CSM Meeting Minutes 4.002 raw log

From sdeevelopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

All this data is potentially out of date, and should be taken with a truckload of salt

CSM Meeting Minutes 4.002 raw log


[ 2009.12.20 18:18:09 ] TeaDaze > ===========================================================
[ 2009.12.20 18:18:26 ] ElvenLord > 2ND OFFICIAL MEETING OF THE CSM No.4 IS OPEN NOW
[ 2009.12.20 18:18:45 ] ElvenLord > Proposition for the agenda you all got by ingame mail
[ 2009.12.20 18:18:53 ] ElvenLord > but I will c/p it here again
[ 2009.12.20 18:19:04 ] ElvenLord > 1.Alliance Logos
2. Tradable Ban Lists
3. Black Ops Improvements, Part 2
4. FW complex NPCs and standings (Part 2)
5. FW Complex Spawning Issues Part 2
6. T2 sentry drone skill inconsistency
7. Docking games fix
[ 2009.12.20 18:19:17 ] ElvenLord > 8. Alter targeted ECM effect
9. Titan bridge range
10. Directscan improvement
11. Bring Logistics Warp Speed In-Line with T2 Ships
12. Modular Starbase
13. Shared Corporation Bookmarks
14. Watch list & broadcasts
[ 2009.12.20 18:19:26 ] ElvenLord > 15. Broadcast "In position" improvement
16. Balance self-destruction
[ 2009.12.20 18:19:31 ] Zastrow > can we not use ingame mail, my inbox is full of spam
[ 2009.12.20 18:19:53 ] ElvenLord > ofc Zastrow darling, I can send it via regular mail to you too
[ 2009.12.20 18:19:56 ] ElvenLord > in the future
[ 2009.12.20 18:20:01 ] Zastrow > please
[ 2009.12.20 18:20:09 ] Z0D > subscribe to the mail list Zastrow
[ 2009.12.20 18:20:25 ] ElvenLord > to continue ...
[ 2009.12.20 18:20:26 ] Helen Highwater > That will keep it separate
[ 2009.12.20 18:20:46 ] ElvenLord > if we do it fast I would like to add spare topics as following
[ 2009.12.20 18:21:05 ] ElvenLord > 1. Alliance action confirmation windows
2. Identify and remove price ceilings
3. Mining crystals change color of mining laser beam
4. Ingame Events Menu
5. Killmails fix
6. Standings list import/export
7. Hybrid guns balance
[ 2009.12.20 18:21:11 ] ElvenLord > 8. Forum Censorship
9. Suicide Ganking Part 3
10. Boost Warfare Links and Revisit Information Warfare
11. Balance self-destruction
12. Battle Recorder
13. Drop All Target Locks (missing wiki thread)
14. Tracking for Fighters lost in co...
[ 2009.12.20 18:21:23 ] ElvenLord > if not they are there for the next meeting
[ 2009.12.20 18:21:38 ] ElvenLord > so, Any objections to agenda?
[ 2009.12.20 18:21:42 ] Helen Highwater > !
[ 2009.12.20 18:21:46 ] ElvenLord > Helen
[ 2009.12.20 18:22:03 ] Helen Highwater > Would like to reastate my objection top the price ceiling item until the propsal has actually been worked out
[ 2009.12.20 18:22:14 ] Helen Highwater > as I said to you the other day [end]
[ 2009.12.20 18:22:51 ] ElvenLord > you can voice it out when we get to that proposal, for now it has been raised by a delegate and we will discuss it
[ 2009.12.20 18:22:56 ] ElvenLord > but I do agree with you
[ 2009.12.20 18:23:10 ] ElvenLord > Anyone else?
[ 2009.12.20 18:23:49 ] Helen Highwater > :tumbleweed:
[ 2009.12.20 18:24:43 ] ElvenLord > ok then lets go to the first thing on agenda
[ 2009.12.20 18:24:56 ] ElvenLord > and thats the Allince logo submition problem
[ 2009.12.20 18:24:58 ] TeaDaze > http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Alliance_Logos%2C_CSM_Intervention_Requested_%28CSM%29
[ 2009.12.20 18:25:16 ] ElvenLord > As you all know it has been raised by previous CSMs
[ 2009.12.20 18:25:28 ] ElvenLord > and no str8 answer has been given by CCP
[ 2009.12.20 18:26:07 ] Zastrow > at the csm 2 summit they said that its on the backlog
[ 2009.12.20 18:26:15 ] Zastrow > er csm3 whatever the last one was
[ 2009.12.20 18:26:35 ] ElvenLord > yea, I know but thats not good enough
[ 2009.12.20 18:26:37 ] ElvenLord > :D
[ 2009.12.20 18:26:40 ] Z0D > and now at 4 and still backlogged
[ 2009.12.20 18:26:48 ] Helen Highwater > Without a CCP rep here to update us is there any point in discussing this?
[ 2009.12.20 18:27:00 ] Song Li > !
[ 2009.12.20 18:27:02 ] Helen Highwater > We agree, CCP apaprently agree....
[ 2009.12.20 18:27:02 ] Alekseyev Karrde > !
[ 2009.12.20 18:27:06 ] Mrs Trzzbk > !
[ 2009.12.20 18:27:06 ] Korvin > !
[ 2009.12.20 18:27:08 ] ElvenLord > Song Li pls
[ 2009.12.20 18:27:53 ] Song Li > As a point to be set on the agenda for Iceland this is important to bring up. There isn't much for us to discuss about it but it's improtant to retiterate it with CCP
[ 2009.12.20 18:28:05 ] Song Li > [end]
[ 2009.12.20 18:28:09 ] ElvenLord > Aleks
[ 2009.12.20 18:29:25 ] Alekseyev Karrde > I disagree, i think emphsizing the issue is important.  As CSM we have the ability to raise the importance of certain issues.  Why hsould that be limited to things previous councils have talked about but no observable progress has been made?
[ 2009.12.20 18:29:46 ] Alekseyev Karrde > You say CCP thinks its important but you wouldnt know it from just loooking
[ 2009.12.20 18:29:47 ] Alekseyev Karrde > end
[ 2009.12.20 18:29:53 ] Z0D > !
[ 2009.12.20 18:29:54 ] Zastrow > whoa now i never said we shouldnt put it on our agenda.  ccp said at the csm3 summit that if nothing gets done we should keep putting unfixed problems on the next csms agenda.  so uh, make of that what you will
[ 2009.12.20 18:30:12 ] ElvenLord > Mrs Trzzbk go
[ 2009.12.20 18:30:20 ] Mrs Trzzbk > It seems like the type of thing that would be great to get done, and should be easy to fix, but it isn't something I would really put as a priority above gameplay issues if it was something that would require a lot of redesign.
[ 2009.12.20 18:30:46 ] Mrs Trzzbk > So pretty much if it's changing a few lines of code, then lets push it, but if it's billboards mk 2 I think we may want to let it ride, at least for a little bit
[ 2009.12.20 18:30:54 ] Mrs Trzzbk > and something angry about Zastrow here [end]
[ 2009.12.20 18:31:01 ] ElvenLord > Korvin go
[ 2009.12.20 18:31:02 ] Zastrow > on that note, after we put our agenda together, the last thing we do before the summit is prioritize it
[ 2009.12.20 18:31:08 ] Korvin > The problem is that CCP seems not paying enough attanyion to this issue.
[ 2009.12.20 18:31:13 ] Zastrow > so we can put it on then make it a low priority later
[ 2009.12.20 18:31:21 ] Zastrow > or high priority whatever, we all do that later
[ 2009.12.20 18:31:23 ] ElvenLord > ofc Zas
[ 2009.12.20 18:31:28 ] Korvin > for example my ex alliance had waited their logo for more than 2 years
[ 2009.12.20 18:31:28 ] TeaDaze > !
[ 2009.12.20 18:31:32 ] Song Li > !
[ 2009.12.20 18:31:42 ] ElvenLord > Z0D go
[ 2009.12.20 18:31:44 ] Z0D > agreed, although its been asked many times, we need an answer as to a lot of players, its their alliance identity on the game, it needs to be adressed seriously, 2 CSM term backlog is not acceptable
[ 2009.12.20 18:31:45 ] Korvin > we had send it to the first system
[ 2009.12.20 18:31:49 ] Korvin > excuse me
[ 2009.12.20 18:31:54 ] Korvin > can i speack?
[ 2009.12.20 18:31:57 ] ElvenLord > ofc
[ 2009.12.20 18:31:57 ] Zastrow > !
[ 2009.12.20 18:32:21 ] Korvin > txs
[ 2009.12.20 18:32:45 ] Korvin > well, the problem is - the allaince logo is not the one person is waiting for
[ 2009.12.20 18:33:04 ] Korvin > its minimum 250 persons in alliance
[ 2009.12.20 18:33:19 ] Korvin > and you can wait for more than 2 years
[ 2009.12.20 18:33:33 ] Korvin > and dont even have the date it will be deployed
[ 2009.12.20 18:33:43 ] Z0D > !
[ 2009.12.20 18:33:46 ] Korvin > i survived 2 alliance logo systems
[ 2009.12.20 18:33:56 ] Korvin > tried to make my alliance logo
[ 2009.12.20 18:34:08 ] Korvin > the 2nd one - they just lost the logo
[ 2009.12.20 18:34:16 ] Korvin > and than shut the system again
[ 2009.12.20 18:34:36 ] Korvin > so our main goal is to bring attantion to this issue to ccp
[ 2009.12.20 18:34:46 ] Korvin > [end]
[ 2009.12.20 18:34:59 ] ElvenLord > To make this short, I think we are all on the same page here
[ 2009.12.20 18:35:04 ] Alekseyev Karrde > !
[ 2009.12.20 18:35:05 ] Zastrow > yo i know you all are ready to get your arguin' on and do some serious CSMin but we have a long agenda today so if we spend forever arguing on less-constroversial topics like this we'll never get anywhere ok end im done
[ 2009.12.20 18:35:16 ] ElvenLord > this is a issue that has been here for a long time
[ 2009.12.20 18:35:31 ] ElvenLord > and I feel we do need to remind CCP of it
[ 2009.12.20 18:35:46 ] ElvenLord > and not discuss it for hours, as it is a clear matter
[ 2009.12.20 18:35:52 ] Alekseyev Karrde > I request a closure and vote
[ 2009.12.20 18:35:52 ] Korvin > ! all i need is the date - when
[ 2009.12.20 18:36:27 ] ElvenLord > Closure will be that CSM and player base need a date on when this will be dealth with
[ 2009.12.20 18:36:53 ] ElvenLord > so pls vote with #Y or #N
[ 2009.12.20 18:36:56 ] ElvenLord > ________
[ 2009.12.20 18:36:57 ] Zastrow > y
[ 2009.12.20 18:36:59 ] ElvenLord > #Y
[ 2009.12.20 18:36:59 ] TeaDaze > y
[ 2009.12.20 18:37:00 ] Song Li > y
[ 2009.12.20 18:37:01 ] Sokratesz > Y
[ 2009.12.20 18:37:13 ] Z0D > y
[ 2009.12.20 18:37:16 ] Korvin > y
[ 2009.12.20 18:37:22 ] Alekseyev Karrde > y
[ 2009.12.20 18:37:24 ] Mrs Trzzbk > y
[ 2009.12.20 18:37:31 ] TeaDaze > Vote passes 9/0
[ 2009.12.20 18:37:32 ] ElvenLord > it 9 votes yes
[ 2009.12.20 18:37:45 ] ElvenLord > topic goes into Iceland meeting
[ 2009.12.20 18:38:00 ] ElvenLord > Next on our agenda is 2. Tradable Ban Lists
[ 2009.12.20 18:38:02 ] TeaDaze > http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Tradable_Ban_Lists
[ 2009.12.20 18:38:19 ] ElvenLord > its a suggstion raised by Song Li
[ 2009.12.20 18:38:41 ] ElvenLord > so Song Li if you have anything more to add pls do
[ 2009.12.20 18:39:08 ] Sokratesz > !
[ 2009.12.20 18:39:11 ] Korvin > ! ban lists = blocklists?
[ 2009.12.20 18:39:15 ] Song Li > I thinkn the proposal is pretty straight forward. Just an export option on ban lists like we have on many others
[ 2009.12.20 18:39:29 ] Zastrow > i gues he means ignore lists
[ 2009.12.20 18:39:37 ] Song Li > Allows easy transfers between accounts and hte likes [end]
[ 2009.12.20 18:39:37 ] Helen Highwater > !
[ 2009.12.20 18:39:46 ] ElvenLord > Sokratesz go
[ 2009.12.20 18:39:51 ] Sokratesz > theres two ways i can see that working - one is exporting/importing them to and from a file, the other is having an ingame option to 'make blocklist public' so people can sub to it like a mailing list
[ 2009.12.20 18:39:53 ] Alekseyev Karrde > !
[ 2009.12.20 18:39:53 ] Sokratesz > [end]
[ 2009.12.20 18:39:56 ] Mrs Trzzbk > oh, ignore lists makes more sense
[ 2009.12.20 18:40:15 ] ElvenLord > Korvin go
[ 2009.12.20 18:40:15 ] Z0D > !
[ 2009.12.20 18:40:15 ] Mrs Trzzbk > !
[ 2009.12.20 18:40:28 ] Korvin > i just asked the question
[ 2009.12.20 18:40:46 ] Sokratesz > yes
[ 2009.12.20 18:40:54 ] ElvenLord > Helen Highwater go
[ 2009.12.20 18:40:58 ] Helen Highwater > I'd like to point out that there are a lot of very weak proposals being floated. This is one sentence without any context, it doesn't even use the right name. I had no idea what this was about from the wiki page. Can we please just ignore
[ 2009.12.20 18:41:14 ] Helen Highwater > proposals unless they have had a bare minimum of effort put into them? [end]
[ 2009.12.20 18:41:26 ] ElvenLord > Alekseyev Karrde go
[ 2009.12.20 18:41:34 ] Alekseyev Karrde > How big are your ban lists you cant just add a few chars by hand?  My experience w spammers is that they're usually recycled frequently so i dont really think they'd be much help on that end if you could keep the ban list infinitly.  It only handles
[ 2009.12.20 18:41:53 ] Alekseyev Karrde > chat not substantive matters like buying from the market so i dont see it as very interesting
[ 2009.12.20 18:41:54 ] Alekseyev Karrde > end
[ 2009.12.20 18:42:03 ] ElvenLord > Z0D go
[ 2009.12.20 18:42:04 ] Z0D > Also being able to apply a banlist to all your character instances on one PC which a player runs multiple clients as well. [end]
[ 2009.12.20 18:42:23 ] ElvenLord > Mrs Trzzbk go
[ 2009.12.20 18:42:45 ] Mrs Trzzbk > I was going to say the same thing Helen did [end]
[ 2009.12.20 18:42:59 ] Alekseyev Karrde > *they'd=it'd
[ 2009.12.20 18:43:19 ] Song Li > !
[ 2009.12.20 18:43:26 ] ElvenLord > go song li
[ 2009.12.20 18:44:37 ] Song Li > Just want to speak to the issue of the information in the proposal from the forums. My expectation for proposals is that they will be taken directly from the players and not have my hands changing them up so that what the CSM sees is my ideas superimpos
[ 2009.12.20 18:44:44 ] Song Li > ed on it.
[ 2009.12.20 18:45:00 ] TeaDaze > !
[ 2009.12.20 18:45:05 ] Song Li > [end]
[ 2009.12.20 18:45:06 ] ElvenLord > TeaDaze go
[ 2009.12.20 18:45:36 ] TeaDaze > |I agree in principle with Helen that proposals need to have time spent on them, However this one is so trivial I don't see a problem.
[ 2009.12.20 18:45:52 ] TeaDaze > Though I wouldn't want to see too much dev time spent on it [end]
[ 2009.12.20 18:46:06 ] Zastrow > !
[ 2009.12.20 18:46:13 ] ElvenLord > Zas
[ 2009.12.20 18:46:35 ] Zastrow > i think its a terrible idea to make it easy to mass ignore entire alliances and i oppose this
[ 2009.12.20 18:46:41 ] Zastrow > end
[ 2009.12.20 18:46:54 ] ElvenLord > Can we then say its minor thing (adding button) aka adding export/import list to buddies and blocked list in people and places
[ 2009.12.20 18:46:57 ] Korvin > !
[ 2009.12.20 18:46:59 ] ElvenLord > and vote on it
[ 2009.12.20 18:47:03 ] ElvenLord > Korvin go
[ 2009.12.20 18:47:14 ] Z0D > !
