CSM Meeting Minutes 4.003 raw log

From sdeevelopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

All this data is potentially out of date, and should be taken with a truckload of salt

CSM Meeting Minutes 4.003 raw log


[ 2010.01.03 14:22:32 ] TeaDaze > FYI "A meeting is not considered valid unless seven council members�in anycombination of Alternatives and Representatives�are present."
[ 2010.01.03 14:22:44 ] Sokratesz > k go
[ 2010.01.03 14:22:45 ] TeaDaze > From http://www.eveonline.com/download/devblog/CSM.pdf
[ 2010.01.03 14:22:49 ] Song Li > Go then
[ 2010.01.03 14:23:02 ] ElvenLord > OK then lets start
[ 2010.01.03 14:23:05 ] TeaDaze > "Therecommended guideline for meetings is at least once every other week, with aminimum of nine Representatives present."
[ 2010.01.03 14:23:11 ] TeaDaze > ===================================
[ 2010.01.03 14:23:22 ] Z0D > grrr...
[ 2010.01.03 14:23:22 ] Sokratesz > i got home 2 hrs ago, someone had linked me the shc thread and i was like 'Oo'
[ 2010.01.03 14:23:31 ] ElvenLord > This is kinda a shortened meeting with 7 representatievs and 1 alternative present
[ 2010.01.03 14:23:38 ] ElvenLord > proposed agenda is:
[ 2010.01.03 14:23:41 ] Z0D > 2 alts
[ 2010.01.03 14:23:44 ] TeaDaze > 6 +2 actually
[ 2010.01.03 14:23:49 ] Z0D > T'Amber and Helen
[ 2010.01.03 14:23:49 ] ElvenLord > ah 6+2
[ 2010.01.03 14:23:52 ] ElvenLord > 1. Alliance action confirmation windows2. Identify and remove price ceilings3. Mining crystals change color of mining laser beam4. Ingame Events Menu5. Standings list import/export6. Hybrid guns balance7. Forum Censorship
[ 2010.01.03 14:24:03 ] ElvenLord > 8. Boost Warfare Links and Revisit Information Warfare9. Battle Recorder10. Tracking for Fighters lost in combat11. Destroyer Improvements12. Ingame Events Menu13. Lock Characters to Prevent Theft14. Put More Faction Items On Mar...
[ 2010.01.03 14:24:08 ] ElvenLord > 15. Suicide Ganking Discussion
[ 2010.01.03 14:24:47 ] ElvenLord > and there was that nice question by CCP we had to do for homework but since no word from them we will skipp it
[ 2010.01.03 14:25:16 ] Z0D > no reply to any questions i have asked Petur in emails , 1 month ago....
[ 2010.01.03 14:25:16 ] ElvenLord > First on Agenda is Alliance action confirmation windows
[ 2010.01.03 14:25:23 ] TeaDaze > http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Alliance_action_confirmation_windows_%28CSM%29
[ 2010.01.03 14:25:36 ] Sokratesz > helen: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WERqUb0G6vQ
[ 2010.01.03 14:25:54 ] ElvenLord > It is a minor matter, but if anyone want to add anything pls do
[ 2010.01.03 14:26:15 ] TeaDaze > !
[ 2010.01.03 14:26:27 ] ElvenLord > TeaDaze go
[ 2010.01.03 14:26:30 ] TeaDaze > Is the scope for these windows to be on creation only?
[ 2010.01.03 14:26:33 ] TeaDaze > end
[ 2010.01.03 14:26:44 ] Song Li > !
[ 2010.01.03 14:26:46 ] Z0D > !
[ 2010.01.03 14:26:54 ] ElvenLord > Song Li go
[ 2010.01.03 14:27:13 ] Song Li > The scope of this proposal is only for creation. We can add to it if we want [end]
[ 2010.01.03 14:27:23 ] ElvenLord > Z0D go
[ 2010.01.03 14:27:43 ] Z0D > self explanatory for that one, not much discussion on that in my opinion...
[ 2010.01.03 14:27:44 ] Helen Highwater > !
[ 2010.01.03 14:27:51 ] ElvenLord > Helen Highwater go
[ 2010.01.03 14:28:17 ] Helen Highwater > While I don't have an argument against he proposal as such, I again feel that this is something we shoudl be pushing for a redisign of
[ 2010.01.03 14:28:32 ] Helen Highwater > the alliance and corp interface is just horrible on the whole [end]
[ 2010.01.03 14:28:38 ] TeaDaze > !
[ 2010.01.03 14:28:39 ] ElvenLord > !
[ 2010.01.03 14:28:43 ] ElvenLord > TeaDaze go
[ 2010.01.03 14:28:46 ] TeaDaze > Agree with Helen
[ 2010.01.03 14:28:52 ] TeaDaze > However I was just clarifying because I know people have had discussions about onfirmation windows on disband (which won't fix the issue they brought up)
[ 2010.01.03 14:29:02 ] TeaDaze > confirmation* end
[ 2010.01.03 14:29:07 ] ElvenLord > ElvenLord go :P
[ 2010.01.03 14:29:30 ] Alekseyev Karrde > !
[ 2010.01.03 14:29:40 ] ElvenLord > I already raised overhaul of rles and grantable roles as a prequisite for overhaul of management tools in general
[ 2010.01.03 14:29:51 ] ElvenLord > It should be on agenda for next meeting
[ 2010.01.03 14:29:55 ] ElvenLord > [end]
[ 2010.01.03 14:29:58 ] ElvenLord > Alekseyev Karrde go
[ 2010.01.03 14:30:38 ] Alekseyev Karrde > confirm window should have alliance name and ticker in the text box so the confirmation window confirms you're creating the alliance you want to create.  otherwise, kinda pointless [end]
[ 2010.01.03 14:31:11 ] ElvenLord > agreed
[ 2010.01.03 14:31:15 ] Z0D > agreed
[ 2010.01.03 14:31:41 ] ElvenLord > Song could you add that confirmation window should have alliance name and ticker in the confirmation box?
[ 2010.01.03 14:31:54 ] Song Li > I can
[ 2010.01.03 14:31:59 ] ElvenLord > cool
[ 2010.01.03 14:32:06 ] Sokratesz > !
[ 2010.01.03 14:32:14 ] ElvenLord > Sokratesz
[ 2010.01.03 14:32:26 ] Sokratesz > can we make a thread about the overhaul so people can post suggestions for it
[ 2010.01.03 14:32:34 ] ElvenLord > I did
[ 2010.01.03 14:32:41 ] Sokratesz > ah kk [end]
[ 2010.01.03 14:32:50 ] Song Li > !
[ 2010.01.03 14:32:56 ] ElvenLord > Song Li go
[ 2010.01.03 14:33:06 ] Song Li > Call for vote on the modified proposal end
[ 2010.01.03 14:33:12 ] ElvenLord > @ Sok
[ 2010.01.03 14:33:13 ] ElvenLord > http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1243317
[ 2010.01.03 14:33:29 ] ElvenLord > LETS VOTE, #N or #Y for the proposal
[ 2010.01.03 14:33:31 ] ElvenLord > ==========================
[ 2010.01.03 14:33:33 ] ElvenLord > y
[ 2010.01.03 14:33:34 ] TeaDaze > y
[ 2010.01.03 14:33:35 ] Z0D > y
[ 2010.01.03 14:33:50 ] Sokratesz > y
[ 2010.01.03 14:33:57 ] Alekseyev Karrde > y
[ 2010.01.03 14:34:04 ] Helen Highwater > Y
[ 2010.01.03 14:34:13 ] Song Li > y
[ 2010.01.03 14:34:45 ] TeaDaze > Waiting on T'Amber
[ 2010.01.03 14:35:09 ] TeaDaze > but passed anyway 7 for 0 against 1 missing
[ 2010.01.03 14:35:27 ] Sokratesz > he hasnt posted anything yet afaik so he may be afk
[ 2010.01.03 14:35:57 ] TeaDaze > 7 is the minimum so I suggest we continue
[ 2010.01.03 14:36:03 ] Song Li > agreed
[ 2010.01.03 14:36:08 ] Alekseyev Karrde > ja
[ 2010.01.03 14:36:33 ] ElvenLord > this motion is passed then
[ 2010.01.03 14:36:42 ] ElvenLord > next is 2. Identify and remove price ceilings
[ 2010.01.03 14:36:44 ] TeaDaze > http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Identify_and_remove_price_ceilings_%28CSM%29
[ 2010.01.03 14:36:54 ] Helen Highwater > !
[ 2010.01.03 14:37:13 ] ElvenLord > OK helen my brain is not working but you will say what I wanted to say
[ 2010.01.03 14:37:17 ] ElvenLord > :P
[ 2010.01.03 14:37:32 ] TeaDaze > !
