate. CSM or CCP may upgrade an issue t
[ 2009.08.09 19:01:04 ] Avalloc > to normal status if they feel the "Minor" tag is in error.So, I'd like to propose that the CSM establish a process for dealing with issues that are worthy of their support,
[ 2009.08.09 19:01:16 ] Avalloc > but not important enough to go through the full process of spending half an hour in Iceland, half an hour in a CSM meeting, and all the other behind-the-scenes stuff that is necessary for a full-sized issue.
[ 2009.08.09 19:01:23 ] Larkonis Trassler > need to dip out for a little while guys, voting yes on this one
[ 2009.08.09 19:01:57 ] Avalloc > Mainly this is to explore installing better system to clasify issues.
[ 2009.08.09 19:01:58 ] Avalloc > dv?
[ 2009.08.09 19:02:00 ] Dierdra Vaal > this system is effectively already in place. we see both here, as well as with CCP who will simply give a 'yes we can' on minor issues (UI issues, etc). I do not feel this proposal adds anything to the existing csm mechanics. end
[ 2009.08.09 19:02:20 ] Avalloc > meissa
[ 2009.08.09 19:02:23 ] Meissa Anunthiel > I appreciate the idea of a fast-track process with CCP, but I don't want to get rid of the necessity to present it to the CSM for consideration, for the simple reason that some "minor" issue would pass when they're unwanted. Highlighting market orders a
[ 2009.08.09 19:02:27 ] Meissa Anunthiel > is a good exemple of something that can easily be considered a minor UI thing that would have gone through with your fast-tracking idea.
[ 2009.08.09 19:03:17 ] Meissa Anunthiel > Yet it's also one that clearly doesn't get approved. So yes to fast-tracking small things to CCP, no about bypassing the meeting presentation. Insignificant things get voted through without [much] discussion anyway. [/end]
[ 2009.08.09 19:03:43 ] Avalloc > hmm.. any objection to striking this issue?
[ 2009.08.09 19:03:59 ] Dierdra Vaal > nope :)
[ 2009.08.09 19:04:40 ] Dierdra Vaal > so, strike the issue then?
[ 2009.08.09 19:04:45 ] Avalloc > I might bring it up another time, but want to see how iceland interaction goes
[ 2009.08.09 19:04:52 ] Meissa Anunthiel > cool with me as far as I'm concerned
[ 2009.08.09 19:04:53 ] Avalloc > to better understand things
[ 2009.08.09 19:04:57 ] Meissa Anunthiel > /emote nods
[ 2009.08.09 19:05:05 ] Dierdra Vaal > ok now in the coming week we'll do the priorization and such
[ 2009.08.09 19:05:10 ] Dierdra Vaal > do we need a meeting on the 16th?
[ 2009.08.09 19:05:22 ] Dierdra Vaal > or shall we simply schedule a meeting for now+2weeks
[ 2009.08.09 19:05:52 ] Serenity Steele > Please don't do a meeting on the night before GDCEurope
[ 2009.08.09 19:06:00 ] Avalloc > week before iceland? heh
[ 2009.08.09 19:06:11 ] Dierdra Vaal > or do you want to delay meetings until after iceland
[ 2009.08.09 19:06:16 ] Vuk Lau > tbh no need for a meetings until we come back from the Iceland
[ 2009.08.09 19:06:20 ] Dierdra Vaal > ok then
[ 2009.08.09 19:06:31 ] Dierdra Vaal > in that case, just keep an eye on your csm mail inboxes!
[ 2009.08.09 19:06:36 ] Dierdra Vaal > ***** meeting closed