[ 2009.12.20 18:47:18 ] Korvin > H think we should spread this issue to more global
[ 2009.12.20 18:47:31 ] Korvin > like addind away afk status ets
[ 2009.12.20 18:47:36 ] Sokratesz > !
[ 2009.12.20 18:47:37 ] Korvin > export ability
[ 2009.12.20 18:47:48 ] Korvin > of contact lists ets
[ 2009.12.20 18:47:55 ] ElvenLord > Z0D go
[ 2009.12.20 18:48:00 ] Z0D > list is really up to any players to make and if they choose to ban entire groups its still their choice. [end]
[ 2009.12.20 18:48:02 ] Korvin > eve chats are more like irc chats
[ 2009.12.20 18:48:17 ] Korvin > so the functionality can be extended
[ 2009.12.20 18:48:22 ] Korvin > [end]
[ 2009.12.20 18:48:25 ] ElvenLord > Sokratesz go
[ 2009.12.20 18:48:26 ] Sokratesz > i agree, make it a minor issue, optional for people to use or not. no voting needed IMO [end]
[ 2009.12.20 18:49:03 ] ElvenLord > well even if we make it a minor issue we need to vote on it, it just goes on minors ist for CCP meeting
[ 2009.12.20 18:49:27 ] Alekseyev Karrde > !
[ 2009.12.20 18:49:49 ] ElvenLord > Aleks
[ 2009.12.20 18:50:31 ] Zastrow > aaaa pretype your stuff aaaaaaAAAAAAAA
[ 2009.12.20 18:50:35 ] Alekseyev Karrde > The point Zastrow made was pretty good, if it becomes an alliance level animostity thing mass groups could be blocking other mass groups and just making the game a very unfriendly nasty place.  I like exporting buddy lists OK but i think the ban export
[ 2009.12.20 18:50:47 ] Zastrow > yep ok, lets vote
[ 2009.12.20 18:50:49 ] Zastrow > voting no
[ 2009.12.20 18:50:52 ] ElvenLord > Lets vote on this minor issue of adding export/import funkction (button) to blocked list
[ 2009.12.20 18:50:54 ] Alekseyev Karrde > will have nasty consequences.  Would rather have no export than export both (END)
[ 2009.12.20 18:50:59 ] TeaDaze > ======================
[ 2009.12.20 18:51:00 ] ElvenLord > #N or #Y
[ 2009.12.20 18:51:04 ] Alekseyev Karrde > N
[ 2009.12.20 18:51:05 ] Zastrow > n
[ 2009.12.20 18:51:07 ] Song Li > y
[ 2009.12.20 18:51:09 ] Sokratesz > Y
[ 2009.12.20 18:51:12 ] Z0D > y
[ 2009.12.20 18:51:14 ] Mrs Trzzbk > N
[ 2009.12.20 18:51:15 ] ElvenLord > n
[ 2009.12.20 18:51:19 ] Korvin > N
[ 2009.12.20 18:51:23 ] TeaDaze > n
[ 2009.12.20 18:51:42 ] TeaDaze > failed 6/3
[ 2009.12.20 18:52:08 ] ElvenLord > Next thing on agenda is3. Black Ops Improvements, Part 2
[ 2009.12.20 18:52:17 ] TeaDaze > http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Black_Ops_Improvements_Part_2_%28CSM%29
[ 2009.12.20 18:52:27 ] Alekseyev Karrde > ty TD
[ 2009.12.20 18:52:33 ] ElvenLord > Z0D you have the floor
[ 2009.12.20 18:53:29 ] Z0D > This one ship needs a lot of things to make it appeal its title, at the moment there is no more than about 300 flying in the game
[ 2009.12.20 18:53:36 ] Helen Highwater > !
[ 2009.12.20 18:53:45 ] Alekseyev Karrde > !
[ 2009.12.20 18:53:49 ] ElvenLord > tbh this is pretty clear subject, as BO need a bit of love so they would fill in the role they are supposed to fill.
[ 2009.12.20 18:53:54 ] ElvenLord > Helen Highwater go
[ 2009.12.20 18:54:09 ] Helen Highwater > I'd just like to point out for those at home that thsi is an example of a good proposal, lots of info without being a novel and gives actual suggestions
[ 2009.12.20 18:54:12 ] Helen Highwater > [end]
[ 2009.12.20 18:54:24 ] ElvenLord > Alekseyev Karrde go
[ 2009.12.20 18:54:46 ] Alekseyev Karrde > Dear god can we please help this poor little ships.  Reevaluate the bonuses, make the range longer, up the resists, lower the build cost, remove the scan res panelty for cloaks as a role bonus
[ 2009.12.20 18:54:49 ] Alekseyev Karrde > end
[ 2009.12.20 18:55:22 ] Z0D > [agreed]
[ 2009.12.20 18:55:27 ] ElvenLord > Lets vote on this proposal then
[ 2009.12.20 18:55:31 ] ElvenLord > ============
[ 2009.12.20 18:55:34 ] ElvenLord > #Y
[ 2009.12.20 18:55:35 ] Sokratesz > Y
[ 2009.12.20 18:55:35 ] Alekseyev Karrde > Y
[ 2009.12.20 18:55:36 ] Song Li > y
[ 2009.12.20 18:55:36 ] Mrs Trzzbk > y
[ 2009.12.20 18:55:37 ] Z0D > y
[ 2009.12.20 18:55:38 ] Korvin > Y
[ 2009.12.20 18:55:38 ] Zastrow > yea ok
[ 2009.12.20 18:55:40 ] TeaDaze > y
[ 2009.12.20 18:55:51 ] TeaDaze > passed 9/0
[ 2009.12.20 18:55:53 ] Zastrow > that took 5 minutes hell yeah now we're movin
[ 2009.12.20 18:55:54 ] ElvenLord > 9 Yes, it has been passed
[ 2009.12.20 18:56:04 ] ElvenLord > next on agenda
[ 2009.12.20 18:56:05 ] ElvenLord > 4. FW complex NPCs and standings (Part 2)
[ 2009.12.20 18:56:09 ] TeaDaze > http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/FW_Complex_NPCs_and_Standings_%28CSM%29
[ 2009.12.20 18:56:30 ] ElvenLord > Tea you have the floor pls
[ 2009.12.20 18:56:35 ] ElvenLord > if you want to add anything
[ 2009.12.20 18:56:37 ] TeaDaze > Pretty simple one here
[ 2009.12.20 18:56:56 ] TeaDaze > It is an exploit that faction militia can be ignored by standings
[ 2009.12.20 18:57:12 ] TeaDaze > they need to look at the militia flag and ignore standings [end]
[ 2009.12.20 18:57:16 ] Alekseyev Karrde > Seems like a straightforward bug fix
[ 2009.12.20 18:57:20 ] Korvin > true
[ 2009.12.20 18:57:23 ] Z0D > [agreed]
[ 2009.12.20 18:57:25 ] ElvenLord > OK, LETS VOTE
[ 2009.12.20 18:57:28 ] ElvenLord > ========================
[ 2009.12.20 18:57:29 ] Alekseyev Karrde > Y
[ 2009.12.20 18:57:30 ] ElvenLord > #Y
[ 2009.12.20 18:57:30 ] Korvin > Y
[ 2009.12.20 18:57:31 ] TeaDaze > y
[ 2009.12.20 18:57:31 ] Song Li > y
[ 2009.12.20 18:57:31 ] Z0D > y
[ 2009.12.20 18:57:32 ] Sokratesz > Y
[ 2009.12.20 18:57:47 ] Z0D > !
[ 2009.12.20 18:58:04 ] ElvenLord > 2 goon votes missing
[ 2009.12.20 18:58:06 ] ElvenLord > :S
[ 2009.12.20 18:58:09 ] Mrs Trzzbk > y
[ 2009.12.20 18:58:30 ] Korvin > they are not in militia for sure)
[ 2009.12.20 18:58:51 ] TeaDaze > 8 yes, waiting on Zastrow
[ 2009.12.20 18:59:04 ] Zastrow > o ye
[ 2009.12.20 18:59:09 ] TeaDaze > passed 9/0
[ 2009.12.20 18:59:17 ] ElvenLord > Z0D go
[ 2009.12.20 18:59:18 ] Z0D > this should also be high priority, too long FW gets ignored by CCP [end]
[ 2009.12.20 18:59:48 ] ElvenLord > we will disscus priorities when its time for it in January :D
[ 2009.12.20 18:59:54 ] ElvenLord > /emote hugs Z0D
[ 2009.12.20 18:59:57 ] Z0D > :)
[ 2009.12.20 19:00:06 ] ElvenLord > NEXT TOPIC5. FW Complex Spawning Issues Part 2
[ 2009.12.20 19:00:07 ] TeaDaze > http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Factional_Warfare_-_Complex_Spawning_Part_2_%28CSM%29
[ 2009.12.20 19:00:18 ] TeaDaze > (Yes I do thave a list :P)
[ 2009.12.20 19:00:25 ] ElvenLord > :D
[ 2009.12.20 19:00:33 ] ElvenLord > Z0D you want to add anything?
[ 2009.12.20 19:00:59 ] Song Li > TD: They're not all in your memory? The spell is broken
[ 2009.12.20 19:01:06 ] Z0D > no, as it stands its pretty clear what needs to be done to have more fairness [end]
[ 2009.12.20 19:01:24 ] ElvenLord > then we can vote on this too
[ 2009.12.20 19:01:28 ] Alekseyev Karrde > !
[ 2009.12.20 19:01:29 ] ElvenLord > ============================
[ 2009.12.20 19:01:30 ] Sokratesz > Y
[ 2009.12.20 19:01:33 ] Z0D > y
[ 2009.12.20 19:01:36 ] ElvenLord > Y
[ 2009.12.20 19:01:51 ] Alekseyev Karrde > Y fairness is a good thing
[ 2009.12.20 19:01:56 ] TeaDaze > y
[ 2009.12.20 19:01:57 ] Song Li > y
[ 2009.12.20 19:02:01 ] Mrs Trzzbk > y
[ 2009.12.20 19:02:11 ] Zastrow > yea ok i guess i dont really know a lot about fw but it sounds ok
[ 2009.12.20 19:02:14 ] Korvin > partially yes (xpt this @Have minium and maximum amounts of plexes per system, to prevent them all piling up and to guarantee that there will be something during the day@)
[ 2009.12.20 19:02:33 ] TeaDaze > passed 9/0
[ 2009.12.20 19:03:03 ] ElvenLord > NEEEEXT6. T2 sentry drone skill inconsistency
[ 2009.12.20 19:03:05 ] TeaDaze > http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Sentry_drone_skill_change_proposal
[ 2009.12.20 19:03:13 ] Sokratesz > + first i want to clarify something, i want to BUFF t2 sentries and have edited the proposal since the first iteration to better reflect that. either give them the outrigth damage bonus from the t2 skill or make it give them some other relevant bonus
[ 2009.12.20 19:03:40 ] Sokratesz > like range or tracking or w/e
[ 2009.12.20 19:03:43 ] Sokratesz > [end]
[ 2009.12.20 19:03:59 ] ElvenLord > !
[ 2009.12.20 19:04:01 ] Helen Highwater > !
[ 2009.12.20 19:04:05 ] ElvenLord > and I have the floor
[ 2009.12.20 19:04:09 ] Alekseyev Karrde > !
[ 2009.12.20 19:04:10 ] Sokratesz > bawww
[ 2009.12.20 19:04:44 ] ElvenLord > I do agree with this proposal and I would love to see racial specs influence t2 sentry drones
[ 2009.12.20 19:04:57 ] Korvin > !
[ 2009.12.20 19:04:59 ] ElvenLord > but there is the issue of skills already needed for them
[ 2009.12.20 19:05:27 ] ElvenLord > like the sentry drone interfacing that is a high ranked skill
[ 2009.12.20 19:05:27 ] Sokratesz > as it stands they take roughly as much skills at t2 heavies
[ 2009.12.20 19:05:29 ] TeaDaze > !
[ 2009.12.20 19:05:34 ] Mrs Trzzbk > !
[ 2009.12.20 19:05:39 ] ElvenLord > [end]
[ 2009.12.20 19:05:43 ] ElvenLord > Helen Highwater go
[ 2009.12.20 19:05:44 ] Helen Highwater > I disagreed with this in the Eve-O thread and i still disagree. It seems liek a change for change's sake. I'm not against rebalancing all drones but just adjusting sentries while leaving other drones untouched doesn't make sense to me.[end]
[ 2009.12.20 19:06:01 ] ElvenLord > Alekseyev Karrde
[ 2009.12.20 19:06:45 ] Alekseyev Karrde > T2 sentry drones should be for hard core droners.  There's a difficulty of use for non cap ship players which makes them niche.  A slight buff with a slight increase or at least redistrubution of skills is a good thing.  I whole heartedly support this a
[ 2009.12.20 19:06:51 ] Alekseyev Karrde > as a BUFF not a nerf
[ 2009.12.20 19:06:57 ] Alekseyev Karrde > {end]
[ 2009.12.20 19:07:05 ] ElvenLord > Korvin go
[ 2009.12.20 19:07:07 ] Helen Highwater > !
[ 2009.12.20 19:07:20 ] Korvin > Sentry are good enough, no need of boosting them, + the trained skill issues. Boosting them would make them overpowered
[ 2009.12.20 19:08:06 ] Sokratesz > their dps is low compared to heavies and they cannot move obviously which is a rather harsh penalty, so that would be up for discussion.
[ 2009.12.20 19:08:19 ] Korvin > but they have instant dps
[ 2009.12.20 19:08:27 ] Korvin > no need to chase the target
[ 2009.12.20 19:08:36 ] Z0D > !
[ 2009.12.20 19:08:42 ] ElvenLord > TeaDaze go
[ 2009.12.20 19:08:43 ] TeaDaze > I don't think this can be taken in isolation; for example sentries are the only drones with a damage increasing rig. To give extra benefit could upset their balance and changing their base damage downwards just so the skill can bring it back up is silly
[ 2009.12.20 19:09:03 ] TeaDaze > I feel there are more important issues to be dealt with [end]
[ 2009.12.20 19:09:07 ] Alekseyev Karrde > !
[ 2009.12.20 19:09:08 ] ElvenLord > Mrs Trzzbk go
[ 2009.12.20 19:09:09 ] Mrs Trzzbk > I understand the concept, but I don't know if it's really necessary since T2 sentries already own pretty hard.  Plus, the skill disparity between them and T2 heavies isn't like T2 guns vs T2 missiles. [end]
[ 2009.12.20 19:09:35 ] ElvenLord > Helen Highwater go
[ 2009.12.20 19:09:36 ] Helen Highwater > Where is the evidence that sentries are underpowered? This proposal isn't based on stats but on a preconception of 'tidiness'. Plus what Teadaze said. [end]
[ 2009.12.20 19:09:50 ] Sokratesz > !
[ 2009.12.20 19:09:53 ] ElvenLord > Z0D go
[ 2009.12.20 19:10:03 ] Z0D > especially when looking at those when also considering the space they occupy in the pilots ship: Dominix, Rattlesnake, Moros
[ 2009.12.20 19:10:07 ] Z0D > [end]
[ 2009.12.20 19:10:12 ] ElvenLord > Sokratesz go
[ 2009.12.20 19:10:21 ] Sokratesz > its difficult to directly compare heavies vs. sentries so there will be no hard numbers to support this either way
[ 2009.12.20 19:10:34 ] Sokratesz > due to them being different in essence [end]
[ 2009.12.20 19:10:42 ] Helen Highwater > !
[ 2009.12.20 19:10:46 ] ElvenLord > Helen Highwater go
[ 2009.12.20 19:10:55 ] Alekseyev Karrde > ! I'd be comfortable w a tracking or range or XXX bonus if not a straight dps one.  In the end, it's up to CCP to find the right balance, we're just saying the direction they need to be looking in. [end]
[ 2009.12.20 19:11:01 ] Alekseyev Karrde > ;)
[ 2009.12.20 19:11:07 ] ElvenLord > :D
[ 2009.12.20 19:11:40 ] Helen Highwater > It's actually really easy to compare them, you plot a damage/time graph vs various target types. You are comparing DPS to DPS it's not like trying to balance ewar drones with combat drones[end]
[ 2009.12.20 19:11:48 ] Sokratesz > !
[ 2009.12.20 19:11:52 ] ElvenLord > Sokratesz go
[ 2009.12.20 19:11:59 ] Sokratesz > yes but the inherent advantages and disadvantages are impossible to put into numbers
[ 2009.12.20 19:12:11 ] Helen Highwater > ! not at all
[ 2009.12.20 19:12:11 ] Mrs Trzzbk > !