[ 2010.01.03 14:37:39 ] Helen Highwater > Still no concrete details or actual research put into this.. I'd like to move that we remove it from the agenda until it meets some kind of minimum standard
[ 2010.01.03 14:37:39 ] ElvenLord > Helen Highwater go
[ 2010.01.03 14:38:00 ] Helen Highwater > at present it has no substance and no details, this is not a useful proposal[end]
[ 2010.01.03 14:38:08 ] ElvenLord > TeaDaze go
[ 2010.01.03 14:38:09 ] TeaDaze > Is there any reason to restrict this to NPC sell orders? NPC buy orders should be looked at as well. end
[ 2010.01.03 14:38:20 ] Alekseyev Karrde > !
[ 2010.01.03 14:38:32 ] ElvenLord > Alekseyev Karrde go
[ 2010.01.03 14:38:55 ] Alekseyev Karrde > POS are the first thing i think of with regards to this.  Player produced pos ftw.  No objections to TD's suggestion [end[
[ 2010.01.03 14:39:12 ] Z0D > !
[ 2010.01.03 14:39:30 ] ElvenLord > Z0D go
[ 2010.01.03 14:39:34 ] Song Li > !
[ 2010.01.03 14:39:49 ] Z0D > this is general, but applies in my opinion to the many NPC non player buildables
[ 2010.01.03 14:39:53 ] Z0D > [end]
[ 2010.01.03 14:40:02 ] ElvenLord > Song Li go
[ 2010.01.03 14:40:09 ] Song Li > This would also slide into T1 loot drops killing the T1 module production viability. [end]
[ 2010.01.03 14:40:19 ] Sokratesz > !
[ 2010.01.03 14:40:23 ] ElvenLord > Sokratesz go
[ 2010.01.03 14:40:39 ] Sokratesz > this ties in to the t1 loot and insurance isk faucet as well so i would like to see that packed together
[ 2010.01.03 14:40:53 ] Sokratesz > this is just fixing minor symptoms not the entire flawed thing
[ 2010.01.03 14:40:54 ] Sokratesz > [end]
[ 2010.01.03 14:41:04 ] Alekseyev Karrde > !
[ 2010.01.03 14:41:15 ] ElvenLord > Alekseyev Karrde go
[ 2010.01.03 14:41:39 ] Alekseyev Karrde > I didnt consider that but i can see how it applies.  Would approve ammending proposal to include loot drops not just market orders [end]
[ 2010.01.03 14:41:53 ] ElvenLord > then we need this proposal reworked, any volountiers to make a new proposal with aleks?
[ 2010.01.03 14:42:08 ] Z0D > i can
[ 2010.01.03 14:42:10 ] Sokratesz > misanth has a nice thread up about the insurance bit
[ 2010.01.03 14:42:14 ] Song Li > I can as well
[ 2010.01.03 14:42:35 ] Alekseyev Karrde > kool
[ 2010.01.03 14:42:41 ] ElvenLord > OK Aleks, ZOD and Song LI will rework this proposal and raise it for the next meeting
[ 2010.01.03 14:42:44 ] ElvenLord > we move on
[ 2010.01.03 14:42:46 ] Helen Highwater > I can help with this as it's something I'm generally interested n
[ 2010.01.03 14:42:55 ] TeaDaze > Sounds good
[ 2010.01.03 14:42:58 ] ElvenLord > cool, Helen join them
[ 2010.01.03 14:43:11 ] ElvenLord > NEXT on agenda: 3. Mining crystals change color of mining laser beam
[ 2010.01.03 14:43:15 ] ElvenLord > again minor thing
[ 2010.01.03 14:43:16 ] TeaDaze > http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Mining_crystals_change_color_of_mining_laser_beam
[ 2010.01.03 14:43:32 ] Alekseyev Karrde > !
[ 2010.01.03 14:43:43 ] ElvenLord > its already in the game with amar lasers so ...
[ 2010.01.03 14:43:46 ] ElvenLord > Alekseyev Karrde go
[ 2010.01.03 14:43:49 ] Helen Highwater > !
[ 2010.01.03 14:44:08 ] Alekseyev Karrde > Mining is boring as fuck, no reason to not do this really.  It's minor, let's vote by acclimation or sometthign [end]
[ 2010.01.03 14:44:19 ] ElvenLord > Helen Highwater go
[ 2010.01.03 14:44:19 ] Z0D > :)
[ 2010.01.03 14:44:23 ] Helen Highwater > Other than looks, what is the actual benefit of this?
[ 2010.01.03 14:44:31 ] Helen Highwater > [end]
[ 2010.01.03 14:44:46 ] ElvenLord > look at cons for the proposal :P
[ 2010.01.03 14:44:54 ] ElvenLord > Makes it easier for gankers to know the value of the ore in the hold
[ 2010.01.03 14:45:04 ] Helen Highwater > !
[ 2010.01.03 14:45:08 ] TeaDaze > !
[ 2010.01.03 14:45:09 ] ElvenLord > Helen Highwater go
[ 2010.01.03 14:45:22 ] Helen Highwater > what kind of ganker sin't going to scan your ship before suiciding on you?[emd]
[ 2010.01.03 14:45:26 ] Helen Highwater > isn't*
[ 2010.01.03 14:45:28 ] Z0D > !
[ 2010.01.03 14:45:39 ] ElvenLord > TeaDaze go
[ 2010.01.03 14:45:56 ] TeaDaze > It is pretty easy to see what roids the lasers are mining - but I don't have any issue with colour changes [end]
[ 2010.01.03 14:46:12 ] ElvenLord > Z0D go
[ 2010.01.03 14:46:30 ] Z0D > as with Amarr lasers, you will know what laser is being shot at you and also agree with Helen, a ganker would scan if its even worth the effort of the gank [end]
[ 2010.01.03 14:46:40 ] Song Li > !
[ 2010.01.03 14:46:44 ] TeaDaze > !
[ 2010.01.03 14:46:44 ] ElvenLord > Song Li go
[ 2010.01.03 14:47:20 ] Song Li > In the end yes this is just a graphics change, but would add some flare for miners. [end]
[ 2010.01.03 14:47:29 ] ElvenLord > TeaDaze go
[ 2010.01.03 14:47:30 ] TeaDaze > Some people don't care what the miner is mining, just wanting to gank the ship they are in - http://hulkageddon.wordpress.com/ ;) [end]
[ 2010.01.03 14:48:15 ] ElvenLord > OK lets vote on cosmetic change for mining lasers, #y or #n
[ 2010.01.03 14:48:17 ] ElvenLord > ===============================
[ 2010.01.03 14:48:19 ] Z0D > y
[ 2010.01.03 14:48:29 ] Alekseyev Karrde > y
[ 2010.01.03 14:48:29 ] ElvenLord > y
[ 2010.01.03 14:48:32 ] Song Li > y
[ 2010.01.03 14:48:32 ] TeaDaze > y
[ 2010.01.03 14:48:35 ] Helen Highwater > N
[ 2010.01.03 14:48:36 ] Sokratesz > y
[ 2010.01.03 14:48:56 ] TeaDaze > passes 6 for 1 against
[ 2010.01.03 14:49:15 ] ElvenLord > NEXT on agenda is: 4. Ingame Events Menu
[ 2010.01.03 14:49:30 ] TeaDaze > http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Ingame_Events_Menu_%28CSM%29
[ 2010.01.03 14:49:52 ] Z0D > !
[ 2010.01.03 14:49:55 ] ElvenLord > ZOD go
[ 2010.01.03 14:50:29 ] TeaDaze > !
[ 2010.01.03 14:50:35 ] Z0D > this is a suggestion made by T'Amber, would be interesting for corp / allied members to be able to create own events for game
[ 2010.01.03 14:50:38 ] Z0D > [end]
[ 2010.01.03 14:50:46 ] ElvenLord > TeaDaze go
[ 2010.01.03 14:50:54 ] TeaDaze > I'm not sure if this needs to be in game as such or if it is better suited to spacebook [end]
[ 2010.01.03 14:50:58 ] Alekseyev Karrde > !
[ 2010.01.03 14:51:13 ] ElvenLord > Alekseyev Karrde go
[ 2010.01.03 14:51:33 ] Alekseyev Karrde > Events area of forums is terribly cluttered, i'd love for something like this to be in game accessable and sortable by things like day or jumps [end[
[ 2010.01.03 14:51:44 ] ElvenLord > !
[ 2010.01.03 14:51:48 ] ElvenLord > ElvenLord go :P
[ 2010.01.03 14:51:51 ] Helen Highwater > !
[ 2010.01.03 14:52:21 ] ElvenLord > I agree with TD that this is more suited for COSMOS or NEW Eden or what ever it is called then ingame
[ 2010.01.03 14:52:24 ] ElvenLord > [end]
[ 2010.01.03 14:52:28 ] ElvenLord > Helen Highwater go
[ 2010.01.03 14:52:49 ] Helen Highwater > It strikes me that this is something that would be better off in the spacebook thing than ingame. Also with the new browser, checking the forums and links ingame is no longer as horrible as it used to be. I like the idea but I'm not 100% convinced
[ 2010.01.03 14:52:56 ] Helen Highwater > it's the right solution[end]
[ 2010.01.03 14:53:16 ] TeaDaze > !
[ 2010.01.03 14:53:24 ] ElvenLord > TeaDaze go
[ 2010.01.03 14:54:17 ] TeaDaze > With the new browser it can have the level of integration needed to sort by jump etc and I suspect would be far quicker to implement than an in game window will all the limitations of the current UI [end]
[ 2010.01.03 14:54:30 ] TeaDaze > with all the limitations even
[ 2010.01.03 14:54:43 ] Z0D > !
[ 2010.01.03 14:54:47 ] ElvenLord > Z0D go
[ 2010.01.03 14:55:29 ] Z0D > agree with Teadaze there, through COSMOS web integration might be easier and more flexible to design than to try to integrate it in the current UI... [end]
[ 2010.01.03 14:56:16 ] ElvenLord > hmm, this is tough
[ 2010.01.03 14:56:20 ] TeaDaze > ! (Also it would be nice to have the option to view / maintain this stuff from out of game which you would get once logged into spacebook) [end]
[ 2010.01.03 14:56:33 ] ElvenLord > COSMOS is not out and we dont know much about it
[ 2010.01.03 14:56:53 ] TeaDaze > We know there will be a calandar and this would be ideal to hook into that
[ 2010.01.03 14:56:53 ] ElvenLord > but we can change the sugestion to add this to it
[ 2010.01.03 14:57:06 ] Helen Highwater > !
[ 2010.01.03 14:57:15 ] ElvenLord > Helen Highwater go
[ 2010.01.03 14:57:41 ] Helen Highwater > Or just put in a web interface on the Eve-o site that can later be hooked into COSMOS, no need to make it more complex than it needs to be[end]
[ 2010.01.03 14:58:07 ] Alekseyev Karrde > !
[ 2010.01.03 14:58:12 ] ElvenLord > Alekseyev Karrde go
[ 2010.01.03 14:58:52 ] Alekseyev Karrde > COSMOS isnt out, let's not make design assumptions about it.  Pass this, so ccp knows we want it.  If they think it's better implimented in the web app then they can impliment it that way.  As long as we get it ;p [end]
[ 2010.01.03 14:59:20 ] Z0D > agreed
[ 2010.01.03 14:59:43 ] ElvenLord > then lets vote on it with addition of browser option and recomendation for browser version
[ 2010.01.03 14:59:50 ] ElvenLord > #Y and #N
[ 2010.01.03 14:59:55 ] TeaDaze > Hang on
[ 2010.01.03 15:00:05 ] ElvenLord > say
[ 2010.01.03 15:00:33 ] TeaDaze > We need to vote on an amended proposal to provide a web based events menu to use via the IGB
[ 2010.01.03 15:00:44 ] TeaDaze > I'm not supporting an in game window version
[ 2010.01.03 15:01:21 ] ElvenLord > ok, lets vote on amended version of proposal to provide events menu in web version
[ 2010.01.03 15:01:24 ] TeaDaze > Addition of a browser option means supporting the original in game version too... [end]
[ 2010.01.03 15:01:35 ] ElvenLord > #y and #n
[ 2010.01.03 15:01:37 ] ElvenLord > =======================================
[ 2010.01.03 15:01:38 ] Z0D > y (web based integration)
[ 2010.01.03 15:01:40 ] TeaDaze > y
[ 2010.01.03 15:01:41 ] Sokratesz > y
[ 2010.01.03 15:01:45 ] ElvenLord > y
[ 2010.01.03 15:02:05 ] Song Li > y
[ 2010.01.03 15:02:24 ] Helen Highwater > wait, what are we actually voting on here?
[ 2010.01.03 15:02:31 ] ElvenLord > @this is now web based integration trough cosmos or eve-o
[ 2010.01.03 15:02:32 ] Helen Highwater > The vote is too unspecific
[ 2010.01.03 15:02:36 ] Helen Highwater > ok
[ 2010.01.03 15:02:37 ] Helen Highwater > y
[ 2010.01.03 15:02:42 ] TeaDaze > Amended proposal for web based events menu
[ 2010.01.03 15:02:45 ] ElvenLord > y
[ 2010.01.03 15:02:56 ] T'Amber > ! yes please
[ 2010.01.03 15:03:14 ] ElvenLord > and T is awake
[ 2010.01.03 15:03:16 ] Z0D > /emote passes a coffee to T'Amber
[ 2010.01.03 15:03:19 ] T'Amber > I just woke up
[ 2010.01.03 15:03:23 ] T'Amber > good timing!
[ 2010.01.03 15:03:24 ] ElvenLord > that 8 yes
[ 2010.01.03 15:03:27 ] ElvenLord > welcome
[ 2010.01.03 15:03:38 ] Alekseyev Karrde > Y
[ 2010.01.03 15:03:44 ] T'Amber > what are we voting on?
[ 2010.01.03 15:03:44 ] TeaDaze > passes 8 for 0 against
[ 2010.01.03 15:03:46 ] T'Amber > :)
[ 2010.01.03 15:03:51 ] ElvenLord > this proposal is passed amended as an web based aplication
[ 2010.01.03 15:03:53 ] TeaDaze > it was 7 till Alexs :P
[ 2010.01.03 15:04:01 ] ElvenLord > :P
[ 2010.01.03 15:04:03 ] TeaDaze > I was waiting on him
[ 2010.01.03 15:04:15 ] ElvenLord > NEXT is: 5. Standings list import/export
[ 2010.01.03 15:04:20 ] TeaDaze > Making a not that T'Amber has joined us
[ 2010.01.03 15:04:23 ] TeaDaze > note*
[ 2010.01.03 15:04:32 ] TeaDaze > http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Standings_list_import/export_%28CSM%29
[ 2010.01.03 15:04:52 ] ElvenLord > I have to say something here
[ 2010.01.03 15:05:20 ] ElvenLord > we are all wayting for treaties and aditional option for standings etc
[ 2010.01.03 15:05:34 ] TeaDaze > !
[ 2010.01.03 15:06:04 ] ElvenLord > so this might be a temporary solution for standings mirroring till then or untill we find out whats going on with this overhaul of standings management
[ 2010.01.03 15:06:08 ] ElvenLord > [end]
[ 2010.01.03 15:06:11 ] ElvenLord > TeaDaze go
[ 2010.01.03 15:06:24 ] Helen Highwater > !
[ 2010.01.03 15:06:29 ] Z0D > !
[ 2010.01.03 15:06:30 ] TeaDaze > This proposal is very light on any details - such as how to handle issues arising from importing a new standings list over existing etc [end]
[ 2010.01.03 15:06:52 ] ElvenLord > Helen Highwater go
[ 2010.01.03 15:06:59 ] Helen Highwater > Wouldn't an easier (better) solutin be to allow standings to an entire alliance rather than just corps?[end]
[ 2010.01.03 15:07:20 ] ElvenLord > Z0D go
[ 2010.01.03 15:07:52 ] Z0D > even so Elven, its something that would be usefull when passing standings and blue / reds to friendly corp / alliances living in a common area of work, it reinforces something we want in the future as what ccp has planned already [end]
[ 2010.01.03 15:08:28 ] ElvenLord > !
[ 2010.01.03 15:08:32 ] ElvenLord > ElvenLord go :P
[ 2010.01.03 15:08:37 ] T'Amber > lawls
[ 2010.01.03 15:08:56 ] ElvenLord > As I understand this suggestion its adding export and import buttons on standings tab
[ 2010.01.03 15:08:56 ] Z0D > /emote passes a cofee to Korvin
[ 2010.01.03 15:09:10 ] Korvin > .
[ 2010.01.03 15:09:20 ] Korvin > txs sorry im late
[ 2010.01.03 15:09:22 ] ElvenLord > as such it is a minor thing and I have nothing against it
[ 2010.01.03 15:09:51 ] ElvenLord > but its still a temporary solution. I still feel that entire standings management needs and overhaul
[ 2010.01.03 15:10:06 ] ElvenLord > along with rest of management tools
[ 2010.01.03 15:10:09 ] ElvenLord > [end]
[ 2010.01.03 15:10:12 ] TeaDaze > !
[ 2010.01.03 15:10:16 ] Korvin > !
[ 2010.01.03 15:10:21 ] ElvenLord > @Korvin welcome
[ 2010.01.03 15:10:30 ] ElvenLord > note: Korvin has joined the meeting
[ 2010.01.03 15:10:34 ] T'Amber > !