[ 2009.12.20 19:12:12 ] Sokratesz > they have more hp, cannot move, etc. [end]
[ 2009.12.20 19:12:13 ] Korvin > /emote tries to catch the sentry ishtar atm :P
[ 2009.12.20 19:12:21 ] ElvenLord > Mrs Trzzbk go
[ 2009.12.20 19:12:43 ] Mrs Trzzbk > ok it seems like everybody has an opinion on sentries, but even with that given this proposal is too narrow to cover that
[ 2009.12.20 19:12:47 ] Mrs Trzzbk > that's it
[ 2009.12.20 19:13:09 ] Sokratesz > !
[ 2009.12.20 19:13:14 ] ElvenLord > Sokratesz go
[ 2009.12.20 19:13:38 ] Sokratesz > to shorten this a bit. lets make the resolution: 'make the skills apply, but let ccp what kind of bonus they should get'
[ 2009.12.20 19:13:49 ] Sokratesz > decide*
[ 2009.12.20 19:13:57 ] Sokratesz > either dps or something else
[ 2009.12.20 19:13:58 ] Sokratesz > [end]
[ 2009.12.20 19:14:35 ] Z0D > [agreed]
[ 2009.12.20 19:14:52 ] ElvenLord > OK then with changed proposal: Make specializations apply but CCP decide on bonus" we VOTE
[ 2009.12.20 19:14:55 ] ElvenLord > =====================================
[ 2009.12.20 19:14:59 ] Sokratesz > Y
[ 2009.12.20 19:15:02 ] Korvin > N
[ 2009.12.20 19:15:06 ] Alekseyev Karrde > Y
[ 2009.12.20 19:15:33 ] TeaDaze > n - not in isolation, only as part of a full review on drones and rigs etc
[ 2009.12.20 19:15:43 ] Mrs Trzzbk > n - too haphazard of a proposal
[ 2009.12.20 19:16:00 ] ElvenLord > Y - but complete review of it
[ 2009.12.20 19:16:06 ] Z0D > y
[ 2009.12.20 19:16:07 ] Zastrow > n
[ 2009.12.20 19:16:23 ] Song Li > n - too specific, rather a proposal encompasing a drone review
[ 2009.12.20 19:16:29 ] TeaDaze > failed 5/4
[ 2009.12.20 19:16:42 ] ElvenLord > NEXT7. Docking games fix
[ 2009.12.20 19:16:50 ] TeaDaze > http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Docking_games_fix_%28CSM%29
[ 2009.12.20 19:17:03 ] Sokratesz > !
[ 2009.12.20 19:17:10 ] ElvenLord > Sokratesz go
[ 2009.12.20 19:17:11 ] Sokratesz > i gtg afk for 10 mins, but i vote Y
[ 2009.12.20 19:17:16 ] ElvenLord > :D
[ 2009.12.20 19:17:31 ] TeaDaze > !
[ 2009.12.20 19:17:33 ] Korvin > !
[ 2009.12.20 19:17:37 ] Alekseyev Karrde > !
[ 2009.12.20 19:17:42 ] ElvenLord > TeaDaze go
[ 2009.12.20 19:18:08 ] TeaDaze > This change is a mixture of several different things and a bit of a mashup because of it
[ 2009.12.20 19:18:23 ] TeaDaze > Docking ranges / ship mass docking timers
[ 2009.12.20 19:18:49 ] TeaDaze > There was a better proposal raised which said that agression would be held while people were shooting at the target
[ 2009.12.20 19:19:06 ] TeaDaze > so if you fight on station you can't deagress in 1 min but it would take 15 mins
[ 2009.12.20 19:19:16 ] TeaDaze > so you either commit or you don't
[ 2009.12.20 19:19:18 ] TeaDaze > [end]
[ 2009.12.20 19:19:22 ] ElvenLord > Those are few solutions to an existing problem
[ 2009.12.20 19:19:37 ] ElvenLord > they are not all one
[ 2009.12.20 19:19:42 ] ElvenLord > Korvin go
[ 2009.12.20 19:19:43 ] TeaDaze > !
[ 2009.12.20 19:19:44 ] Korvin > Y for the issue to be discussed, N for the solution casted, its sounds like a boost to that undocking game, not fix. undock points are not the place for fights. {end]
[ 2009.12.20 19:20:00 ] ElvenLord > Alekseyev Karrde go
[ 2009.12.20 19:20:03 ] Alekseyev Karrde > The current station sizes, aggro timer, and neutral rr are *brutally fucking pvp over in every level of security space*,  Needs to be fixed and i dont care how much ccp bitches and moans about it.  We need to hold their feet to the fire on this. ctd
[ 2009.12.20 19:20:26 ] ElvenLord > TeaDaze go
[ 2009.12.20 19:20:31 ] Alekseyev Karrde > I disagree with korvin about undock games not being appropriate for PVP.  They need to be,  the space for pvp in eve is already to small
[ 2009.12.20 19:20:33 ] Alekseyev Karrde > not done
[ 2009.12.20 19:20:35 ] TeaDaze > Making docking ranges smaller promotes lazy bubblecamping of 0.0 stations
[ 2009.12.20 19:20:53 ] ElvenLord > sory Aleks
[ 2009.12.20 19:20:56 ] TeaDaze > Aleks has the floor
[ 2009.12.20 19:21:29 ] Alekseyev Karrde > I dont care if its a timer based on mass but it needs to be extended to some degree.  The neutral rr NEEDS TO GO ASAP, and the docking ranges are making around station pvp (which would diversify undock point fights) impractical
[ 2009.12.20 19:21:41 ] Alekseyev Karrde > not to mention the stealth nerf to stealth ships re they cant cloak right
[ 2009.12.20 19:21:43 ] Alekseyev Karrde > [end]
[ 2009.12.20 19:21:51 ] ElvenLord > @ TD, docking ranges in 0.0 are a bit diferent (outpost to be exact)
[ 2009.12.20 19:21:59 ] TeaDaze > !
[ 2009.12.20 19:22:04 ] ElvenLord > go TD
[ 2009.12.20 19:22:21 ] TeaDaze > Ranges are different for the different station models, outpost or not
[ 2009.12.20 19:22:34 ] TeaDaze > some stations are "kick out" giving a bonus to lazy bubblecamping
[ 2009.12.20 19:22:47 ] TeaDaze > Others are so big it is impossible to bump anyone fighting off it
[ 2009.12.20 19:22:55 ] TeaDaze > I agree that needs to be looked at
[ 2009.12.20 19:22:56 ] TeaDaze > [end]
[ 2009.12.20 19:23:01 ] Alekseyev Karrde > !
[ 2009.12.20 19:23:08 ] ElvenLord > Alekseyev Karrde go
[ 2009.12.20 19:23:20 ] Zastrow > yea kick out stations are awful, the csm3 passed a motion to look at outpost docking radii
[ 2009.12.20 19:23:31 ] Alekseyev Karrde > Specificly, i would like to make known to CCP we want the direction this goes to be shrinking the docking range to match the model not expanding docking ranges on the kickout stations
[ 2009.12.20 19:23:33 ] Alekseyev Karrde > end
[ 2009.12.20 19:23:47 ] Z0D > [agree] with TD, Zastrow
[ 2009.12.20 19:24:21 ] Mrs Trzzbk > !
[ 2009.12.20 19:24:24 ] Alekseyev Karrde > maybe some kick out, maybe not, maybe ccp has to redesign some models to get the balance where they want but it's tarded as is
[ 2009.12.20 19:24:33 ] ElvenLord > Mrs Trzzbk go
[ 2009.12.20 19:25:03 ] Mrs Trzzbk > I think that docking games and station PVP certainly need a looking at, but I don't know how I feel about the stuff in the proposal.  I would approve of a more general resolution that we would then talk out (a lot) at the actual meeting. [end]
[ 2009.12.20 19:25:14 ] TeaDaze > !
[ 2009.12.20 19:25:24 ] ElvenLord > TD
[ 2009.12.20 19:25:47 ] TeaDaze > I agree with Mrs Trzzbk - we need a more general proposal and I can't support the specific items of this one
[ 2009.12.20 19:25:51 ] TeaDaze > [end]
[ 2009.12.20 19:25:59 ] Alekseyev Karrde > !
[ 2009.12.20 19:26:03 ] ElvenLord > OK, can we vote on this as an "discussion to have with CCP on how to fix it"?
[ 2009.12.20 19:26:07 ] ElvenLord > Alekseyev Karrde go
[ 2009.12.20 19:26:19 ] Alekseyev Karrde > Only if it's listed as top priority when we make that list
[ 2009.12.20 19:26:22 ] Alekseyev Karrde > end
[ 2009.12.20 19:26:29 ] ElvenLord > ElvenLord > OK, can we vote on this as an "discussion to have with CCP on how to fix it"?
[ 2009.12.20 19:26:41 ] Z0D > y
[ 2009.12.20 19:26:44 ] TeaDaze > [agree]
[ 2009.12.20 19:26:45 ] Korvin > y
[ 2009.12.20 19:26:56 ] Alekseyev Karrde > Y if it's the top priority
[ 2009.12.20 19:26:57 ] Song Li > yes
[ 2009.12.20 19:26:59 ] Zastrow > id vote on ammended proposal but i dont support kickout stations
[ 2009.12.20 19:27:18 ] ElvenLord > OK lets vote on "Discussion to have with CCP on how to fix DOCKING GAMES", vote with Y or N
[ 2009.12.20 19:27:20 ] ElvenLord > ====================================
[ 2009.12.20 19:27:23 ] TeaDaze > sorry, for the vote - y on the amended proposal to look at the issue fully including kickouts etc
[ 2009.12.20 19:27:24 ] Song Li > y
[ 2009.12.20 19:27:26 ] ElvenLord > Y
[ 2009.12.20 19:27:30 ] Alekseyev Karrde > Y
[ 2009.12.20 19:27:34 ] Korvin > y
[ 2009.12.20 19:27:35 ] Mrs Trzzbk > y
[ 2009.12.20 19:27:36 ] Sokratesz > Y
[ 2009.12.20 19:27:37 ] ElvenLord > Y
[ 2009.12.20 19:28:09 ] Alekseyev Karrde > i will smite the jita 4-4 station model undock like the fist of an angry god if its the last thing i do
[ 2009.12.20 19:28:20 ] Zastrow > y
[ 2009.12.20 19:28:23 ] Z0D > :)
[ 2009.12.20 19:28:27 ] TeaDaze > passed 9/0
[ 2009.12.20 19:28:40 ] ElvenLord > NEEEEXT8. Alter targeted ECM effect
[ 2009.12.20 19:28:42 ] TeaDaze > http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Alter_targeted_ECM_effect_%28CSM%29
[ 2009.12.20 19:29:15 ] ElvenLord > Aleks, wanna add something?
[ 2009.12.20 19:29:36 ] Alekseyev Karrde > OK so currently ECM is a much needed game mechanic with a very un-fun effect.  I want to alter the effect to keep the role but make it a little less soul crushing
[ 2009.12.20 19:29:57 ] TeaDaze > !
[ 2009.12.20 19:30:00 ] Alekseyev Karrde > shortening the timer from 20s to 10s has a lot of benifits
[ 2009.12.20 19:30:10 ] Sokratesz > !
[ 2009.12.20 19:30:17 ] Alekseyev Karrde > end
[ 2009.12.20 19:30:24 ] ElvenLord > TeaDaze go
[ 2009.12.20 19:30:27 ] TeaDaze > Just want to point out that reducing the cycle time to 10seconds would actually be a vary large buff is the target takes longer than 10 seconds to target back
[ 2009.12.20 19:30:32 ] TeaDaze > if*
[ 2009.12.20 19:30:36 ] Alekseyev Karrde > !
[ 2009.12.20 19:30:46 ] TeaDaze > because you can miss a jam cycle or 2 before they can get a lock
[ 2009.12.20 19:30:50 ] TeaDaze > [end]
[ 2009.12.20 19:30:55 ] ElvenLord > Sokratesz go
[ 2009.12.20 19:30:57 ] Sokratesz > also some negative effects because for large ships, being jammed has the side effect of spending a lot of time re-locking and that will only be made worse. [end]  (same as td)
[ 2009.12.20 19:31:18 ] Helen Highwater > !
[ 2009.12.20 19:31:22 ] ElvenLord > Alekseyev Karrde go
[ 2009.12.20 19:31:34 ] Alekseyev Karrde > This is intended.  ECCM on caps and serious BS is commen now a days, you should get a nice payoff if you manage to jam a carrier or pimped out BS.
[ 2009.12.20 19:31:58 ] Alekseyev Karrde > it will make non eccmed ones be less likly to be perma jammed tho (bs in partic)
[ 2009.12.20 19:32:11 ] Alekseyev Karrde > carriers have triage, dreads siege, mothers and titan immune
[ 2009.12.20 19:32:23 ] Alekseyev Karrde > it will be a change for the better all considered (end)
[ 2009.12.20 19:32:31 ] ElvenLord > Helen Highwater go
[ 2009.12.20 19:32:33 ] Helen Highwater > Reducing the cycle time is a huge buff even if the target locks pretty quickly as it lets you retry a failed jam attempt much faster[end]
[ 2009.12.20 19:33:04 ] Zastrow > !
[ 2009.12.20 19:33:10 ] ElvenLord > Zastrow go
[ 2009.12.20 19:33:16 ] Zastrow > ecm already got nerfed thie year it doesnt need more nerfs
[ 2009.12.20 19:33:19 ] Zastrow > end
[ 2009.12.20 19:33:30 ] TeaDaze > !
[ 2009.12.20 19:33:36 ] ElvenLord > TeaDaze go
[ 2009.12.20 19:33:45 ] TeaDaze > Perhaps if eccm was looked at instead more people would fit it
[ 2009.12.20 19:33:56 ] T'Amber > !
[ 2009.12.20 19:33:56 ] Alekseyev Karrde > !
[ 2009.12.20 19:33:58 ] Mrs Trzzbk > !
[ 2009.12.20 19:34:02 ] ElvenLord > T'Amber go
[ 2009.12.20 19:34:10 ] TeaDaze > maybe add an effect to reduce the jam time by a bit[end]
[ 2009.12.20 19:34:33 ] T'Amber > As a user of elec warfare i'd say both Helen and TeaDaze are correct and they have been nerfed enough already
[ 2009.12.20 19:34:39 ] T'Amber > [end]
[ 2009.12.20 19:34:48 ] ElvenLord > Alekseyev Karrde go
[ 2009.12.20 19:34:49 ] Alekseyev Karrde > issue isnt w whether ecm is effective or not its that when you do get jammed you are OUT for twenty seconds which is forever in eve.  10s will increase jam result variety and keep people in the game, even if its only for bits and pieces.  The fact that
[ 2009.12.20 19:35:17 ] Alekseyev Karrde > we cant agree if its a buff or a nerf suggests it's probably not going to change ecm use among the player base but it will increase enjoyment imo [end]
[ 2009.12.20 19:35:36 ] ElvenLord > Mrs Trzzbk go
[ 2009.12.20 19:35:41 ] TeaDaze > !
[ 2009.12.20 19:35:44 ] Mrs Trzzbk > Changing the cycle time to 10s means more server calls, means less ability to actually do anything in lag, etc.  Also I can't think of anything you could change on ECCM that wouldn't make it either useless or overpowered.
[ 2009.12.20 19:35:47 ] Mrs Trzzbk > [end]
[ 2009.12.20 19:35:54 ] Korvin > !
[ 2009.12.20 19:36:18 ] ElvenLord > Korvin go
[ 2009.12.20 19:36:46 ] Korvin > reducing the cycle is a boost, and you can use arazu in pair
[ 2009.12.20 19:37:03 ] Alekseyev Karrde > god forbid theres a reason to use arazus...
[ 2009.12.20 19:37:12 ] Mrs Trzzbk > haha you put RSDs on an Arazu
[ 2009.12.20 19:37:28 ] ElvenLord > rofl
[ 2009.12.20 19:37:34 ] ElvenLord > lets vote on this proposal
[ 2009.12.20 19:37:37 ] Zastrow > is it 2007 again
[ 2009.12.20 19:37:38 ] ElvenLord > y or N
[ 2009.12.20 19:37:38 ] TeaDaze > Agree with Mrs Trzzbk. Also if we can't decide if it is a nerf or buff or if the effect will improve being jammed or more likely to end in perma jamming then it isn't needed.