[ 2010.01.03 15:10:36 ] ElvenLord > and  TeaDaze go
[ 2010.01.03 15:11:07 ] TeaDaze > Export is likely easy to implement. Import is probably a non trivial amount of work and thus I'd prefer to see this rolled into a proper overhaul of the standings system with some proper detail [end]
[ 2010.01.03 15:11:34 ] Alekseyev Karrde > !
[ 2010.01.03 15:11:55 ] ElvenLord > Korvin go
[ 2010.01.03 15:12:50 ] Korvin > tbh its a minor change, we discussed this lately, and i left this only to raise a discussion on corp management
[ 2010.01.03 15:13:05 ] Z0D > !
[ 2010.01.03 15:13:17 ] Korvin > the main idea was to separate alliance management from corp management
[ 2010.01.03 15:13:35 ] Korvin > and make it more flexible
[ 2010.01.03 15:13:45 ] Korvin > as i said in last meeting
[ 2010.01.03 15:14:11 ] Korvin > and more export features
[ 2010.01.03 15:14:49 ] Korvin > so it was changed to tbd
[ 2010.01.03 15:15:04 ] Korvin > its a minor shange indeed [end]
[ 2010.01.03 15:15:09 ] ElvenLord > T'Amber go
[ 2010.01.03 15:15:11 ] T'Amber > I agree with Elvenlord, and this is something that could be fixed as part of a corporation management overhaul.
[ 2010.01.03 15:15:15 ] Korvin > (and its in api allready)
[ 2010.01.03 15:15:16 ] T'Amber > [/end]
[ 2010.01.03 15:15:29 ] T'Amber > er. one more thing
[ 2010.01.03 15:15:59 ] T'Amber > A quick solution would be a box like in the mail menu where you can drop multiple names, with the api exporting already available this would be an easy fix
[ 2010.01.03 15:16:10 ] T'Amber > [end]
[ 2010.01.03 15:16:29 ] TeaDaze > !
[ 2010.01.03 15:16:30 ] T'Amber > (sleepy)
[ 2010.01.03 15:16:31 ] ElvenLord > Alekseyev Karrde go
[ 2010.01.03 15:16:36 ] Z0D > !
[ 2010.01.03 15:16:54 ] ElvenLord > /emote slaps ZOD, aleks was first then you
[ 2010.01.03 15:17:24 ] Z0D > :)
[ 2010.01.03 15:18:04 ] Alekseyev Karrde > From reading the proposal itself, it seems more targeted to coalitions.  Hiding blues would be that much harder for surprise drops against blobs, and blob building that much easier.  This could have some unintended consequences [end]
[ 2010.01.03 15:18:38 ] ElvenLord > Z0D go
[ 2010.01.03 15:18:48 ] Z0D > i could also see this added via future standing overhaul as a list you can subscribe to as well as permissions, operators, so a few persons responsible for it could manage it, of who can subscribe to it etc [end]
[ 2010.01.03 15:19:07 ] Song Li > !
[ 2010.01.03 15:19:07 ] Z0D > let me log and brb quick gonna send logs to Korvin and brb
[ 2010.01.03 15:19:25 ] ElvenLord > TeaDaze go
[ 2010.01.03 15:19:27 ] TeaDaze > There is no detail in the proposal on how it will work. Imagine the situation where you have 10 reds and 5 blues. You export that list of 15 and import it to another alliance. Does it merge or does it do a full standings reset and replace?
[ 2010.01.03 15:20:05 ] Z0D > back
[ 2010.01.03 15:20:15 ] TeaDaze > If it doesn't do a full reset you end up with issues when you reset somebody to neutral because it won't export them in the new list so they remain whatever they were atbefore
[ 2010.01.03 15:20:20 ] T'Amber > !
[ 2010.01.03 15:20:43 ] TeaDaze > The proposal needs to be either rewritten with more detail or rolled into something else
[ 2010.01.03 15:20:56 ] TeaDaze > just putting "Make X have import/export" is fail
[ 2010.01.03 15:21:01 ] TeaDaze > [end]
[ 2010.01.03 15:21:04 ] ElvenLord > Song Li go
[ 2010.01.03 15:21:05 ] Korvin > ! this can work as the fitting export works, when you mark the fits needed in import for ex
[ 2010.01.03 15:21:11 ] Song Li > I think this is parallel with the exporta/import ban lists. I think it has the same concequences. [end]
[ 2010.01.03 15:21:23 ] ElvenLord > T'Amber go
[ 2010.01.03 15:21:47 ] Z0D > (KOrvin sent logs)
[ 2010.01.03 15:21:50 ] T'Amber > I can make an image using the ui gfx that would explain this idea better to go with the post so it can be brought back at a later time. I have something on this already half done [end]
[ 2010.01.03 15:22:03 ] T'Amber > (The original post)
[ 2010.01.03 15:22:20 ] T'Amber > In much greater detail
[ 2010.01.03 15:22:47 ] ElvenLord > Korvin and T'Amber, can you two guys rework the suggestion a bit and raise it for next meeting?
[ 2010.01.03 15:23:09 ] ElvenLord > as it stands now its missing a lot
[ 2010.01.03 15:23:36 ] T'Amber > np. Will take an hour or so
[ 2010.01.03 15:23:47 ] ElvenLord > Korvin?
[ 2010.01.03 15:24:01 ] Korvin > np
[ 2010.01.03 15:24:30 ] ElvenLord > OK, team to rework this suggestion has been created, issue will be brought back to CSM on the next meeting
[ 2010.01.03 15:24:33 ] ElvenLord > we move next
[ 2010.01.03 15:24:42 ] ElvenLord > 6. Hybrid guns balance
[ 2010.01.03 15:24:45 ] TeaDaze > http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Hybrid_guns_balance_%28CSM%29
[ 2010.01.03 15:24:46 ] TeaDaze > !
[ 2010.01.03 15:24:58 ] ElvenLord > go TD
[ 2010.01.03 15:25:45 ] TeaDaze > Whilst I agree with the idea of looking at hybrids I cannot let this proposal through because it contains no details and instead points to an external website
[ 2010.01.03 15:26:00 ] TeaDaze > The detail needs to be on the wiki, it isn;t hard to cut and paste
[ 2010.01.03 15:26:20 ] TeaDaze > pointing to an external website means changes can be made outside of CSM [end]
[ 2010.01.03 15:26:31 ] Korvin > there is a lot of tables, couldnt make it on wiki
[ 2010.01.03 15:26:34 ] Sokratesz > !
[ 2010.01.03 15:26:44 ] Helen Highwater > you can do tables on a wiki
[ 2010.01.03 15:26:48 ] ElvenLord > I have no problem with external sites as referal
[ 2010.01.03 15:26:57 ] Alekseyev Karrde > neither do it
[ 2010.01.03 15:26:59 ] Alekseyev Karrde > *i
[ 2010.01.03 15:27:00 ] ElvenLord > but not entire content of the proposal
[ 2010.01.03 15:27:07 ] ElvenLord > Sokratesz go
[ 2010.01.03 15:27:17 ] Sokratesz > i also feel that its too easy to say that they are 'not powerful enough' there are many things to consider and for example their superior range isn't always taken into account. Impossible to vote on based just off of this small proposal [end]
[ 2010.01.03 15:27:57 ] Alekseyev Karrde > !
[ 2010.01.03 15:28:04 ] ElvenLord > Alekseyev Karrde go
[ 2010.01.03 15:28:06 ] ElvenLord > !
[ 2010.01.03 15:28:19 ] Helen Highwater > !
[ 2010.01.03 15:28:42 ] Alekseyev Karrde > that superior range is only due to the bonuses on sniper specific caldari ships, not relating to the weapons themselves.  That said, i think blasters are fairly well used.  Rails need the most attention [end]
[ 2010.01.03 15:29:02 ] ElvenLord > ElvenLord go :P
[ 2010.01.03 15:29:47 ] ElvenLord > well I find blaster still have a bit of a problem atm, espetially on Gallente ships since they usually miss the range bonus
[ 2010.01.03 15:30:13 ] ElvenLord > hybrids do need a bit of a work on them, and this proposal needs a solution [end]
[ 2010.01.03 15:30:17 ] ElvenLord > Helen Highwater go
[ 2010.01.03 15:30:19 ] Helen Highwater > I can't support this either. When you start by saying 'let's assume the ranges and DPS are the same' it kind of weakens the point when you choose biased datapoints for comparison. Because ranges, alphas and DPS most certainly aren't the same.
[ 2010.01.03 15:30:32 ] TeaDaze > !
[ 2010.01.03 15:30:47 ] Helen Highwater > Blasters need help but you can't apply the same fix to rails and to blasters as if they are the same weapon[end]
[ 2010.01.03 15:31:11 ] ElvenLord > TeaDaze go
[ 2010.01.03 15:31:24 ] TeaDaze > Agree with Helen and also want to point out that ranges, alpha and DPS should vary otherwise we might as well just throw away 3 races and all have the same ships and guns :P [end]
[ 2010.01.03 15:31:36 ] Korvin > !
[ 2010.01.03 15:31:42 ] ElvenLord > Korvin go
[ 2010.01.03 15:32:08 ] Korvin > the problem not only in range and dps, as it said in external link
[ 2010.01.03 15:32:19 ] Helen Highwater > !
[ 2010.01.03 15:32:26 ] Korvin > for example, we have double tracking for lasers
[ 2010.01.03 15:32:36 ] Korvin > with the same dps as rails does
[ 2010.01.03 15:33:07 ] Korvin > and the dps for the snipe ammo of artilllery is higher than hybrids
[ 2010.01.03 15:33:26 ] Korvin > the balance is a whole advanteges list
[ 2010.01.03 15:33:41 ] TeaDaze > !
[ 2010.01.03 15:33:49 ] Korvin > including reload, capacitor use ets
[ 2010.01.03 15:33:56 ] Korvin > [end]
[ 2010.01.03 15:34:00 ] ElvenLord > Helen Highwater go
[ 2010.01.03 15:34:02 ] Helen Highwater > You're also assuming binary conditions for the advantages and disadvantages. For example no cap use is an advantage for missiles and projectiles but you make no reference to the huge difference in cap use between hybrids and lasers[end]
[ 2010.01.03 15:34:23 ] ElvenLord > TeaDaze go
[ 2010.01.03 15:34:24 ] TeaDaze > Gah, Agree with Helen again - this is becoming a habit :P [end]
[ 2010.01.03 15:34:31 ] Korvin > !
[ 2010.01.03 15:34:35 ] ElvenLord > Korvin go
[ 2010.01.03 15:35:07 ] Korvin > this doesnt matter when you dried by neuts, and cant shoot at close range
[ 2010.01.03 15:35:07 ] Alekseyev Karrde > !
[ 2010.01.03 15:35:30 ] Korvin > so it depends of type of weapon
[ 2010.01.03 15:35:55 ] Korvin > you cant look at small guns the same way, you look at big
[ 2010.01.03 15:36:18 ] Korvin > different class have different problems [end]
[ 2010.01.03 15:36:23 ] ElvenLord > Alekseyev Karrde go
[ 2010.01.03 15:36:28 ] Alekseyev Karrde > Curious as to what the detractors from this proposal see as the role or advantge of hybrids and their evaluation of how well they do at it now? Agree with notion that rails and blasters need to be tweaked in different ways probably [end]
[ 2010.01.03 15:36:53 ] TeaDaze > !
[ 2010.01.03 15:36:59 ] ElvenLord > TeaDaze go
[ 2010.01.03 15:37:19 ] Sokratesz > !
[ 2010.01.03 15:37:38 ] TeaDaze > I don't support this proposal due to the way it has been presented (in that the actual proposal contains no detail and relies on an external footnote)
[ 2010.01.03 15:38:21 ] TeaDaze > As far as roles, that is for the proposal to suggest (as in why the current system isn't right)
[ 2010.01.03 15:38:37 ] T'Amber > !
[ 2010.01.03 15:38:57 ] TeaDaze > I use blaster boats for close range dps and they work very nicely. I don't use rails
[ 2010.01.03 15:39:04 ] TeaDaze > [end]
[ 2010.01.03 15:39:09 ] ElvenLord > Sokratesz go
[ 2010.01.03 15:39:12 ] Sokratesz > well aleks, i agree that it needs looking at but there is no easy solution that we can vote on now [end]
[ 2010.01.03 15:39:12 ] Helen Highwater > !
[ 2010.01.03 15:39:23 ] ElvenLord > T'Amber go
[ 2010.01.03 15:39:24 ] Korvin > !
[ 2010.01.03 15:39:35 ] Alekseyev Karrde > !
[ 2010.01.03 15:39:49 ] T'Amber > I agree with TeaDaze and suggest a vote to reintroduce this topic once the suggestion/ post is more complete
[ 2010.01.03 15:39:52 ] T'Amber > [end]
[ 2010.01.03 15:40:02 ] ElvenLord > Helen Highwater go
[ 2010.01.03 15:40:03 ] Helen Highwater > I use rails a lot as a Gallente fleet sniper. No real complaints with the way they work for that role.
[ 2010.01.03 15:41:11 ] ElvenLord > Helen, you done?
[ 2010.01.03 15:41:18 ] Helen Highwater > sorry yes
[ 2010.01.03 15:41:20 ] Helen Highwater > [end]
[ 2010.01.03 15:41:22 ] ElvenLord > Korvin go
[ 2010.01.03 15:41:48 ] Korvin > TeaDaze you use blasterboats for the dps bonuses they have, not for tha blaster advantage
[ 2010.01.03 15:41:58 ] TeaDaze > !
[ 2010.01.03 15:42:04 ] Korvin > did you ever used blasetrs on non dps bonus ship
[ 2010.01.03 15:42:10 ] Korvin > and as for rails
[ 2010.01.03 15:42:18 ] Korvin > and range fights
[ 2010.01.03 15:42:41 ] Korvin > you use eagle only when you cant use zealot and munin i guess
[ 2010.01.03 15:42:59 ] Korvin > i can use iteron for shooting
[ 2010.01.03 15:43:18 ] Korvin > but that doesnt make them in line with other boats
[ 2010.01.03 15:43:23 ] Korvin > [end]
[ 2010.01.03 15:43:28 ] ElvenLord > Alekseyev Karrde go
[ 2010.01.03 15:44:40 ] Alekseyev Karrde > So let;s ammend the prop saying hybrids are a bit on the weak side with an ill-defined role, and let CCP poke around with the numbers since we dont have access to a Q+A dept.
[ 2010.01.03 15:44:51 ] Helen Highwater > !
[ 2010.01.03 15:45:30 ] Alekseyev Karrde > Korvin makes good points on the ship/gun thing.  Rails on caldari ships have no bite but lots of range and the opposite is true on the gallente.  neither ship is as good for fleet fighting as the other races, by a wide margin
[ 2010.01.03 15:45:32 ] Alekseyev Karrde > end
[ 2010.01.03 15:45:36 ] ElvenLord > TeaDaze go
[ 2010.01.03 15:45:38 ] TeaDaze > I don't use blasters on ships not bonused for them, but then why should I? And if I do what right do I have to complain that they don't work as well? How can you balance hybrids if you want to ignore the ship bonuses?
[ 2010.01.03 15:46:22 ] TeaDaze > If I use projectiles on an unbonused ship I don't complain that they do terrible DPS - I've put them on because I have spare highslots (myrm for example)
[ 2010.01.03 15:47:11 ] Korvin > !
[ 2010.01.03 15:47:32 ] TeaDaze > I suggest the proposal is rejected until it is reformatted into "Buff hybrids on unbonused ships" and then I can vote against it properly :P
[ 2010.01.03 15:47:34 ] TeaDaze > [end]
[ 2010.01.03 15:47:39 ] ElvenLord > Helen Highwater go
[ 2010.01.03 15:47:40 ] Helen Highwater > Alekseyev's point that we don't have a QA dept is a weak argument. We are capable of crunching numbers and running tests ourselves. Passing it over to CCP like that without actual data is laziness and undermines our mission.[end]
[ 2010.01.03 15:48:11 ] ElvenLord > Korvin go
[ 2010.01.03 15:48:58 ] Korvin > TeaDaze every ship have limeted bonuses they can have
[ 2010.01.03 15:49:25 ] Korvin > so blaster boats cant have 6 bonuses, while laser have 3 for ex
[ 2010.01.03 15:49:53 ] Korvin > and you should look at the balance of guns with no bonuses for the start
[ 2010.01.03 15:50:08 ] Korvin > since yes, every ship have some bonuses
[ 2010.01.03 15:50:35 ] Korvin > but every other race can have the ship with the same bonuses for their racial guns
[ 2010.01.03 15:50:59 ] TeaDaze > !
[ 2010.01.03 15:51:20 ] Korvin > why beam lasers have more dps and tracking than hybrids?
[ 2010.01.03 15:51:59 ] T'Amber > Hmm. Drones bay size balances their dps on some ships
[ 2010.01.03 15:52:09 ] Korvin > why large blasters have 20km range, when projectiles have 50?