[ 2009.12.20 19:37:43 ] TeaDaze > ==============
[ 2009.12.20 19:37:44 ] ElvenLord > ============================================================
[ 2009.12.20 19:37:45 ] Zastrow > no no unequivocally no
[ 2009.12.20 19:37:48 ] TeaDaze > n
[ 2009.12.20 19:37:49 ] Alekseyev Karrde > Y
[ 2009.12.20 19:38:02 ] Zastrow > ok im going to go poop afk
[ 2009.12.20 19:38:09 ] ElvenLord > n
[ 2009.12.20 19:38:12 ] Sokratesz > n
[ 2009.12.20 19:38:14 ] Song Li > n
[ 2009.12.20 19:38:24 ] Korvin > n
[ 2009.12.20 19:38:25 ] Z0D > n
[ 2009.12.20 19:38:41 ] Mrs Trzzbk > n
[ 2009.12.20 19:38:47 ] TeaDaze > failed 8/1
[ 2009.12.20 19:38:58 ] ElvenLord > NEXT9. Titan bridge range
[ 2009.12.20 19:39:00 ] TeaDaze > http://wiki.eveonline.com/w/index.php?title=Titan_bridge_range
[ 2009.12.20 19:39:05 ] ElvenLord > also a str8 thing
[ 2009.12.20 19:39:14 ] ElvenLord > Sok want to add anything?
[ 2009.12.20 19:39:21 ] Sokratesz > a rather relevant issue. just a few minutes ago i got bumped 60m/s in my titan whe briding a fleet
[ 2009.12.20 19:39:47 ] TeaDaze > !
[ 2009.12.20 19:39:49 ] Korvin > ! my vote is - N (5 sec to bio afk)
[ 2009.12.20 19:39:55 ] Alekseyev Karrde > !
[ 2009.12.20 19:39:55 ] ElvenLord > me too and we where bridging at the same time to close by systems :P
[ 2009.12.20 19:40:03 ] ElvenLord > TeaDaze go
[ 2009.12.20 19:40:09 ] Mrs Trzzbk > !
[ 2009.12.20 19:40:22 ] TeaDaze > I'm not sure it will stop people hitting approach and bumbing the titan anyway
[ 2009.12.20 19:40:32 ] TeaDaze > [end]
[ 2009.12.20 19:40:38 ] ElvenLord > Alekseyev Karrde go
[ 2009.12.20 19:40:40 ] Alekseyev Karrde > would like this expanded to Covert Jump Bridges as well.  [end]
[ 2009.12.20 19:40:42 ] Sokratesz > !
[ 2009.12.20 19:40:49 ] ElvenLord > Mrs Trzzbk go
[ 2009.12.20 19:41:05 ] Z0D > !
[ 2009.12.20 19:41:09 ] Mrs Trzzbk > I absolutely agree with an increase in activation range, but to be a pedant I would want to change the proposal title to "Titan Bridge Activation Range" just to remove any confusion.  I thought this was originally about the actual bridge range in ly. [e
[ 2009.12.20 19:41:16 ] Mrs Trzzbk > [end]
[ 2009.12.20 19:41:25 ] ElvenLord > @TD it wont but it will reduce the bumpage a bit
[ 2009.12.20 19:41:29 ] ElvenLord > Sokratesz go
[ 2009.12.20 19:41:31 ] Sokratesz > they will be able to hit 'orbit at 5km'  instead of approach to make sure they land in range, so it will not banish all bumping but it will fix a large majority of it.
[ 2009.12.20 19:41:41 ] TeaDaze > !
[ 2009.12.20 19:41:45 ] Sokratesz > end
[ 2009.12.20 19:41:47 ] ElvenLord > Z0D go
[ 2009.12.20 19:41:58 ] Z0D > considering the size of the ships inperspective 2500 meters sounds ridiculously small, and should definitvely be increased [end]
[ 2009.12.20 19:42:18 ] ElvenLord > TeaDaze go
[ 2009.12.20 19:42:42 ] TeaDaze > I don't have a problem with increasing it to 5km, but want to point out they could hit orbit 2500 in the first place ;)
[ 2009.12.20 19:42:46 ] TeaDaze > [end]
[ 2009.12.20 19:42:55 ] Sokratesz > !
[ 2009.12.20 19:43:00 ] TeaDaze > (or keep at range 2000)
[ 2009.12.20 19:43:04 ] ElvenLord > trust me orbiting 2500m from titan bumps it
[ 2009.12.20 19:43:19 ] ElvenLord > and keep at range 2000m with 150 ppl on you even worse
[ 2009.12.20 19:43:24 ] ElvenLord > Sokratesz go
[ 2009.12.20 19:43:26 ] Sokratesz > orbit at 2500 lands you between 2500 and 3000 depending on ship type so that doesnt do and anything approaching it that close is a risk so my request stands at 10 km  [end]
[ 2009.12.20 19:43:54 ] Z0D > !
[ 2009.12.20 19:43:57 ] Korvin > !
[ 2009.12.20 19:44:01 ] TeaDaze > !
[ 2009.12.20 19:44:44 ] ElvenLord > and if you have any doubts about what I say just know  Greeser ,  Lord Iluvatar ,  Tzadkiel are all me
[ 2009.12.20 19:44:48 ] ElvenLord > Z0D go
[ 2009.12.20 19:44:54 ] Z0D > with 150 ships orbiting at 2500m, sounds like serious chances of orbiting collisions to me... [end]
[ 2009.12.20 19:45:10 ] ElvenLord > Korvin go
[ 2009.12.20 19:45:15 ] Alekseyev Karrde > !
[ 2009.12.20 19:45:23 ] Korvin > why not just make bridging ships static and nonbumpable instead?
[ 2009.12.20 19:45:28 ] Korvin > [end]
[ 2009.12.20 19:45:29 ] Sokratesz > !
[ 2009.12.20 19:45:34 ] ElvenLord > TeaDaze go
[ 2009.12.20 19:45:35 ] TeaDaze > 5km fine, 10km is taking the piss or people will ask why they can't jump at a stargate (some of which are bigger than titan models) that far out
[ 2009.12.20 19:45:57 ] TeaDaze > It is an occupational hazard of bridging a fleet of 150+
[ 2009.12.20 19:46:07 ] TeaDaze > and yes, I've seen it happens many times :P
[ 2009.12.20 19:46:10 ] TeaDaze > [end]
[ 2009.12.20 19:46:15 ] ElvenLord > Alekseyev Karrde go
[ 2009.12.20 19:46:27 ] Alekseyev Karrde > Anyone object to modding the proposal to covering all fitted jump bridge and covert jump bridge modules?  2500 is needlessly small for both.  I think 5km is prob about right [end]
[ 2009.12.20 19:46:44 ] ElvenLord > Sokratesz go
[ 2009.12.20 19:46:50 ] Sokratesz > .korvin: because you dont open the bridge til everyone is in range, it takes lots of stront and doesnt last long.teadaze: its a fucking PITA srsly you dont know how bad it is til you've been that titanaleks: supported
[ 2009.12.20 19:47:15 ] Korvin > well, make a hand brake button
[ 2009.12.20 19:47:18 ] Sokratesz > end
[ 2009.12.20 19:47:22 ] T'Amber > lols
[ 2009.12.20 19:47:33 ] Sokratesz > even if you hiot ctrl space continuously it doesnt help one bit
[ 2009.12.20 19:47:37 ] Zastrow > i am a titan pilot.  everything about flying one is gay as hell
[ 2009.12.20 19:47:45 ] Alekseyev Karrde > lol
[ 2009.12.20 19:47:46 ] Zastrow > i support this with every fiber of my space being
[ 2009.12.20 19:47:53 ] ElvenLord > OK LETS VOTE ON INCREASING TITAN AND BLACK OPS PORTAL ACTIVATION RANGE TO 5000m. Y AND N
[ 2009.12.20 19:47:54 ] Z0D > !
[ 2009.12.20 19:47:57 ] ElvenLord > =============================================
[ 2009.12.20 19:47:58 ] Zastrow > y
[ 2009.12.20 19:48:01 ] Alekseyev Karrde > Y
[ 2009.12.20 19:48:01 ] Korvin > n
[ 2009.12.20 19:48:01 ] ElvenLord > y
[ 2009.12.20 19:48:02 ] TeaDaze > y - 5km
[ 2009.12.20 19:48:08 ] Sokratesz > Y  (make it 10 k plsss)
[ 2009.12.20 19:48:16 ] Z0D > y - 10km
[ 2009.12.20 19:48:24 ] Sokratesz > or even 7.5
[ 2009.12.20 19:48:30 ] Song Li > y
[ 2009.12.20 19:48:46 ] Z0D > !
[ 2009.12.20 19:48:54 ] ElvenLord > /emote slaps Mrs Trzzbk
[ 2009.12.20 19:48:56 ] Mrs Trzzbk > y
[ 2009.12.20 19:49:05 ] TeaDaze > passed 8/1
[ 2009.12.20 19:49:09 ] ElvenLord > ok 8/1, motion is passed
[ 2009.12.20 19:49:19 ] ElvenLord > Speak Z0D
[ 2009.12.20 19:49:24 ] Z0D > as Korvin said a handbreak or prepare to bridge for titan so it cannot be bumped would be good as well [ end]
[ 2009.12.20 19:49:35 ] Sokratesz > !
[ 2009.12.20 19:49:43 ] ElvenLord > we can add it during discussion with CCP
[ 2009.12.20 19:49:44 ] Sokratesz > that would be abused, giving titans an option to not be bumped
[ 2009.12.20 19:49:55 ] ElvenLord > yup
[ 2009.12.20 19:50:01 ] Sokratesz > and i dont think it will be possible technically
[ 2009.12.20 19:50:06 ] ElvenLord > NEXT10. Directscan improvement
[ 2009.12.20 19:50:08 ] TeaDaze > http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Directscan_improvement_%28CSM%29
[ 2009.12.20 19:50:24 ] ElvenLord > Korvin, want to add something?
[ 2009.12.20 19:50:28 ] Sokratesz > !
[ 2009.12.20 19:50:45 ] Korvin > all said in there
[ 2009.12.20 19:50:57 ] Z0D > [agreed]
[ 2009.12.20 19:51:03 ] Korvin > no time to count to 2 secs in the middle of the fight
[ 2009.12.20 19:51:13 ] TeaDaze > (1.3 seconds)
[ 2009.12.20 19:51:14 ] Korvin > i just spam button
[ 2009.12.20 19:51:20 ] ElvenLord > fine, its a minor change
[ 2009.12.20 19:51:29 ] ElvenLord > so lets vote on it, Y or N
[ 2009.12.20 19:51:32 ] ElvenLord > ====================================
[ 2009.12.20 19:51:32 ] Z0D > y
[ 2009.12.20 19:51:32 ] Sokratesz > !!
[ 2009.12.20 19:51:34 ] Korvin > Y
[ 2009.12.20 19:51:37 ] Alekseyev Karrde > Y
[ 2009.12.20 19:51:41 ] ElvenLord > Y
[ 2009.12.20 19:51:48 ] Sokratesz > y !!
[ 2009.12.20 19:51:51 ] TeaDaze > y
[ 2009.12.20 19:51:55 ] Song Li > Sokrateszz has something to say and has listed it
[ 2009.12.20 19:52:00 ] Sokratesz > i received a LOT of requests to fix this from people who pvp solo or in small groups. it seems to have killed the game for them really, and they asked if the delay could be decreased as you decrease the cone of the scan.
[ 2009.12.20 19:52:07 ] Zastrow > y as long as its just the graphic and doesnt add load to the server
[ 2009.12.20 19:52:31 ] Sokratesz > so for example 2secs for a full 360 but only .5s for a 5 degree scan so it will not affect load a lot but will allow for quick scouting the old way, maybe tie this in with the proposal
[ 2009.12.20 19:52:33 ] Sokratesz > end
[ 2009.12.20 19:52:47 ] ElvenLord > we can add it to proposal
[ 2009.12.20 19:52:55 ] Mrs Trzzbk > y
[ 2009.12.20 19:53:02 ] Alekseyev Karrde > sure
[ 2009.12.20 19:53:11 ] Sokratesz > korivn?
[ 2009.12.20 19:53:26 ] TeaDaze > 8/0 wating on song li
[ 2009.12.20 19:53:44 ] Korvin > the delay time is the thing tbd
[ 2009.12.20 19:53:44 ] Song Li > There was a motion to ammend
[ 2009.12.20 19:54:13 ] ElvenLord > this proposal is graphics one
[ 2009.12.20 19:54:15 ] Song Li > Y to both the set proposal and sokratesz ammendment if it doesn'e ffect server load
[ 2009.12.20 19:54:21 ] Korvin > the main issue is thet the current delay doesnt make sence at all, since it still genegates traffic
[ 2009.12.20 19:54:29 ] TeaDaze > Passed 9/0
[ 2009.12.20 19:54:43 ] ElvenLord > cool
[ 2009.12.20 19:54:44 ] TeaDaze > (I doubt it adds load because it looks to be a client side error)
[ 2009.12.20 19:54:58 ] ElvenLord > NEXT11. Bring Logistics Warp Speed In-Line with T2 Ships
[ 2009.12.20 19:54:59 ] Song Li > [agreed]
[ 2009.12.20 19:55:01 ] TeaDaze > http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Bring_Logistics_Warp_Speed_In-Line_with_T2_Ships_%28CSM%29
[ 2009.12.20 19:55:01 ] Korvin > thats a server responds
[ 2009.12.20 19:55:13 ] ElvenLord > Z0D want to add?
[ 2009.12.20 19:55:22 ] Z0D > as mentioned [end]
[ 2009.12.20 19:55:37 ] Korvin > Y
[ 2009.12.20 19:55:40 ] Sokratesz > Y
[ 2009.12.20 19:55:41 ] Z0D > y
[ 2009.12.20 19:55:58 ] Alekseyev Karrde > Y
[ 2009.12.20 19:56:13 ] ElvenLord > OK lets vote on it Y or N
[ 2009.12.20 19:56:15 ] ElvenLord > ========================================
[ 2009.12.20 19:56:17 ] ElvenLord > Y
[ 2009.12.20 19:56:17 ] Sokratesz > Y
[ 2009.12.20 19:56:18 ] Korvin > Y
[ 2009.12.20 19:56:20 ] TeaDaze > Y
[ 2009.12.20 19:56:23 ] Alekseyev Karrde > Y
[ 2009.12.20 19:56:24 ] Song Li > y
[ 2009.12.20 19:56:28 ] Zastrow > y
[ 2009.12.20 19:56:29 ] Z0D > y
[ 2009.12.20 19:56:33 ] Mrs Trzzbk > y
[ 2009.12.20 19:56:36 ] TeaDaze > passed 9/0
[ 2009.12.20 19:56:40 ] TeaDaze > Point of order, can we call a vote before spamming results
[ 2009.12.20 19:56:43 ] TeaDaze > thanks :)
[ 2009.12.20 19:56:47 ] Z0D > :)
[ 2009.12.20 19:56:52 ] ElvenLord > NEXT12. Modular Starbase
[ 2009.12.20 19:56:55 ] TeaDaze > http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Modular_Starbase_%28CSM%29
[ 2009.12.20 19:57:08 ] Sokratesz > !
[ 2009.12.20 19:57:08 ] ElvenLord > Song Li you have the floor
[ 2009.12.20 19:57:36 ] Alekseyev Karrde > !
[ 2009.12.20 19:57:57 ] Z0D > !
[ 2009.12.20 19:58:09 ] Song Li > I brought this up because of it's completeness is discussion and the amount that it seems that the vocal community likes the idea. TBH I would like to see the whole POS thing redone, specificcallyt he interface and I realise it's a HUGE project. I think
[ 2009.12.20 19:58:19 ] T'Amber > !
[ 2009.12.20 19:58:23 ] Song Li > it should be brought up for discussion as to it's feasibility
[ 2009.12.20 19:58:26 ] Song Li > [end]
[ 2009.12.20 19:58:31 ] ElvenLord > Sokratesz go
[ 2009.12.20 19:58:42 ] Sokratesz > Y for a revamp into a modular approach, N for discussing a shitload of details about it right here, right now :)
[ 2009.12.20 19:58:53 ] Sokratesz > end
[ 2009.12.20 19:58:57 ] ElvenLord > Alekseyev Karrde go
[ 2009.12.20 19:59:05 ] Z0D > [agreed] Sokratesz
[ 2009.12.20 19:59:08 ] Alekseyev Karrde > I dont think the con is much of a con.  Agree with Sok, let's talk to ccp about it in iceland and get something awesome together [end]
[ 2009.12.20 19:59:22 ] ElvenLord > T'Amber go
[ 2009.12.20 19:59:41 ] T'Amber > ! Thanks for bringing this topic up even thought its been discussed with CCP before and in the CSM [end]
[ 2009.12.20 19:59:54 ] T'Amber > :)
[ 2009.12.20 19:59:56 ] ElvenLord > Z0D go (I skipped you)
[ 2009.12.20 20:00:01 ] Z0D > this obviously needs a major revamp, that subject affects multiple areas of gameplay [end]
[ 2009.12.20 20:00:08 ] TeaDaze > !