[ 2010.01.03 15:52:27 ] Sokratesz > and you can't put a dps figure on utility slots either
[ 2010.01.03 15:52:46 ] Korvin > once again - thats ships
[ 2010.01.03 15:52:53 ] Korvin > not the gun balance
[ 2010.01.03 15:53:05 ] Sokratesz > you cant balance guns without looking at the ships they wll go onto
[ 2010.01.03 15:53:27 ] ElvenLord > OK, time to end this discussion as it is
[ 2010.01.03 15:53:28 ] Sokratesz > you cant make it so that when you add up all the stats, every different gun type magically gets to the same number
[ 2010.01.03 15:53:33 ] ElvenLord > we are not going anywhere
[ 2010.01.03 15:53:49 ] Helen Highwater > let's vote
[ 2010.01.03 15:53:56 ] ElvenLord > We will vote on the proposal as it is
[ 2010.01.03 15:54:04 ] ElvenLord > #Y and #N
[ 2010.01.03 15:54:07 ] ElvenLord > ======================================
[ 2010.01.03 15:54:09 ] Alekseyev Karrde > Y
[ 2010.01.03 15:54:10 ] Helen Highwater > N
[ 2010.01.03 15:54:10 ] Korvin > #Y
[ 2010.01.03 15:54:12 ] T'Amber > #N
[ 2010.01.03 15:54:12 ] Sokratesz > n
[ 2010.01.03 15:54:14 ] TeaDaze > n - proposal contains no details and doesn't even specifiy the problem being raised
[ 2010.01.03 15:54:14 ] ElvenLord > n
[ 2010.01.03 15:54:19 ] Song Li > n
[ 2010.01.03 15:54:22 ] Z0D > n
[ 2010.01.03 15:54:34 ] TeaDaze > failed 7 against, 2 for
[ 2010.01.03 15:55:39 ] Korvin > ouch, now i have to rise every blasterboat problem instead (
[ 2010.01.03 15:55:43 ] ElvenLord > proposal as it is is not passed. I recomend looking into this again, consult with other delegates and players trough AH thread and raise it again when its more specific
[ 2010.01.03 15:55:56 ] ElvenLord > you can raise it as blasters in general
[ 2010.01.03 15:56:03 ] ElvenLord > but with specific solution pls
[ 2010.01.03 15:56:12 ] Z0D > same here with more details
[ 2010.01.03 15:56:14 ] TeaDaze > You can raise a topic about all blasterboats
[ 2010.01.03 15:56:29 ] ElvenLord > NEXT: 7. Forum Censorship
[ 2010.01.03 15:56:34 ] TeaDaze > http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Forum_Censorship_%28CSM%29
[ 2010.01.03 15:56:42 ] TeaDaze > !
[ 2010.01.03 15:56:50 ] ElvenLord > go TD
[ 2010.01.03 15:57:11 ] TeaDaze > I wish to draw a distinction between claimed censorship based purely on post count differences between the eve-online forum and eve search cache
[ 2010.01.03 15:57:19 ] Alekseyev Karrde > !
[ 2010.01.03 15:57:29 ] TeaDaze > Caused in many cases by people not adhearing to the forum rules
[ 2010.01.03 15:57:47 ] Song Li > !
[ 2010.01.03 15:57:52 ] TeaDaze > which doesn't count as censorship vs actual censorship (if any, still waiting on any proof) [end]
[ 2010.01.03 15:58:00 ] ElvenLord > Alekseyev Karrde go
[ 2010.01.03 15:58:16 ] Alekseyev Karrde > I based my judgement on the number of people who posted their post got snipped and then posted reasonable content according to them for a second time.  Post count numbers would seem to lend credibility to their claims.  While this wasnt all of the cut
[ 2010.01.03 15:58:36 ] Alekseyev Karrde > posts it was more than a few, and really shouldnt be any. [end]
[ 2010.01.03 15:58:49 ] ElvenLord > Song Li go
[ 2010.01.03 15:59:01 ] Sokratesz > !
[ 2010.01.03 15:59:22 ] Song Li > While I agree on the shortened post timer the proposal is light on how to improve the "censorship" issue and make the moderation more transparant
[ 2010.01.03 15:59:43 ] Alekseyev Karrde > !
[ 2010.01.03 15:59:50 ] Song Li > CCP has the right to remove material they feel is inapropriate to the forums.
[ 2010.01.03 16:00:00 ] T'Amber > !
[ 2010.01.03 16:00:00 ] Song Li > [end]
[ 2010.01.03 16:00:07 ] TeaDaze > !
[ 2010.01.03 16:00:08 ] ElvenLord > Sokratesz go
[ 2010.01.03 16:00:39 ] Sokratesz > applebabe was on a rampage last month, deleting post content everywhere, deleting posts and shushing people..mostly in threads related to motherships. now its their own forum and ccp can pretty much do whatever they like but i cant shake the feeling
[ 2010.01.03 16:00:40 ] Sokratesz > that they are using their powers to silence undesired opinions and make issues 'go away' [end]
[ 2010.01.03 16:01:09 ] ElvenLord > Alekseyev Karrde go
[ 2010.01.03 16:01:11 ] Alekseyev Karrde > One thing i'd like to do is have a frank and serious discussion with ccp in iceland about how the forums are modded. (re song li).  For instance, i had an announcement banner mod cut to a link because "images not allowed".  Consistency is important here
[ 2010.01.03 16:01:31 ] Song Li > !
[ 2010.01.03 16:01:54 ] Alekseyev Karrde > i get its their forum but it's OUR community and the forums are a big part of that.  We need to have a collaborative effort to work out what is and isnt ok moderation on them.  I think we can do that in iceland very productivly [end]
[ 2010.01.03 16:01:58 ] ElvenLord > Song Li go
[ 2010.01.03 16:02:24 ] Song Li > I agree with Alek. We should discuss the forum moderation with CCP. There should be a more clear procedure and expectation listed for how the forums are moderated
[ 2010.01.03 16:02:30 ] Song Li > [end]
[ 2010.01.03 16:02:36 ] ElvenLord > TeaDaze go
[ 2010.01.03 16:02:38 ] TeaDaze > I would support removed posts being shortened to "Removed for spamming" or "removed due to content violation" as opposed to just being deleted. This might help the playerbase trust the moderation. The 5 min timer is annoying as hell too :P
[ 2010.01.03 16:02:52 ] Z0D > agreed
[ 2010.01.03 16:02:57 ] Song Li > agreed
[ 2010.01.03 16:02:57 ] Helen Highwater > !
[ 2010.01.03 16:03:01 ] TeaDaze > Also support for talking to the forum mod team about this in iceland [end]
[ 2010.01.03 16:03:06 ] ElvenLord > Helen Highwater go
[ 2010.01.03 16:03:21 ] T'Amber > !?
[ 2010.01.03 16:03:26 ] Helen Highwater > Also the 5 minute timer is on everything including edits[end]
[ 2010.01.03 16:03:27 ] ElvenLord > oh sorry
[ 2010.01.03 16:03:33 ] ElvenLord > T'Amber go
[ 2010.01.03 16:03:40 ] T'Amber > >>> Song Li > CCP has the right to remove material they feel is inapropriate to the forums. <<<Get a better idea when you are in Iceland. However a specific reason for each edit would be good, and a slight change to the l...
[ 2010.01.03 16:03:40 ] Sokratesz > !
[ 2010.01.03 16:03:57 ] ElvenLord > Sokratesz go
[ 2010.01.03 16:04:08 ] Song Li > abmer isn't done yet
[ 2010.01.03 16:04:08 ] Sokratesz > i dont think ccp takes the timer too seriously, it can be circumvented by logging out and back in and they've done nothing about that
[ 2010.01.03 16:04:11 ] Sokratesz > [end]
[ 2010.01.03 16:04:32 ] T'Amber > length of the timer would be good. Consistancy is also an issue - i can post images in threads and yet get edits in others for posting imaged [end]
[ 2010.01.03 16:04:45 ] T'Amber > fail paste :|
[ 2010.01.03 16:04:45 ] Z0D > and using browsers on different ISP's without logging out / back in
[ 2010.01.03 16:04:50 ] Alekseyev Karrde > !
[ 2010.01.03 16:05:15 ] ElvenLord > Alekseyev Karrde go
[ 2010.01.03 16:05:35 ] Alekseyev Karrde > Getting around the timer shouldnt be a constant struggle for legitimate player posting daily activity.  It's absurd imo [end]
[ 2010.01.03 16:05:43 ] TeaDaze > !
[ 2010.01.03 16:05:44 ] Song Li > agreed
[ 2010.01.03 16:05:49 ] ElvenLord > TeaDaze go
[ 2010.01.03 16:06:25 ] TeaDaze > On the subject of constant struggle, I'd like them to fix the issue I have replying to posts. I click reply, login, click reply again, loging again and then finally I can reply. Also the defaul char seems to reset every few days....
[ 2010.01.03 16:06:38 ] TeaDaze > Slightly outside the scope of this proposal thiough ;) [end]
[ 2010.01.03 16:07:32 ] T'Amber > +100
[ 2010.01.03 16:07:47 ] ElvenLord > can we make this proposition " Discussion about forum rules and moderation with CCP"?
[ 2010.01.03 16:07:47 ] T'Amber > I think it is marketing, it works fine ingame :)
[ 2010.01.03 16:07:52 ] TeaDaze > Can we add some visual indication of a removed post instead of it being totally deleted to the proposal?
[ 2010.01.03 16:08:04 ] TeaDaze > Agree with EV
[ 2010.01.03 16:08:07 ] T'Amber > +1
[ 2010.01.03 16:08:38 ] ElvenLord > Lets vote on "Discussion about forum rules and moderation with CCP", #y or #N
[ 2010.01.03 16:08:41 ] ElvenLord > ======================================
[ 2010.01.03 16:08:43 ] ElvenLord > y
[ 2010.01.03 16:08:43 ] TeaDaze > Y
[ 2010.01.03 16:08:44 ] Z0D > y
[ 2010.01.03 16:08:44 ] Alekseyev Karrde > Y
[ 2010.01.03 16:08:44 ] Song Li > y
[ 2010.01.03 16:08:46 ] T'Amber > #Y
[ 2010.01.03 16:08:46 ] Helen Highwater > Y
[ 2010.01.03 16:08:48 ] Sokratesz > y
[ 2010.01.03 16:09:09 ] Korvin > y
[ 2010.01.03 16:09:12 ] TeaDaze > passes 9 for
[ 2010.01.03 16:09:31 ] ElvenLord > NEXT: 8. Boost Warfare Links and Revisit Information Warfare
[ 2010.01.03 16:09:42 ] TeaDaze > http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Boost_Warfare_Links_and_Revisit_Information_Warfare_%28CSM%29
[ 2010.01.03 16:10:07 ] Sokratesz > !
[ 2010.01.03 16:10:33 ] ElvenLord > Sokratesz go
[ 2010.01.03 16:10:59 ] TeaDaze > !
[ 2010.01.03 16:11:01 ] Alekseyev Karrde > seems my formatting got nuked when the csm got added lol
[ 2010.01.03 16:11:06 ] Sokratesz > i got a question for you all regarding this topic: do you think its fair that a t2 ship can do something better than a t3 ship (assuming they can do it at all, bubbles etc. not counted)? because that is something of note here, are t3 supposed to
[ 2010.01.03 16:11:21 ] Sokratesz > outclass a dedicated line of ships like the command ships?
[ 2010.01.03 16:11:22 ] Sokratesz > [end]
[ 2010.01.03 16:11:30 ] Z0D > !
[ 2010.01.03 16:11:37 ] Alekseyev Karrde > !
[ 2010.01.03 16:11:44 ] ElvenLord > TeaDaze go
[ 2010.01.03 16:12:06 ] TeaDaze > Just want to say we use skirmish and info warfare links on battlecruisers in small gangs so I disagree with the near blob level part of this proposal :P
[ 2010.01.03 16:12:15 ] TeaDaze > [end]
[ 2010.01.03 16:12:26 ] T'Amber > !
[ 2010.01.03 16:12:41 ] ElvenLord > Z0D go
[ 2010.01.03 16:12:45 ] Korvin > !
[ 2010.01.03 16:12:57 ] Z0D > on fleet command boost and fleet subbed T3 ships, bonus is higher when at the proper skillsset on T3 ships than on T2 [end]
[ 2010.01.03 16:13:11 ] Z0D > (gang boost)
[ 2010.01.03 16:13:19 ] ElvenLord > Alekseyev Karrde go
[ 2010.01.03 16:13:23 ] Alekseyev Karrde > T3 can get more milage out of a single link than any commandship, but CS can field the entire link set with no fitting mods.  Seems right to me.... TD is right about the skirm links, which are almost all 3% might i add, but i strongly disagree about
[ 2010.01.03 16:13:55 ] Alekseyev Karrde > info links.  I've given the eos its fair shot post patch, put it in gangs with falcons rooks the whole deal and it. straight. sucks. [end[
[ 2010.01.03 16:14:08 ] ElvenLord > T'Amber go
[ 2010.01.03 16:14:16 ] T'Amber > CCP earlier stated (2008) that they were working on a tactical combat map, this may require command ships to ipliment (i am guessing) this would be a better boost to command ships, only the eos is lacking after the bonus changes.
[ 2010.01.03 16:14:32 ] Z0D > !
[ 2010.01.03 16:14:34 ] T'Amber > speculation is your friend. [end]
[ 2010.01.03 16:14:34 ] Alekseyev Karrde > i misspoke about skirm links, only 1 is 3%
[ 2010.01.03 16:14:50 ] ElvenLord > Korvin go
[ 2010.01.03 16:15:17 ] T'Amber > *tactical command maps
[ 2010.01.03 16:15:41 ] Korvin > ! EOS is need some love, that the only thing i agree from this proposal
[ 2010.01.03 16:15:48 ] Alekseyev Karrde > !
[ 2010.01.03 16:15:58 ] TeaDaze > !
[ 2010.01.03 16:16:06 ] ElvenLord > Z0D go
[ 2010.01.03 16:16:10 ] Z0D > on a legion T3 ship my command bonus goes from 24.x% to 28.x% from my damnation (at maxed skills) [end]
[ 2010.01.03 16:16:20 ] ElvenLord > Alekseyev Karrde go
[ 2010.01.03 16:17:04 ] Alekseyev Karrde > Is it right the two tank rig lines give more benifit to ships NOT tanking the corresponding way than those that do?  I think they should be normalized higher but having them not stack would be a midway boost [end]
[ 2010.01.03 16:17:13 ] ElvenLord > TeaDaze go
[ 2010.01.03 16:17:23 ] TeaDaze > I'm happy to support looking at info links, but not sure I agree with flat rate 3% on all links
[ 2010.01.03 16:17:28 ] T'Amber > !!
[ 2010.01.03 16:17:59 ] TeaDaze > A mindlinked skirmish battlesruiser can push an web out an extra 30%
[ 2010.01.03 16:18:13 ] Alekseyev Karrde > the prop jam link is already 3%
[ 2010.01.03 16:18:48 ] TeaDaze > Yes, but it might be the case that 3% isn't enough for an info link so I don't think a flat rate 3% is a good idea
[ 2010.01.03 16:18:55 ] TeaDaze > [end]
[ 2010.01.03 16:18:58 ] ElvenLord > T'Amber go
[ 2010.01.03 16:19:06 ] T'Amber > This should be two seperate issues. [end]
[ 2010.01.03 16:19:54 ] ElvenLord > OK lets vote on this proposal, #y and #n
[ 2010.01.03 16:19:57 ] ElvenLord > =======================================
[ 2010.01.03 16:20:01 ] Alekseyev Karrde > Y
[ 2010.01.03 16:20:04 ] Alekseyev Karrde > stongly
[ 2010.01.03 16:20:09 ] Sokratesz > y
[ 2010.01.03 16:20:11 ] Alekseyev Karrde > *strong
[ 2010.01.03 16:20:12 ] Korvin > ! which one?
[ 2010.01.03 16:20:13 ] T'Amber > the whole proposal?
[ 2010.01.03 16:20:34 ] ElvenLord > proposal as it is
[ 2010.01.03 16:20:47 ] T'Amber > #N - but eos needs some cuddles
[ 2010.01.03 16:20:50 ] Song Li > n
[ 2010.01.03 16:20:54 ] Helen Highwater > N
[ 2010.01.03 16:20:56 ] ElvenLord > y
[ 2010.01.03 16:20:56 ] Korvin > #N - but eos needs some cuddles
[ 2010.01.03 16:21:04 ] Z0D > n (eos)
[ 2010.01.03 16:21:13 ] Alekseyev Karrde > eos wont get cuddles unless we say it does guys...
[ 2010.01.03 16:21:19 ] TeaDaze > y - providing the 3% flat rate disappears :P
[ 2010.01.03 16:21:34 ] Song Li > agree
[ 2010.01.03 16:21:38 ] Z0D > same
[ 2010.01.03 16:21:41 ] Song Li > But it's the proposal as stands
[ 2010.01.03 16:21:45 ] Helen Highwater > this is a terrible vote, peopel are voting for different things
[ 2010.01.03 16:21:47 ] Alekseyev Karrde > Elven, let's split the issues up.  No reason to throw the eos under the bus
[ 2010.01.03 16:21:53 ] Alekseyev Karrde > and people are confused as is
[ 2010.01.03 16:21:54 ] T'Amber > +1000
[ 2010.01.03 16:21:56 ] ElvenLord > ok lets split it up
[ 2010.01.03 16:22:09 ] ElvenLord > 1, Eos 2. Fleet links
[ 2010.01.03 16:22:36 ] ElvenLord > OK with you?