[ 2009.12.20 20:00:39 ] ElvenLord > It does affect supercaps and POS production etc. but it is something to discuss a lot with dev
[ 2009.12.20 20:00:43 ] ElvenLord > TeaDaze go
[ 2009.12.20 20:00:47 ] TeaDaze > There is lots of pos stuff, this group of threads, the promised fuel pellets etc. Support bringing this to CCP as one of the major issues [end]
[ 2009.12.20 20:01:12 ] TeaDaze > (Well bigger picture issue)
[ 2009.12.20 20:01:29 ] ElvenLord > ALL IN FAVOUR OF DISCUSSING MODULAR STARBASES WITH CCP PUT Y OR N
[ 2009.12.20 20:01:33 ] Sokratesz > Y
[ 2009.12.20 20:01:33 ] ElvenLord > ===================
[ 2009.12.20 20:01:35 ] Z0D > y
[ 2009.12.20 20:01:35 ] Song Li > y
[ 2009.12.20 20:01:35 ] Mrs Trzzbk > y
[ 2009.12.20 20:01:36 ] Sokratesz > Y
[ 2009.12.20 20:01:39 ] ElvenLord > y
[ 2009.12.20 20:01:39 ] TeaDaze > y
[ 2009.12.20 20:01:42 ] Alekseyev Karrde > Y
[ 2009.12.20 20:01:43 ] Korvin > Y (at the end of the list)
[ 2009.12.20 20:02:03 ] ElvenLord > Zastrow missing
[ 2009.12.20 20:02:06 ] Mrs Trzzbk > zastrow would vote like 800000000 ys for this
[ 2009.12.20 20:02:10 ] Sokratesz > !
[ 2009.12.20 20:02:13 ] T'Amber > \o/
[ 2009.12.20 20:02:20 ] Z0D > :)
[ 2009.12.20 20:02:21 ] Mrs Trzzbk > zastrow is afk also
[ 2009.12.20 20:02:25 ] ElvenLord > yes but Zastrow is gay and in wrong alliance
[ 2009.12.20 20:02:31 ] ElvenLord > so it does not count
[ 2009.12.20 20:02:32 ] ElvenLord > :P
[ 2009.12.20 20:02:35 ] T'Amber > hahaha
[ 2009.12.20 20:02:43 ] Mrs Trzzbk > :v
[ 2009.12.20 20:02:46 ] Sokratesz > its snowing like fuck here still and i need to pick up a family member at 20:30 so i have til then
[ 2009.12.20 20:02:47 ] Korvin > anyway its 8/1
[ 2009.12.20 20:03:00 ] Z0D > Elven i feel a wardec comming...
[ 2009.12.20 20:03:06 ] TeaDaze > It will pass, with 8/0 but if Zas is afk when can Helen vote instead?
[ 2009.12.20 20:03:12 ] Helen Highwater > elven is blue to us atm
[ 2009.12.20 20:03:30 ] ElvenLord > well motion is passed anyways
[ 2009.12.20 20:03:42 ] TeaDaze > has the required 8 votes
[ 2009.12.20 20:04:07 ] ElvenLord > we can wait a min or two for Zas to show up
[ 2009.12.20 20:04:12 ] ElvenLord > /emote runs to toilet
[ 2009.12.20 20:04:46 ] TeaDaze > Sok, any reply from you know who?
[ 2009.12.20 20:04:53 ] Sokratesz > No.
[ 2009.12.20 20:04:55 ] Sokratesz > nothing
[ 2009.12.20 20:04:57 ] TeaDaze > dammit
[ 2009.12.20 20:05:02 ] Z0D > /emote grabs a bottle of spiced wine and some quafe.
[ 2009.12.20 20:05:03 ] Sokratesz > i will ask again
[ 2009.12.20 20:05:14 ] Mrs Trzzbk > godammit looks like the snow here stopped
[ 2009.12.20 20:05:18 ] Mrs Trzzbk > and we only got like a foot
[ 2009.12.20 20:05:20 ] Helen Highwater > It makes zero difference as the motion has been passed but assuming you really need the ninth vote for closure and Zastrow isn't coming back in time then I'll vote y on his behalf
[ 2009.12.20 20:05:38 ] ElvenLord > ok then its 9 Y
[ 2009.12.20 20:05:42 ] Helen Highwater > Still coming down hard outside here. we've had about a foot in the last 3 hours
[ 2009.12.20 20:05:47 ] ElvenLord > and this is done
[ 2009.12.20 20:05:53 ] Mrs Trzzbk > if that
[ 2009.12.20 20:05:58 ] Mrs Trzzbk > my car isn't even covered :(
[ 2009.12.20 20:06:06 ] ElvenLord > ok we move on
[ 2009.12.20 20:06:08 ] ElvenLord > NEXT14. Watch list & broadcasts
[ 2009.12.20 20:06:17 ] Mrs Trzzbk > gonna be a lot of snow when i get home though :3
[ 2009.12.20 20:06:28 ] Mrs Trzzbk > AFK for a minute
[ 2009.12.20 20:06:36 ] Korvin > sup with 13?
[ 2009.12.20 20:06:37 ] Sokratesz > nothing to add there really, will improve gangs greatlu
[ 2009.12.20 20:06:39 ] Song Li > Aren't we on 13?
[ 2009.12.20 20:06:43 ] ElvenLord > ah
[ 2009.12.20 20:06:45 ] ElvenLord > sry
[ 2009.12.20 20:06:52 ] Z0D > :)
[ 2009.12.20 20:06:56 ] ElvenLord > 13. Shared Corporation Bookmarks
[ 2009.12.20 20:07:02 ] ElvenLord > this is the next topic
[ 2009.12.20 20:07:08 ] ElvenLord > TD darling, link pls
[ 2009.12.20 20:07:16 ] TeaDaze > http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Shared_Corporation_Bookmarks
[ 2009.12.20 20:07:24 ] Z0D > !
[ 2009.12.20 20:07:43 ] Helen Highwater > !
[ 2009.12.20 20:07:51 ] Korvin > !?
[ 2009.12.20 20:07:51 ] ElvenLord > Song LI, would you like to add anything since you are signed as the author?
[ 2009.12.20 20:07:52 ] Alekseyev Karrde > !
[ 2009.12.20 20:07:58 ] Song Li > Nothing to really add that isn't in the proposal or the thread [end]
[ 2009.12.20 20:08:15 ] ElvenLord > Z0D go
[ 2009.12.20 20:08:16 ] Z0D > This one is straightforward, and would be very practical, to have for corp members [end]
[ 2009.12.20 20:08:25 ] ElvenLord > Helen Highwater go
[ 2009.12.20 20:08:42 ] Helen Highwater > I think that bookmarks as a whole should be overhauled, they are a very poorly implemented feature at teh moment and I wouldn;t want CCP to tweak the system when they shoudl instead be redoing it completely
[ 2009.12.20 20:09:08 ] Helen Highwater > This sis somethign that shoudl be part of a new bookmarks system but not a change to be made in islotationj[end]
[ 2009.12.20 20:09:17 ] T'Amber > +100
[ 2009.12.20 20:09:28 ] ElvenLord > Korvin go
[ 2009.12.20 20:09:31 ] Z0D > [agreed] Helen
[ 2009.12.20 20:09:49 ] Korvin > 1. you can warp your fleet to 0-100 atm
[ 2009.12.20 20:10:16 ] Korvin > 2. you can acess them on right click in space
[ 2009.12.20 20:10:45 ] Korvin > 3. align to is the only one that sounds new
[ 2009.12.20 20:11:03 ] Korvin > [end]
[ 2009.12.20 20:11:14 ] ElvenLord > Alekseyev Karrde go
[ 2009.12.20 20:11:17 ] Alekseyev Karrde > Proposal is a good one.  Wormholers will be happy, small gang warfare will be happy, fleet warfare will be happy.  Would like to see the approach taken with the corp fittings window.  Would like to add bookmark ship hotkey functionalitty [end]
[ 2009.12.20 20:11:26 ] Alekseyev Karrde > *functionality
[ 2009.12.20 20:11:36 ] TeaDaze > !
[ 2009.12.20 20:11:41 ] ElvenLord > !
[ 2009.12.20 20:11:43 ] ElvenLord > TeaDaze go
[ 2009.12.20 20:11:52 ] TeaDaze > I agree that it should be part of an overhaul of the bookmarks system
[ 2009.12.20 20:12:20 ] TeaDaze > for a start, hold the blasted folders on the server so when my settings get barfed I don't have to sort 3000 bookmarks into folders
[ 2009.12.20 20:12:33 ] Song Li > !
[ 2009.12.20 20:12:41 ] TeaDaze > but if they can implement this in a similar way to corp fittings that would be awesom
[ 2009.12.20 20:12:45 ] TeaDaze > e [end]
[ 2009.12.20 20:13:05 ] ElvenLord > well adding corp BM would decrease the number of items in DB as all members would use for example 1 BM for JB or a POS instead of every member having them
[ 2009.12.20 20:13:11 ] Helen Highwater > !
[ 2009.12.20 20:13:23 ] ElvenLord > but I do agree BM system needs an overhaul as it is [end]
[ 2009.12.20 20:13:26 ] ElvenLord > Song Li go
[ 2009.12.20 20:13:28 ] Korvin > ElvenLord i dont think it will
[ 2009.12.20 20:13:28 ] Alekseyev Karrde > nice point elven
[ 2009.12.20 20:13:47 ] TeaDaze > (Decreases database items is listed in the pros on the proposal ;))
[ 2009.12.20 20:14:00 ] T'Amber > Also a good sales point for the idea when you pass it to ccp X)
[ 2009.12.20 20:14:02 ] Song Li > I would like to ammend the proposal then to add a discussion of a complete overhaul of hte BM system in Iceland where more details could be hammered out [end]
[ 2009.12.20 20:14:20 ] Alekseyev Karrde > !
[ 2009.12.20 20:14:22 ] ElvenLord > ./agreed
[ 2009.12.20 20:14:25 ] ElvenLord > Helen Highwater go
[ 2009.12.20 20:14:26 ] TeaDaze > /slash: /signed
[ 2009.12.20 20:14:27 ] Helen Highwater > My issue here is that if small incremental improvements are made to the system that CCP will use that as an excuse to not revisit it as a whole - because after all they've 'fixed' it. That's why I think that small changes (even good ones) shouldn't
[ 2009.12.20 20:14:32 ] Korvin > !
[ 2009.12.20 20:14:56 ] TeaDaze > !
[ 2009.12.20 20:14:59 ] Song Li > !
[ 2009.12.20 20:14:59 ] Helen Highwater > be proposed in isolation but rather a new BM system that's easier to use, has less server overhead and is more expandable is implemented[end]
[ 2009.12.20 20:15:09 ] ElvenLord > Alekseyev Karrde go
[ 2009.12.20 20:15:22 ] Alekseyev Karrde > Add not replace with i would be ok w that.  I dont think the bm system is nesc what we should want ccping from scratching considering the other shit that's around.  These changes would be excellent and improve game enjoyment, anything on top of that wou
[ 2009.12.20 20:15:29 ] Alekseyev Karrde > ld just be "nice" [en]
[ 2009.12.20 20:15:31 ] Alekseyev Karrde > *end
[ 2009.12.20 20:15:47 ] ElvenLord > Korvin go
[ 2009.12.20 20:16:02 ] Korvin > corp bookmarks is not good, since we have alliances, alliance bookmarks is no good, since we have coalitions and friendly fleets
[ 2009.12.20 20:16:12 ] Korvin > so that makes no sence
[ 2009.12.20 20:16:20 ] Korvin > and INCREASES the db
[ 2009.12.20 20:16:29 ] Korvin > [end]
[ 2009.12.20 20:16:31 ] Alekseyev Karrde > !
[ 2009.12.20 20:16:32 ] ElvenLord > TeaDaze go
[ 2009.12.20 20:16:34 ] Sokratesz > !
[ 2009.12.20 20:16:41 ] TeaDaze > Sometimes a small Quality of life feature is worth putting in fairly quickly rather than waiting for a huge change to get built and tested which on current form could take years.
[ 2009.12.20 20:17:21 ] TeaDaze > And Korvin, you are saying that one bookmark per item for a corp is going to cause more items than 200people in corp bookmarking the same item (pos, jb etc) - That makes no sense [end]
[ 2009.12.20 20:17:30 ] Mrs Trzzbk > !
[ 2009.12.20 20:17:31 ] ElvenLord > Song Li go
[ 2009.12.20 20:17:31 ] Korvin > yes
[ 2009.12.20 20:17:39 ] Song Li > I agree with Helen about pushing for complete redesigns, but if I had to choose between a specific improvement of an old system or no new system for years, I'd go for the incremental improvement now, if the work load is minor and the functionality is gr
[ 2009.12.20 20:17:45 ] Song Li > eatly improvedTL;DR (what TD said)
[ 2009.12.20 20:18:00 ] ElvenLord > Alekseyev Karrde go
[ 2009.12.20 20:18:10 ] Alekseyev Karrde > RE Korvin: wtf.  We should have POS or saved corp fittings or X mechanic because alliances might have to exchange a bookmark or a password or drag a fit so the other group has them?  Also, listen to TD.  Be serious. [end]
[ 2009.12.20 20:18:36 ] ElvenLord > Sokratesz go
[ 2009.12.20 20:18:37 ] Sokratesz > maybe, for things like control towers and jump bridges, there should be a default 'warp to' function if your corp or alliance has one in a system...so it doesnt need bookmarks *at all* to warp to them and you dont need to trade bm's or scout them first
[ 2009.12.20 20:18:45 ] Korvin > and for instance, i have about 10 bookmarks in every system i live
[ 2009.12.20 20:19:00 ] Sokratesz > so that right click in space lists your corps / alliances assets in that system and you can warp to them wiothout having to make the bm yourself first [end]
[ 2009.12.20 20:19:16 ] Korvin > and than i quit the corp
[ 2009.12.20 20:19:27 ] ElvenLord > Mrs Trzzbk go
[ 2009.12.20 20:19:31 ] Mrs Trzzbk > I feel like we're discussing minutae.  Maybe make the proposal more general so we can just vote on it and move on [end]
[ 2009.12.20 20:19:31 ] Korvin > so i will make them personal anyway
[ 2009.12.20 20:19:45 ] TeaDaze > !
[ 2009.12.20 20:19:51 ] ElvenLord > TeaDaze go
[ 2009.12.20 20:19:59 ] TeaDaze > In some systems I have 100-150 bookmarks
[ 2009.12.20 20:20:02 ] TeaDaze > but that is me
[ 2009.12.20 20:20:08 ] T'Amber > !
[ 2009.12.20 20:20:09 ] TeaDaze > other people have none
[ 2009.12.20 20:20:38 ] TeaDaze > the overall balance will be less bookmarks and thus it is a good idea - though Sok's idea for corp assets is pretty good too :)
[ 2009.12.20 20:20:40 ] TeaDaze > [end]
[ 2009.12.20 20:20:44 ] ElvenLord > T'Amber go
[ 2009.12.20 20:20:49 ] T'Amber > nvm sorry
[ 2009.12.20 20:20:53 ] T'Amber > answered
[ 2009.12.20 20:21:00 ] Alekseyev Karrde > ! Re: Helen, i would advise against us doing nothing but general proposals.  just as we go forward
[ 2009.12.20 20:21:23 ] Helen Highwater > !
[ 2009.12.20 20:21:30 ] ElvenLord > lets make then and overhaul of BM system in general
[ 2009.12.20 20:21:36 ] ElvenLord > Helen Highwater go
[ 2009.12.20 20:21:40 ] Sokratesz > !
[ 2009.12.20 20:21:57 ] Alekseyev Karrde > !
[ 2009.12.20 20:22:00 ] Z0D > !
[ 2009.12.20 20:22:19 ] Helen Highwater > Re Aleks. I agree, but I think that suggesting incremental improvements toa fundamentally flawed system is counter productive, there are lots of specific recommendations still but we should not be shy about identifying systems that are so broken they
[ 2009.12.20 20:22:28 ] Helen Highwater > cannot be fixed through iteration[end]
[ 2009.12.20 20:22:36 ] ElvenLord > Sokratesz go
[ 2009.12.20 20:22:37 ] Sokratesz > ill vote Y for an overhaul of bm system with inclusion of this proposal and maybe the suggestion i just made about corp assets in space being warpable without needing a bookmark. lots up for discussion tho, gogo iceland [end]
[ 2009.12.20 20:22:55 ] ElvenLord > Alekseyev Karrde go
[ 2009.12.20 20:22:57 ] Alekseyev Karrde > Let's split it out.  Vote on proposal as it stands and then vote to look at the entire bm system from the ground up.  I dont want to lose the trees in the forest here. [end]
[ 2009.12.20 20:23:10 ] ElvenLord > Z0D go
[ 2009.12.20 20:23:14 ] Z0D > in this space age anyway, makes no sense to me that we have to trade bm's so others in corp or alliance or even a fleet gang can warp to by jetting cans in space, just like you radio broadcast a location to warp to etc. [end]
[ 2009.12.20 20:24:09 ] ElvenLord > Lets vote then on "overhaul of bm system with inclusion of this proposal" if its OK for all
[ 2009.12.20 20:24:18 ] ElvenLord > ?
[ 2009.12.20 20:24:21 ] Sokratesz > yes
[ 2009.12.20 20:24:23 ] TeaDaze > fine
[ 2009.12.20 20:24:24 ] Z0D > [agreed]
[ 2009.12.20 20:24:29 ] TeaDaze > ========================
[ 2009.12.20 20:24:31 ] Sokratesz > Y
[ 2009.12.20 20:24:32 ] Song Li > y
[ 2009.12.20 20:24:32 ] Korvin > N
[ 2009.12.20 20:24:34 ] Z0D > y
[ 2009.12.20 20:24:34 ] TeaDaze > y
[ 2009.12.20 20:24:35 ] ElvenLord > y
[ 2009.12.20 20:24:38 ] Mrs Trzzbk > y
[ 2009.12.20 20:24:44 ] Alekseyev Karrde > Y
[ 2009.12.20 20:25:07 ] TeaDaze > 7/1 waiting on Zastow
[ 2009.12.20 20:25:28 ] ElvenLord > as Zastrow is still afk it seems, Helen can vote as first alt
[ 2009.12.20 20:25:31 ] Helen Highwater > Voting Y for Zastrow if he doesn't show
[ 2009.12.20 20:25:42 ] ElvenLord > it 8/1 yes
[ 2009.12.20 20:25:45 ] ElvenLord > moving on
[ 2009.12.20 20:25:47 ] TeaDaze > passed 8/1 on modified proposal
[ 2009.12.20 20:26:03 ] Zastrow > i was a y
[ 2009.12.20 20:26:13 ] Zastrow > ive been here reaadin im just on the phone
[ 2009.12.20 20:26:21 ] T'Amber > !
[ 2009.12.20 20:26:23 ] Mrs Trzzbk > more like you were a way
[ 2009.12.20 20:26:24 ] Mrs Trzzbk > haha
[ 2009.12.20 20:26:33 ] ElvenLord > T'Amber
[ 2009.12.20 20:26:36 ] ElvenLord > go
[ 2009.12.20 20:26:36 ] Zastrow > more like you are a gay
[ 2009.12.20 20:26:40 ] T'Amber > I have a pic made up and some diagrams for this topic if i can pass them on to someone [end]
[ 2009.12.20 20:26:48 ] T'Amber > if you are interested
[ 2009.12.20 20:26:52 ] TeaDaze > Add them to the wiki perhaps
[ 2009.12.20 20:26:53 ] Sokratesz > for me? :D
[ 2009.12.20 20:27:05 ] Mrs Trzzbk > make a flowchart and/or spreadsheet
[ 2009.12.20 20:27:09 ] T'Amber > no venn diagrams sorry Sols
[ 2009.12.20 20:27:12 ] T'Amber > *soks
[ 2009.12.20 20:27:18 ] ElvenLord > now, I had a dilema, I kinda wanted to merge 14 and 15 together as they both are on the topic of broadcast
[ 2009.12.20 20:27:19 ] T'Amber > kk thanks will do
[ 2009.12.20 20:27:19 ] Sokratesz > venn  diagrams suck
[ 2009.12.20 20:27:25 ] Sokratesz > yeah merge them
[ 2009.12.20 20:27:25 ] T'Amber > flow charts?
[ 2009.12.20 20:27:38 ] ElvenLord > but we can vote on them separately and merge them for CCFP meeting
[ 2009.12.20 20:27:44 ] ElvenLord > *CCP
[ 2009.12.20 20:27:50 ] Sokratesz > also good
[ 2009.12.20 20:27:56 ] TeaDaze > keep them seperate for now, merge later
[ 2009.12.20 20:27:59 ] ElvenLord > so NEXT14. Watch list & broadcasts
[ 2009.12.20 20:28:01 ] Alekseyev Karrde > ( things that suck (venn diagrams) charts )
[ 2009.12.20 20:28:06 ] Sokratesz > LOL
[ 2009.12.20 20:28:21 ] TeaDaze > and get moving, we've been in session for 2 1/4 hours already :P
[ 2009.12.20 20:28:26 ] TeaDaze > http://wiki.eveonline.com/w/index.php?title=Watch_list_and_broadcasts
[ 2009.12.20 20:28:29 ] Sokratesz > nothing to add really, i cant see anyone being against gangs made more fun *next* :D
[ 2009.12.20 20:28:35 ] Sokratesz > end
[ 2009.12.20 20:29:00 ] Alekseyev Karrde > !
[ 2009.12.20 20:29:03 ] Korvin > lets vote
[ 2009.12.20 20:29:09 ] ElvenLord > Alekseyev Karrde go
[ 2009.12.20 20:29:33 ] Alekseyev Karrde > Capacitor stat bars pleeeeeease.  Guardian pilot over here [end]
[ 2009.12.20 20:29:43 ] TeaDaze > !
[ 2009.12.20 20:29:47 ] Sokratesz > ah yes add that
[ 2009.12.20 20:29:48 ] ElvenLord > hehehe
[ 2009.12.20 20:29:53 ] ElvenLord > TeaDaze go
[ 2009.12.20 20:29:53 ] Korvin > ^^ this
[ 2009.12.20 20:29:57 ] TeaDaze > Agree in principle - but depends on additional lag
[ 2009.12.20 20:30:06 ] Alekseyev Karrde > fair nuff td
[ 2009.12.20 20:30:15 ] ElvenLord > this goes to minor thing tbh
[ 2009.12.20 20:30:21 ] ElvenLord > LETS VOTE Y OR N
[ 2009.12.20 20:30:23 ] ElvenLord > ===================
[ 2009.12.20 20:30:23 ] TeaDaze > And as a logisitics pilot - yes to 20 on the watch list if possible
[ 2009.12.20 20:30:24 ] Alekseyev Karrde > Y
[ 2009.12.20 20:30:25 ] Song Li > y
[ 2009.12.20 20:30:26 ] ElvenLord > Y
[ 2009.12.20 20:30:26 ] TeaDaze > [end]
[ 2009.12.20 20:30:26 ] Korvin > Y
[ 2009.12.20 20:30:27 ] Sokratesz > Y
[ 2009.12.20 20:30:28 ] TeaDaze > y
[ 2009.12.20 20:30:32 ] Z0D > y
[ 2009.12.20 20:30:41 ] Sokratesz > i have to run may be back in like 20 mins to continue but til then helen has my spot for votes
[ 2009.12.20 20:30:56 ] ElvenLord > cool, still vaiting on goonies
[ 2009.12.20 20:30:59 ] Zastrow > y
[ 2009.12.20 20:31:00 ] Helen Highwater > /emote votes down all Sok's pet projects
[ 2009.12.20 20:31:10 ] TeaDaze > /emote notes the voting down
[ 2009.12.20 20:31:20 ] TeaDaze > ;)
[ 2009.12.20 20:31:23 ] ElvenLord > /emote slaps Mrs Trzzbk
[ 2009.12.20 20:31:37 ] TeaDaze > 8/0 waiting on Mrs Trzzkb
[ 2009.12.20 20:31:48 ] Helen Highwater > Voting Y for Mrs T so we can get on with it
[ 2009.12.20 20:31:53 ] Mrs Trzzbk > y
[ 2009.12.20 20:31:54 ] Mrs Trzzbk > sorry
[ 2009.12.20 20:31:56 ] TeaDaze > who isn't here, lets wait for Mrs Trzzbk instead
[ 2009.12.20 20:32:02 ] TeaDaze > passed 9/0
[ 2009.12.20 20:32:03 ] Mrs Trzzbk > heard a loud bang downstairs had to check it out
[ 2009.12.20 20:32:11 ] ElvenLord > NEXT15. Broadcast "In position" improvement
[ 2009.12.20 20:32:16 ] TeaDaze > http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Broadcast_%22In_position%22_improvement_%28CSM%29
[ 2009.12.20 20:32:31 ] ElvenLord > Korvin, want to add?
[ 2009.12.20 20:32:34 ] Korvin > all siad there
[ 2009.12.20 20:33:01 ] Alekseyev Karrde > !
[ 2009.12.20 20:33:05 ] Z0D > !
[ 2009.12.20 20:33:06 ] ElvenLord > go Aleks
[ 2009.12.20 20:33:21 ] TeaDaze > !
[ 2009.12.20 20:33:36 ] Mrs Trzzbk > !
[ 2009.12.20 20:33:37 ] Alekseyev Karrde > So i understand, this would allow a perisistant icon of inspoition visible to your fleetmates so you can better coordinate cloaked ships?  if so yes, [end]
[ 2009.12.20 20:34:02 ] ElvenLord > Z0D go
[ 2009.12.20 20:34:03 ] Z0D > a gang fleet in cloak to a degree are working together, would make sense they can see their own gang properly. [end]
[ 2009.12.20 20:34:08 ] Korvin > yes, when you press in position - icon shouws your ship to your fleet
[ 2009.12.20 20:34:15 ] Helen Highwater > !
[ 2009.12.20 20:34:23 ] ElvenLord > TeaDaze go
[ 2009.12.20 20:34:29 ] Helen Highwater > where does it show this icon? In space on the system map?
[ 2009.12.20 20:34:32 ] Helen Highwater > opps soprry
[ 2009.12.20 20:34:56 ] TeaDaze > Similar to what Helen was saying before - we need to get CCP to actually fix the cloaked ships decloaking each other "bug" (if indeed it hasn't been classed as working as intended by now).
[ 2009.12.20 20:35:01 ] Z0D > !
[ 2009.12.20 20:35:03 ] Korvin > it should be in space by proposal, not its on map only (
[ 2009.12.20 20:35:09 ] ElvenLord > Mrs Trzzbk go
[ 2009.12.20 20:35:14 ] Alekseyev Karrde > !
[ 2009.12.20 20:35:15 ] TeaDaze > But this might still apply - I assume the icon would be a bracket like the other broadcasts provide [end]
[ 2009.12.20 20:36:03 ] Mrs Trzzbk > This will lead to some hilarious incidents when spies call out locations, but overall I think it's kind of useless.  I for one think the In Position button may as well just be removed. [end]
[ 2009.12.20 20:36:20 ] ElvenLord > Z0D go
[ 2009.12.20 20:36:21 ] Z0D > could be color haze to know they are cloaked, green for corp, blue alliance and purple just gang etc. [end]
[ 2009.12.20 20:36:32 ] ElvenLord > Alekseyev Karrde go
[ 2009.12.20 20:36:34 ] Alekseyev Karrde > cloaked ships decloaking other cloaked ships is fine, but we need a way for stealth gangs to see one another.  This in position broadcast functionality would do that [end]
[ 2009.12.20 20:36:51 ] TeaDaze > !
[ 2009.12.20 20:37:11 ] Helen Highwater > !
[ 2009.12.20 20:37:21 ] ElvenLord > TeaDaze go
[ 2009.12.20 20:37:43 ] TeaDaze > It was originally classed as a bug when the stealth bomber changes were put in - I don't know if it has now been classed as working as intended but it is totally stupid that a covert gang can't gang warp without decloaking each other in flight
[ 2009.12.20 20:37:46 ] TeaDaze > [end]
[ 2009.12.20 20:38:00 ] ElvenLord > Helen Highwater go
[ 2009.12.20 20:38:17 ] Helen Highwater > In other MMOs that have stealth, typically you see friendly stealthers as translucent shadows. I'd suggest a system like that for ships in the same gang only (not just friendlies)
[ 2009.12.20 20:38:27 ] Mrs Trzzbk > !
[ 2009.12.20 20:38:33 ] ElvenLord > Mrs Trzzbk go
[ 2009.12.20 20:38:36 ] Helen Highwater > This would include the bracket for the ship as well as the model[end]
[ 2009.12.20 20:38:36 ] Mrs Trzzbk > Unless you see each other on overview it's useless
[ 2009.12.20 20:38:52 ] Helen Highwater > ^^
[ 2009.12.20 20:38:53 ] Mrs Trzzbk > you're not gonna be picking out semi-transparent shadows in space [end]
[ 2009.12.20 20:39:00 ] Mrs Trzzbk > oh owell ok then
[ 2009.12.20 20:39:15 ] Mrs Trzzbk > also I have to go afk for a bit my vote on this is n as it stands
[ 2009.12.20 20:40:08 ] ElvenLord > ok then lets vote on this with addition of Helens proposal to add translucent shadows and appropriate brakets for clocked ships in gang?
[ 2009.12.20 20:40:14 ] TeaDaze > ====================
[ 2009.12.20 20:40:24 ] Korvin > Y (no shadows)
[ 2009.12.20 20:40:34 ] ElvenLord > Y
[ 2009.12.20 20:40:36 ] TeaDaze > y - needs proper fix but this will do
[ 2009.12.20 20:40:41 ] Z0D > y
[ 2009.12.20 20:40:44 ] Zastrow > n'
[ 2009.12.20 20:40:44 ] Song Li > y
[ 2009.12.20 20:40:45 ] Helen Highwater > Voting Y for Sokratesz
[ 2009.12.20 20:40:51 ] Alekseyev Karrde > Y the proposal as stands at minimum, obv being able to see your gang cloaked via the overview et all would be best
[ 2009.12.20 20:41:03 ] Song Li > ^^
[ 2009.12.20 20:41:10 ] TeaDaze > And n from Trzzbk
[ 2009.12.20 20:41:18 ] TeaDaze > passed 7/2
[ 2009.12.20 20:41:28 ] ElvenLord > NEXT16. Balance self-destruction
[ 2009.12.20 20:41:33 ] TeaDaze > http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Balance_self-destruction_%28CSM%29
[ 2009.12.20 20:42:00 ] ElvenLord > Aleks, wanna add?
[ 2009.12.20 20:42:16 ] Alekseyev Karrde > The mechanic as it stands is retarded.  That is all.
[ 2009.12.20 20:42:25 ] TeaDaze > !
[ 2009.12.20 20:42:32 ] ElvenLord > TeaDaze go
[ 2009.12.20 20:42:53 ] Helen Highwater > !
[ 2009.12.20 20:42:56 ] TeaDaze > I don't agree that self destruct should give a killmail - however it shouldn't give any insurance at all, not even default payout
[ 2009.12.20 20:43:08 ] Korvin > !
[ 2009.12.20 20:43:11 ] TeaDaze > that means you have the option to deny a killmail but at far higher cost
[ 2009.12.20 20:43:15 ] TeaDaze > [end]
[ 2009.12.20 20:43:18 ] Alekseyev Karrde > !
[ 2009.12.20 20:43:21 ] ElvenLord > Helen Highwater go
[ 2009.12.20 20:43:41 ] Helen Highwater > Your general blurb mentions insurance fraud but the actual proposal doesn't say anything about denying insurance[end]
[ 2009.12.20 20:43:53 ] ElvenLord > Korvin go
[ 2009.12.20 20:44:13 ] Korvin > the killmails it the main reason someone selfdestruct their ships
[ 2009.12.20 20:44:21 ] Alekseyev Karrde > frack i left the insurence part out.  My bad, add it in yes
[ 2009.12.20 20:44:31 ] Korvin > so its hilarious, when someon selfdestructs
[ 2009.12.20 20:44:44 ] ElvenLord > !
[ 2009.12.20 20:44:47 ] Korvin > when he see that he cant win
[ 2009.12.20 20:44:56 ] TeaDaze > !
[ 2009.12.20 20:45:02 ] ElvenLord > ElvenLord go :P
[ 2009.12.20 20:45:23 ] ElvenLord > Well self-destruct is and should be left as an option in eve
[ 2009.12.20 20:45:27 ] Z0D > !
[ 2009.12.20 20:45:31 ] Alekseyev Karrde > !
[ 2009.12.20 20:45:36 ] Korvin > http://eve.battleclinic.com/killboard/killmail.php?id=8614311
[ 2009.12.20 20:45:40 ] ElvenLord > and I still feel that it not giving killmail is an option
[ 2009.12.20 20:45:46 ] Korvin > this could be a solo kill
[ 2009.12.20 20:46:02 ] Korvin > if the victim wont selfdestruct itself
[ 2009.12.20 20:46:03 ] ElvenLord > but I do agree that self-destruct needs some down side to it, like no insurance payout
[ 2009.12.20 20:46:39 ] Zastrow > no completely remove self-destruct so we can tackle and jam/neut people and go afk
[ 2009.12.20 20:46:42 ] ElvenLord > so I would change this proposal to denying insurance to any kind of self destruct ot CONCORD kills
[ 2009.12.20 20:46:55 ] ElvenLord > *or {end}
[ 2009.12.20 20:47:01 ] ElvenLord > TeaDaze go
[ 2009.12.20 20:47:13 ] TeaDaze > In summary: Yes to different self destruct timers based on ship class. Yes to no isurance payout on self destruct, no to giving a killmail. Unsure on combat penelty while in self destruct but is interesting.
[ 2009.12.20 20:47:23 ] TeaDaze > [end]
[ 2009.12.20 20:47:23 ] Alekseyev Karrde > If no km, there needs to be the mechanic that would allow the attackers to get one via fighting.  Extend the timer, add steadily rising heat levels and thus module damage.  No km, no loot?  Pay for it.
[ 2009.12.20 20:47:51 ] Helen Highwater > !
[ 2009.12.20 20:47:55 ] ElvenLord > Helen Highwater go
[ 2009.12.20 20:48:24 ] Z0D > !
[ 2009.12.20 20:48:30 ] Song Li > !
[ 2009.12.20 20:48:51 ] Helen Highwater > Changing the proposal to no insurance for self destruct is onething, adding in Concord kills is way outside the scope  of this topic and has a lot of repercussions on suicide ganking and pirating. Can we stick to self destruct and talk abotu concord ins
[ 2009.12.20 20:49:00 ] Helen Highwater > in a separate topic[end]
[ 2009.12.20 20:49:10 ] TeaDaze > [agree with helen]
[ 2009.12.20 20:49:16 ] Alekseyev Karrde > (it is a sep topic on our agenda)
[ 2009.12.20 20:49:16 ] ElvenLord > Z0D go
[ 2009.12.20 20:49:18 ] Z0D > self destructing should give killmail as well as damages inflicted but also specify final blow as self inflicted as well as no insurance for it. [end]
[ 2009.12.20 20:49:21 ] Korvin > ! lets discuss insurance in the different topic plz
[ 2009.12.20 20:49:37 ] ElvenLord > Song Li go
[ 2009.12.20 20:49:39 ] TeaDaze > !
[ 2009.12.20 20:50:05 ] Song Li > I think Alek's main thing with the KM is that as a merc he wants numbers on what they've done. I'm of two minds.. if it were to generalte a KM it should say Self Destruct in it
[ 2009.12.20 20:50:23 ] Alekseyev Karrde > ^
[ 2009.12.20 20:50:23 ] Song Li > Or it shouldn't and let it be asset denyal
[ 2009.12.20 20:50:25 ] Song Li > [end]
[ 2009.12.20 20:50:45 ] ElvenLord > TeaDaze go
[ 2009.12.20 20:50:48 ] TeaDaze > We are not going to have time to discuss anything else today and insurance is listed in the pros though not in the topic due to an oversight.
[ 2009.12.20 20:51:28 ] Alekseyev Karrde > (actually i covered it in an insurence proposal but did it same night so i forgot that i needed it to be on both)
[ 2009.12.20 20:51:40 ] Alekseyev Karrde > (lets just add it and move on)
[ 2009.12.20 20:51:41 ] TeaDaze > But I feel strongly that people need to have the option to deny a killmail if they want to pay the price (no insurance). I've had many people self destruct before we got the kill but that is a valid tactic
[ 2009.12.20 20:51:44 ] TeaDaze > [end]
[ 2009.12.20 20:51:54 ] Alekseyev Karrde > !
[ 2009.12.20 20:52:01 ] ElvenLord > Alekseyev Karrde go
[ 2009.12.20 20:52:13 ] Alekseyev Karrde > I think it should be a valid tactic for denying LOOT not obscuring the record of it ever happening
[ 2009.12.20 20:52:15 ] Alekseyev Karrde > end
[ 2009.12.20 20:52:26 ] TeaDaze > !
[ 2009.12.20 20:52:32 ] ElvenLord > TeaDaze go
[ 2009.12.20 20:52:51 ] TeaDaze > If you award a killmail it will only go to the victim and the killing blow, which is the victim - so what is the point ;)
[ 2009.12.20 20:52:53 ] TeaDaze > [end]
[ 2009.12.20 20:53:03 ] Alekseyev Karrde > !
[ 2009.12.20 20:53:18 ] ElvenLord > tbh if we add killmail then insurance should stay
[ 2009.12.20 20:53:22 ] ElvenLord > Alekseyev Karrde go
[ 2009.12.20 20:53:46 ] Korvin > ! ~
[ 2009.12.20 20:54:13 ] Alekseyev Karrde > will show up on corp feeds for the victems group.  Insurence shouldnt stay because it creats the sit where people can self destruct a ship for more than they bought it or could sell it for which is bs for the traders and miners
[ 2009.12.20 20:54:14 ] Alekseyev Karrde > end
[ 2009.12.20 20:54:21 ] Alekseyev Karrde > *victim
[ 2009.12.20 20:54:23 ] TeaDaze > !
[ 2009.12.20 20:54:23 ] ElvenLord > Korvin go
[ 2009.12.20 20:54:32 ] Korvin > Self destruction it the way to avoid to be stucked in game by hostile ships, nothing more. Killmails and insurance shouldnt be affected by this. [end]
[ 2009.12.20 20:54:57 ] ElvenLord > TeaDaze go
[ 2009.12.20 20:55:12 ] TeaDaze > I can't support the proposal if killmail generation is going to stay. Insurance payout should be denyed because it was a dilibrate act [end]
[ 2009.12.20 20:55:25 ] ElvenLord > /emote note to all  Sokratesz is back
[ 2009.12.20 20:55:45 ] Alekseyev Karrde > !
[ 2009.12.20 20:55:51 ] ElvenLord > Alekseyev Karrde go
[ 2009.12.20 20:56:06 ] Sokratesz > !
[ 2009.12.20 20:56:21 ] TeaDaze > !
[ 2009.12.20 20:56:30 ] Alekseyev Karrde > KM still not generating i strongly advise against but IF we add the heat disadvantage and extend the timer so the target had a higher chance of being killed and thus generating a mail i am OK with that though unhappy
[ 2009.12.20 20:56:32 ] Alekseyev Karrde > end
[ 2009.12.20 20:56:45 ] Helen Highwater > !
[ 2009.12.20 20:56:52 ] ElvenLord > Sokratesz go
[ 2009.12.20 20:57:04 ] Sokratesz > I would be for either it giving a mail or denying insurance, both would be too much IMO. On the topic of timers etc, how about warp scrambling cancelling self destruct, or agression timer preventing the initiation of it
[ 2009.12.20 20:57:06 ] Sokratesz > end
[ 2009.12.20 20:57:29 ] ElvenLord > TeaDaze go
[ 2009.12.20 20:57:35 ] TeaDaze > I should point out that a self destruct would be a far higher loss than just being blown up so to me I'm happy to see them do that knowing their wallet took a hit. But I'm not driven by some k/d stats so *shrug*
[ 2009.12.20 20:58:00 ] TeaDaze > As to blocking Self destruct - no it would lead to griefing
[ 2009.12.20 20:58:04 ] TeaDaze > [end]
[ 2009.12.20 20:58:10 ] Korvin > !  Sokratesz lol, i can hold someone for 23 hours afk
[ 2009.12.20 20:58:17 ] Song Li > !
[ 2009.12.20 20:58:20 ] Mrs Trzzbk > Teadaze you're all about the K/D ratio don't deny it
[ 2009.12.20 20:58:22 ] ElvenLord > Helen Highwater go
[ 2009.12.20 20:58:23 ] Helen Highwater > As Teadaze pointed out, the KM is irrelevant unless the victim has KMs syndicated via API. The only person who's going to see it is the victim even if it is generated.[end]
[ 2009.12.20 20:58:39 ] Alekseyev Karrde > CEO and directors will too
[ 2009.12.20 20:58:50 ] Mrs Trzzbk > !
[ 2009.12.20 20:58:55 ] ElvenLord > Song Li go
[ 2009.12.20 20:59:51 ] Song Li > I agree with TD on the meh on the KM creation since it would be generated to the "victim". The insurance I see as part of the overall insurance issue. [end]
[ 2009.12.20 21:00:18 ] ElvenLord > Mrs Trzzbk go
[ 2009.12.20 21:00:22 ] Mrs Trzzbk > The KM system could be the same as used for when you kill a ratter where it just goes to the first player involved. [end]
[ 2009.12.20 21:00:43 ] TeaDaze > It goes to the highest damage dealer, which may well be the victim
[ 2009.12.20 21:00:43 ] Alekseyev Karrde > !
[ 2009.12.20 21:00:54 ] Korvin > *or final blow
[ 2009.12.20 21:01:00 ] ElvenLord > Alekseyev Karrde go
[ 2009.12.20 21:01:05 ] Mrs Trzzbk > so then change it so it goes to the first non-victim
[ 2009.12.20 21:01:18 ] Mrs Trzzbk > !
[ 2009.12.20 21:01:36 ] Alekseyev Karrde > Agree to Song Li that insurence is an overall issue which needs to be addressed and that Trzzbk;s suggestion about using the killed by npc solutuion would be fine [end]
[ 2009.12.20 21:01:54 ] TeaDaze > !
[ 2009.12.20 21:01:58 ] Alekseyev Karrde > *solution (sorry about spelling today i'm on a bad keyboard)
[ 2009.12.20 21:02:05 ] ElvenLord > Mrs Trzzbk go
[ 2009.12.20 21:02:15 ] Mrs Trzzbk > again, I think we're discussing minutae [end]
[ 2009.12.20 21:02:30 ] ElvenLord > TeaDaze go
[ 2009.12.20 21:02:31 ] ElvenLord > !
[ 2009.12.20 21:02:42 ] TeaDaze > Can we confirm that if the proposal on insurance is going to be done on another topic that this one is only related to KM generation?
[ 2009.12.20 21:02:45 ] TeaDaze > [end]
[ 2009.12.20 21:03:23 ] Korvin > Y for only km generation
[ 2009.12.20 21:03:29 ] ElvenLord > I just read a shitload of dev posts and stuff, and tbh all recognize self-destruct ad a viable mechanics of denying a KM
[ 2009.12.20 21:03:42 ] ElvenLord > thus I can say that that part will hardly pass
[ 2009.12.20 21:03:46 ] Alekseyev Karrde > Aight then, let's talk about drawbacks
[ 2009.12.20 21:03:54 ] Alekseyev Karrde > !
[ 2009.12.20 21:03:55 ] ElvenLord > but I do agree with insurance part
[ 2009.12.20 21:04:01 ] ElvenLord > [end]
[ 2009.12.20 21:04:04 ] ElvenLord > Aleks
[ 2009.12.20 21:04:34 ] Alekseyev Karrde > Mod proposal to be: No insurence, increase timer to 5 minutes, add in heat effects
[ 2009.12.20 21:04:36 ] Korvin > N for insurance and heating (since im a pirate yarr)
[ 2009.12.20 21:04:57 ] TeaDaze > !
[ 2009.12.20 21:05:05 ] ElvenLord > TeaDaze go
[ 2009.12.20 21:05:16 ] TeaDaze > timer should be tied to ship size, not a one size fits all 5 mins [end]
[ 2009.12.20 21:05:17 ] Mrs Trzzbk > can someboduy sum up the heat thing right quick?
[ 2009.12.20 21:05:28 ] Alekseyev Karrde > !
[ 2009.12.20 21:05:33 ] Korvin > N for the timer
[ 2009.12.20 21:05:36 ] ElvenLord > Alekseyev Karrde go
[ 2009.12.20 21:05:41 ] Sokratesz > !
[ 2009.12.20 21:06:19 ] Alekseyev Karrde > RE: Trzz heat refers to a gradually increased amount of heat over the course of the timer at a rate ccp decides which can damage and potentially break entirely the mods fitted to your ship.  RE TD: i think that might be more pain to impliment than benif
[ 2009.12.20 21:06:24 ] Alekseyev Karrde > it [end]
[ 2009.12.20 21:06:31 ] ElvenLord > Sokratesz go
[ 2009.12.20 21:06:32 ] Sokratesz > how about a timer based on mass like a multipel root function so it doesnt scale too badly and edited so that caps and supercaps land at around 5 mins and frigates at like 60s [end]
[ 2009.12.20 21:06:36 ] Korvin > Y for 300 dps 5km range after the ship selfdestructs lol
[ 2009.12.20 21:07:07 ] Sokratesz > or on capacitor size - its the meltdown of the reactor isnt it? (/rp)
[ 2009.12.20 21:07:08 ] TeaDaze > !
[ 2009.12.20 21:07:30 ] ElvenLord > TeaDaze go
[ 2009.12.20 21:07:50 ] TeaDaze > The heat thing is just another way to force a killmail when combined with the increase of timer. If this is the proposal I vote no and will wait till the insurance issue [end]
[ 2009.12.20 21:08:23 ] Korvin > ! lets vote separately for the each change
[ 2009.12.20 21:08:39 ] Alekseyev Karrde > not a bad idea kor
[ 2009.12.20 21:09:12 ] ElvenLord > ok, then we have:1. Self-destruct revokes insurance2. Self-destruct generates killmail (as with NPCs)
[ 2009.12.20 21:09:22 ] Mrs Trzzbk > !
[ 2009.12.20 21:09:27 ] ElvenLord > Mrs Trzzbk go
[ 2009.12.20 21:09:38 ] Mrs Trzzbk > I think pods should be able to bypass the countdown as long as they're not aggressed
[ 2009.12.20 21:09:51 ] Mrs Trzzbk > I mean, it's kind of bullshit that i need to wait 2 minutes to podjump somewhere
[ 2009.12.20 21:09:53 ] Mrs Trzzbk > [end]
[ 2009.12.20 21:09:53 ] Korvin > 3. selfdestruct "overheat" all modules
[ 2009.12.20 21:09:54 ] Helen Highwater > Agree with this
[ 2009.12.20 21:10:14 ] Korvin > 4. Selfdestruct timer depends on shipsize
[ 2009.12.20 21:10:32 ] Sokratesz > (or cap lvl)
[ 2009.12.20 21:10:41 ] Sokratesz > total cap capacity sorry*
[ 2009.12.20 21:10:51 ] ElvenLord > ok, then we have:1. Self-destruct revokes insurance2. Self-destruct generates killmail (as with NPCs)3. selfdestruct "overheat" all modules
[ 2009.12.20 21:10:59 ] ElvenLord > 4. Selfdestruct timer depends on shipsize
[ 2009.12.20 21:11:12 ] Alekseyev Karrde > lets do it
[ 2009.12.20 21:11:32 ] ElvenLord > WHO IS FOR OPTION No.1? Y or N
[ 2009.12.20 21:11:35 ] ElvenLord > ====================================
[ 2009.12.20 21:11:36 ] Alekseyev Karrde > Y
[ 2009.12.20 21:11:37 ] Sokratesz > Y
[ 2009.12.20 21:11:38 ] Korvin > N
[ 2009.12.20 21:11:39 ] ElvenLord > y
[ 2009.12.20 21:11:39 ] Song Li > y
[ 2009.12.20 21:11:44 ] Mrs Trzzbk > n
[ 2009.12.20 21:11:44 ] TeaDaze > y
[ 2009.12.20 21:11:47 ] Z0D > y
[ 2009.12.20 21:11:48 ] Zastrow > y
[ 2009.12.20 21:12:04 ] TeaDaze > passed 7/2 - no insurance on self destruct
[ 2009.12.20 21:12:24 ] ElvenLord > WHO IS FOR No.2? Y or N
[ 2009.12.20 21:12:25 ] ElvenLord > ========================
[ 2009.12.20 21:12:28 ] TeaDaze > n
[ 2009.12.20 21:12:29 ] Sokratesz > Y
[ 2009.12.20 21:12:29 ] Song Li > n
[ 2009.12.20 21:12:30 ] Korvin > Y
[ 2009.12.20 21:12:31 ] Alekseyev Karrde > Y
[ 2009.12.20 21:12:33 ] Z0D > n - only if not agressed)
[ 2009.12.20 21:12:33 ] ElvenLord > n
[ 2009.12.20 21:12:43 ] Alekseyev Karrde > zod: clairfy
[ 2009.12.20 21:13:10 ] Z0D > nif you were shot at then you choose to self destruct, then you should not escape a killmail
[ 2009.12.20 21:13:34 ] Alekseyev Karrde > (then you should be voting yes, km dont matter if no one is shooting you)
[ 2009.12.20 21:13:36 ] Z0D > if you do a self destruct on your own then its good
[ 2009.12.20 21:13:38 ] Mrs Trzzbk > y - and i like z0d's idea
[ 2009.12.20 21:13:39 ] ElvenLord > Zas and Mrs?
[ 2009.12.20 21:13:40 ] Sokratesz > include that chalk up Z0D as a yes
[ 2009.12.20 21:13:54 ] Z0D > y
[ 2009.12.20 21:14:09 ] TeaDaze > Calling a revote for clarity due to the chatting in the middle
[ 2009.12.20 21:14:10 ] TeaDaze > =============================
[ 2009.12.20 21:14:12 ] TeaDaze > n
[ 2009.12.20 21:14:15 ] Alekseyev Karrde > Y
[ 2009.12.20 21:14:16 ] Z0D > y
[ 2009.12.20 21:14:23 ] Korvin > Y
[ 2009.12.20 21:14:30 ] Sokratesz > Y
[ 2009.12.20 21:14:37 ] ElvenLord > Y - with change mentioned by Z0D
[ 2009.12.20 21:14:37 ] Song Li > n
[ 2009.12.20 21:15:08 ] ElvenLord > /emote looks at goonies
[ 2009.12.20 21:15:13 ] Z0D > :)
[ 2009.12.20 21:15:21 ] Mrs Trzzbk > y
[ 2009.12.20 21:15:34 ] Zastrow > y
[ 2009.12.20 21:15:38 ] TeaDaze > passed 7/2 self destruct generates a killmail
[ 2009.12.20 21:15:45 ] Zastrow > we were in deep deliberation
[ 2009.12.20 21:15:55 ] ElvenLord > Y OR N for 3. selfdestruct "overheat" all modules?
[ 2009.12.20 21:15:55 ] Sokratesz > circlejerk?
[ 2009.12.20 21:15:55 ] Mrs Trzzbk > more like deep dilz holding
[ 2009.12.20 21:15:58 ] ElvenLord > ========================================
[ 2009.12.20 21:16:03 ] Mrs Trzzbk > n
[ 2009.12.20 21:16:03 ] Alekseyev Karrde > Y
[ 2009.12.20 21:16:07 ] ElvenLord > N
[ 2009.12.20 21:16:09 ] Song Li > n
[ 2009.12.20 21:16:09 ] Sokratesz > Y
[ 2009.12.20 21:16:10 ] TeaDaze > n
[ 2009.12.20 21:16:12 ] Z0D > n
[ 2009.12.20 21:16:14 ] Korvin > N
[ 2009.12.20 21:16:19 ] Zastrow > n
[ 2009.12.20 21:16:42 ] TeaDaze > failed 7/2 self destruct will not overheat modules
[ 2009.12.20 21:16:47 ] ElvenLord > Y OR N FOR 4. Selfdestruct timer depends on shipsize?
[ 2009.12.20 21:16:50 ] ElvenLord > =====================================
[ 2009.12.20 21:16:52 ] Sokratesz > Y
[ 2009.12.20 21:16:52 ] TeaDaze > y
[ 2009.12.20 21:16:53 ] Z0D > y
[ 2009.12.20 21:16:54 ] ElvenLord > Y
[ 2009.12.20 21:16:55 ] Song Li > y
[ 2009.12.20 21:16:55 ] Korvin > N
[ 2009.12.20 21:16:55 ] Alekseyev Karrde > Y sure y not
[ 2009.12.20 21:16:57 ] Mrs Trzzbk > y
[ 2009.12.20 21:17:11 ] Zastrow > y
[ 2009.12.20 21:17:29 ] TeaDaze > passed 8/1 - self destruct timer based on ship size
[ 2009.12.20 21:17:44 ] ElvenLord > ok that it on this shit
[ 2009.12.20 21:17:55 ] Sokratesz > =p take a chill pill
[ 2009.12.20 21:18:10 ] Z0D > /emote passes a round of shots around
[ 2009.12.20 21:18:20 ] ElvenLord > ALL IN FAVOUR OF CONTINUING FOR 1h MORE (so we can add more topics for next meeting). Y OR N
[ 2009.12.20 21:18:21 ] Song Li > I'll take 2 rounds
[ 2009.12.20 21:18:23 ] ElvenLord > ==========================================
[ 2009.12.20 21:18:25 ] TeaDaze > n
[ 2009.12.20 21:18:26 ] Alekseyev Karrde > Y
[ 2009.12.20 21:18:27 ] Sokratesz > y
[ 2009.12.20 21:18:27 ] Song Li > y
[ 2009.12.20 21:18:30 ] ElvenLord > y
[ 2009.12.20 21:18:33 ] Korvin > omg... selfdestuct generates killmail, gives no insurance, drop everyting and takes forever on the capship
[ 2009.12.20 21:18:41 ] Sokratesz > there is a double, and maybe we can identify a few issues from the other list that we can pass through without much ado now to shorten the list a bit?
[ 2009.12.20 21:18:41 ] Z0D > y
[ 2009.12.20 21:18:42 ] Zastrow > n
[ 2009.12.20 21:18:53 ] TeaDaze > Guys, it has been 3 hours already
[ 2009.12.20 21:18:53 ] Mrs Trzzbk > n
[ 2009.12.20 21:18:55 ] Korvin > Y alliance confirmatin
[ 2009.12.20 21:19:07 ] Z0D > Korvin generates only if you were in an agression, otherwise its personal
[ 2009.12.20 21:19:23 ] Korvin > otherwise its pointless
[ 2009.12.20 21:19:24 ] Alekseyev Karrde > loot doesnt drop from destruct
[ 2009.12.20 21:19:27 ] Alekseyev Karrde > lets move on
[ 2009.12.20 21:19:30 ] ElvenLord > ok, then lets move on as fast as we can, 4 more topics
[ 2009.12.20 21:19:39 ] Alekseyev Karrde > \o/
[ 2009.12.20 21:19:42 ] TeaDaze > I wish to raise an objection
[ 2009.12.20 21:19:51 ] ElvenLord > spean TD
[ 2009.12.20 21:19:54 ] ElvenLord > *k
[ 2009.12.20 21:19:58 ] Zastrow > overruled
[ 2009.12.20 21:20:02 ] TeaDaze > We have covered the agenda and have overrun massively
[ 2009.12.20 21:20:05 ] Sokratesz > !
[ 2009.12.20 21:20:19 ] Zastrow > look the game isnt going to change between this meeting and the next
[ 2009.12.20 21:20:28 ] ElvenLord > we can cover few more issues, not all from the spare agenda
[ 2009.12.20 21:20:34 ] Zastrow > everything we want to get on the agenda will get there, people always get real exciting and pack the first meeting
[ 2009.12.20 21:20:37 ] TeaDaze > Adding an extra hour is unfair on those of us who have work to do on minutes etc before bed
[ 2009.12.20 21:21:00 ] Korvin > well, if its critical to  TeaDaze - i vote no
[ 2009.12.20 21:21:05 ] Korvin > let him go
[ 2009.12.20 21:21:10 ] ElvenLord > ok how about 2 more topics
[ 2009.12.20 21:21:12 ] ElvenLord > ?
[ 2009.12.20 21:21:14 ] Sokratesz > i propose we make the killmail fix, mining crystal colour and drop all target locks 'minor issues' that we pass on directly b/c i dont think anyone will disagree, and then we can call it quit (like few extra mins only) [end]
[ 2009.12.20 21:21:24 ] TeaDaze > 4 hours will be taking the piss for what was supposed to be a 2 hour meeting
[ 2009.12.20 21:21:40 ] Song Li > I thought it was a 3 hour meeting
[ 2009.12.20 21:21:43 ] TeaDaze > AOB, pick the next meeting and that will be more like 4.5
[ 2009.12.20 21:21:59 ] TeaDaze > well is it was 3 hours then we've already overrun
[ 2009.12.20 21:22:12 ] Song Li > If TD is going to get the minutes out tonight, then I say we cut it and let him
[ 2009.12.20 21:22:19 ] Sokratesz > yea
[ 2009.12.20 21:22:21 ] Alekseyev Karrde > i dunno what taking the piss means, but i expected to be here all day anyway.  LEt's do ONE extrac issue since we had a vote fro it
[ 2009.12.20 21:22:26 ] Alekseyev Karrde > *for it and then let TD go to bed
[ 2009.12.20 21:22:26 ] Helen Highwater > Let's just discuss the date of next meeting
[ 2009.12.20 21:22:33 ] ElvenLord > OK 2 more topics and we are done
[ 2009.12.20 21:22:37 ] Z0D > agree to continue in next one as zastrow said nothing is going to change in game between those 2 meets
[ 2009.12.20 21:22:38 ] ElvenLord > and next meeting
[ 2009.12.20 21:22:40 ] TeaDaze > The adgenda is set, we covered it
[ 2009.12.20 21:22:51 ] TeaDaze > point of protocol - we discuss aob and end it
[ 2009.12.20 21:23:04 ] ElvenLord > ANYTHING AOB?
[ 2009.12.20 21:23:11 ] Alekseyev Karrde > aob?
[ 2009.12.20 21:23:18 ] Helen Highwater > any other business
[ 2009.12.20 21:23:21 ] Alekseyev Karrde > ah
[ 2009.12.20 21:23:26 ] Song Li > Just the next meeting
[ 2009.12.20 21:23:31 ] Helen Highwater > next meeting time/date
[ 2009.12.20 21:23:36 ] Alekseyev Karrde > c
[ 2009.12.20 21:23:50 ] Sokratesz > i am against 26th thats second christmas day ill be at families devouring copious amounts of dead animals
[ 2009.12.20 21:23:59 ] Z0D > 26th for me as well is not good
[ 2009.12.20 21:24:06 ] Alekseyev Karrde > same
[ 2009.12.20 21:24:08 ] Mrs Trzzbk > shit, I gotta go, as long as it is on the weekend and afternoon EST I can make it pretty much
[ 2009.12.20 21:24:10 ] Song Li > It's boxing day here so not available
[ 2009.12.20 21:24:10 ] Helen Highwater > Would suggest reconvening in the new year
[ 2009.12.20 21:24:22 ] Sokratesz > yeah two weeks on sunday seems best for me
[ 2009.12.20 21:24:24 ] Z0D > agree with Helen
[ 2009.12.20 21:24:33 ] Zastrow > csm3 did a meeting every other week
[ 2009.12.20 21:24:38 ] T'Amber > !
[ 2009.12.20 21:24:38 ] Alekseyev Karrde > whats the date of one week after the 26th
[ 2009.12.20 21:24:39 ] ElvenLord > 2ng january?
[ 2009.12.20 21:24:46 ] ElvenLord > *2nd January?
[ 2009.12.20 21:24:48 ] Sokratesz > c
[ 2009.12.20 21:24:48 ] TeaDaze > 3rd
[ 2009.12.20 21:24:49 ] ElvenLord > or 3rd
[ 2009.12.20 21:24:55 ] Z0D > 3rd
[ 2009.12.20 21:24:55 ] TeaDaze > 2nd people will be hung over still
[ 2009.12.20 21:24:56 ] Alekseyev Karrde > hmmmm hold on
[ 2009.12.20 21:24:56 ] T'Amber > I missed the earlier meeting due to the time change
[ 2009.12.20 21:25:02 ] Korvin > i would be drunk as hell
[ 2009.12.20 21:25:04 ] Sokratesz > if on saturday, make it a little earlier
[ 2009.12.20 21:25:05 ] Alekseyev Karrde > i need to check what time i am flying back
[ 2009.12.20 21:25:10 ] T'Amber > what happned with the Tradable and subscribable ban lists? :)
[ 2009.12.20 21:25:21 ] Helen Highwater > 3rd Jan is two weeks from today
[ 2009.12.20 21:25:24 ] Zastrow > it seemed fine and our iceland summit agenda was hilariously overpacked with so many topics we could really go in depth on anything due to time
[ 2009.12.20 21:25:30 ] Zastrow > couldnt
[ 2009.12.20 21:25:33 ] ElvenLord > that was 1st topic
[ 2009.12.20 21:25:42 ] T'Amber > What was the outcome?
[ 2009.12.20 21:25:52 ] TeaDaze > rejected iirc
[ 2009.12.20 21:25:56 ] Song Li > 3rd Jan I can do, but needs to be earlier then this one.. preferable same time as the first one
[ 2009.12.20 21:25:56 ] Z0D > 2. Tradable Ban Lists (3/6)
[ 2009.12.20 21:26:01 ] Song Li > Or earlier
[ 2009.12.20 21:26:04 ] ElvenLord > OK NEXT MEETING IS JANUARY 3rd 17:00 eve time?
[ 2009.12.20 21:26:10 ] Sokratesz > Y
[ 2009.12.20 21:26:11 ] T'Amber > it failed? :(
[ 2009.12.20 21:26:20 ] Song Li > Can't make that time
[ 2009.12.20 21:26:30 ] Zastrow > owned
[ 2009.12.20 21:26:34 ] Korvin > im not sure i can make it 3rd
[ 2009.12.20 21:26:40 ] Song Li > Can we do 14:00?
[ 2009.12.20 21:26:52 ] ElvenLord > /emote looks at US ppl
[ 2009.12.20 21:26:57 ] Z0D > i can for 14:00 np
[ 2009.12.20 21:27:05 ] Helen Highwater > That's 9am for EST people
[ 2009.12.20 21:27:06 ] Sokratesz > 1400 good to me
[ 2009.12.20 21:27:08 ] Song Li > I'm the most western person
[ 2009.12.20 21:27:12 ] Alekseyev Karrde > I will NEED to peace out by 18:00 on the 3rd
[ 2009.12.20 21:27:23 ] Song Li > Puts it to 07:00
[ 2009.12.20 21:27:27 ] Alekseyev Karrde > got make a plane to come back home
[ 2009.12.20 21:27:28 ] Song Li > 06:00
[ 2009.12.20 21:27:36 ] Alekseyev Karrde > 14:00 is good
[ 2009.12.20 21:27:43 ] ElvenLord > so all ok for 3rd at 14:00 eve time?
[ 2009.12.20 21:27:46 ] ElvenLord > =================================
[ 2009.12.20 21:27:48 ] Sokratesz > Y
[ 2009.12.20 21:27:48 ] Song Li > y
[ 2009.12.20 21:27:49 ] Z0D > y
[ 2009.12.20 21:27:49 ] Alekseyev Karrde > Y
[ 2009.12.20 21:27:52 ] Helen Highwater > Y
[ 2009.12.20 21:27:55 ] TeaDaze > y
[ 2009.12.20 21:28:04 ] Song Li > I can't believe I just ASKED for a meeting at 06:00
[ 2009.12.20 21:28:11 ] ElvenLord > rofl
[ 2009.12.20 21:28:16 ] Sokratesz > lol
[ 2009.12.20 21:28:20 ] Alekseyev Karrde > lol
[ 2009.12.20 21:28:24 ] Alekseyev Karrde > <3 song li
[ 2009.12.20 21:28:29 ] Z0D > make a new thread Elven so we can all post our reserve spots
[ 2009.12.20 21:28:37 ] Z0D > "CSM4 meeting #3, Sunday January 3rd 14:00 eve time"
[ 2009.12.20 21:28:37 ] ElvenLord > NEXT MEETING IS THEN ON 3RD JANUARY 2010 AT 14:00 EVE TIME
[ 2009.12.20 21:28:43 ] Sokratesz > is there a summary somewhere on the vote results for every issue?
[ 2009.12.20 21:28:46 ] ElvenLord > THIS MEETING IS OVER OFFICIALLY