[ 2010.01.03 16:22:39 ] T'Amber > !
[ 2010.01.03 16:22:43 ] Alekseyev Karrde > !
[ 2010.01.03 16:22:52 ] ElvenLord > T'Amber go
[ 2010.01.03 16:22:53 ] Song Li > !
[ 2010.01.03 16:23:19 ] T'Amber > Are we voting on a proposal to look at and fix the fleet bonuses, or a specific fix in mind?
[ 2010.01.03 16:23:38 ] T'Amber > As in, looking for a fix, or just raising the bar on the base %?
[ 2010.01.03 16:23:48 ] ElvenLord > to look at fleet links and fix fleet bonuses
[ 2010.01.03 16:23:52 ] Alekseyev Karrde > we can vote to look at and fix.  not wed to 3% as long as theres a buff for fleet cs coming
[ 2010.01.03 16:24:13 ] T'Amber > Can we vote to look at and fix, without a specific idea?
[ 2010.01.03 16:24:25 ] T'Amber > As there are some other ways of making them more useful
[ 2010.01.03 16:24:36 ] ElvenLord > we can discuss it with CCP
[ 2010.01.03 16:24:37 ] T'Amber > or i can just go back to my corner
[ 2010.01.03 16:24:41 ] ElvenLord > as a brainstorming
[ 2010.01.03 16:24:44 ] T'Amber > awesome. thanks
[ 2010.01.03 16:24:46 ] Korvin > like blasters i guess
[ 2010.01.03 16:24:50 ] T'Amber > that i can vote on
[ 2010.01.03 16:24:52 ] T'Amber > [end]
[ 2010.01.03 16:25:00 ] ElvenLord > Alekseyev Karrde go
[ 2010.01.03 16:25:04 ] Alekseyev Karrde > nvm
[ 2010.01.03 16:25:07 ] Alekseyev Karrde > end
[ 2010.01.03 16:25:09 ] ElvenLord > SOng Li?
[ 2010.01.03 16:25:18 ] Song Li > Tamber covered mine
[ 2010.01.03 16:25:24 ] ElvenLord > ok
[ 2010.01.03 16:25:38 ] ElvenLord > Lets vote on Eos Fix. Y or N
[ 2010.01.03 16:25:40 ] ElvenLord > =============================
[ 2010.01.03 16:25:41 ] T'Amber > Lowering the skill requiredments to level IVs for the mindlinks would .... shhhh
[ 2010.01.03 16:25:45 ] Alekseyev Karrde > Y
[ 2010.01.03 16:25:48 ] Z0D > Y
[ 2010.01.03 16:25:48 ] Korvin > Y
[ 2010.01.03 16:25:48 ] T'Amber > Y
[ 2010.01.03 16:25:53 ] ElvenLord > y
[ 2010.01.03 16:25:53 ] Sokratesz > y
[ 2010.01.03 16:25:53 ] Song Li > y
[ 2010.01.03 16:26:01 ] Helen Highwater > Y
[ 2010.01.03 16:26:04 ] TeaDaze > y
[ 2010.01.03 16:26:13 ] TeaDaze > passes 9 for
[ 2010.01.03 16:26:40 ] ElvenLord > Voting on "Looking into Fleet links and possible fix together with CCP", Y or N
[ 2010.01.03 16:26:43 ] ElvenLord > =========================================
[ 2010.01.03 16:26:46 ] T'Amber > Y
[ 2010.01.03 16:26:47 ] Alekseyev Karrde > Y
[ 2010.01.03 16:26:48 ] Z0D > Y
[ 2010.01.03 16:26:51 ] ElvenLord > y
[ 2010.01.03 16:26:58 ] Sokratesz > y
[ 2010.01.03 16:27:00 ] Helen Highwater > Y
[ 2010.01.03 16:27:01 ] TeaDaze > y
[ 2010.01.03 16:27:04 ] Song Li > y
[ 2010.01.03 16:27:32 ] ElvenLord > Korvin?
[ 2010.01.03 16:27:43 ] Korvin > y anyway
[ 2010.01.03 16:27:52 ] TeaDaze > passes 9 for
[ 2010.01.03 16:28:03 ] ElvenLord > NEXT: 9. Battle Recorder
[ 2010.01.03 16:28:12 ] T'Amber > !
[ 2010.01.03 16:28:20 ] TeaDaze > http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Battle_Recorder_%28CSM%29
[ 2010.01.03 16:28:27 ] ElvenLord > yes  T'Amber
[ 2010.01.03 16:28:54 ] T'Amber > This idea if done wrong is potentially a great strain on the server. Any implimentation of this MUST not effect game play just to watch something that happened. Although it would be handy as just a FRAPS like tool.
[ 2010.01.03 16:28:57 ] T'Amber > [end]
[ 2010.01.03 16:29:14 ] Song Li > !
[ 2010.01.03 16:29:19 ] ElvenLord > Song Li g
[ 2010.01.03 16:29:21 ] ElvenLord > o
[ 2010.01.03 16:29:26 ] T'Amber > !
[ 2010.01.03 16:29:27 ] TeaDaze > !
[ 2010.01.03 16:29:42 ] Song Li > This kind of idea has been very successful in things like FPS that have built in machinima tools.
[ 2010.01.03 16:29:43 ] Alekseyev Karrde > !
[ 2010.01.03 16:30:04 ] Song Li > A downside is the developement time needed for soemthing like htat and the server strain [end]
[ 2010.01.03 16:30:14 ] ElvenLord > T'Amber go
[ 2010.01.03 16:30:32 ] T'Amber > one sec, its not the Battlerecorder post i had linked. rereading
[ 2010.01.03 16:30:33 ] T'Amber > [send]
[ 2010.01.03 16:30:42 ] ElvenLord > TeaDaze go
[ 2010.01.03 16:30:45 ] TeaDaze > I've seen this done in other MMOs where the position information is saved as a text file and can later be played back through the client. It should be no extra load on the server and would be far less load on the client PC than trying to capture frames
[ 2010.01.03 16:30:50 ] Z0D > !
[ 2010.01.03 16:31:11 ] TeaDaze > Additonal bonus - you can edit the file to make other movies [end]
[ 2010.01.03 16:31:13 ] T'Amber > !
[ 2010.01.03 16:31:23 ] ElvenLord > Z0D go
[ 2010.01.03 16:31:24 ] Z0D > this has good sides for fleet commanders on recap's of fights, learn from mistakes etc [end]
[ 2010.01.03 16:31:33 ] ElvenLord > T'Amber go
[ 2010.01.03 16:31:38 ] TeaDaze > !
[ 2010.01.03 16:31:39 ] Helen Highwater > !
[ 2010.01.03 16:31:48 ] T'Amber > Implimenting a Fraps like tool would be easy
[ 2010.01.03 16:32:10 ] T'Amber > Adding information gathered that wouldnt effect the server (as you have information sent already) wouldnt be hard either
[ 2010.01.03 16:32:29 ] T'Amber > Being able to import other players data to give more information would also kill extra server lag.
[ 2010.01.03 16:32:43 ] T'Amber > As long as it didnt effect the server this is a good idea
[ 2010.01.03 16:32:46 ] T'Amber > [end]
[ 2010.01.03 16:33:12 ] ElvenLord > Helen Highwater go
[ 2010.01.03 16:33:21 ] T'Amber > the data bit is a lot of dev time tho
[ 2010.01.03 16:33:30 ] Helen Highwater > No-one will ever have it turned on in a fleet fight. It wouldn't affect teh server but I can't see hwo it wouldn't utterly cripple the client in anything resembling a big fight,
[ 2010.01.03 16:33:47 ] T'Amber > !
[ 2010.01.03 16:34:07 ] Helen Highwater > Which seems to be the big selling point, for smaller fights then theadditional overhead of a third party program like FRAPS sisn;t so m uch of a problem anyway[end]
[ 2010.01.03 16:34:21 ] ElvenLord > TeaDaze go
[ 2010.01.03 16:34:22 ] TeaDaze > It could also be used by CCP as a debugging tool becayse it would be far easier to send a text file of activity than a movie file. In addition there is a log server of sorts in place which could be the basis for this.
[ 2010.01.03 16:35:10 ] TeaDaze > CCP should not waste time building a fraps like system - people can use fraps for that.
[ 2010.01.03 16:35:28 ] Song Li > agreed
[ 2010.01.03 16:35:32 ] Z0D > agreed
[ 2010.01.03 16:35:34 ] Zastrow > yea
[ 2010.01.03 16:35:39 ] TeaDaze > But a text replay system when then renders via the client in offline mode is good [end]
[ 2010.01.03 16:35:45 ] ElvenLord > T'Amber go
[ 2010.01.03 16:35:47 ] T'Amber > I havent run fraps in a battle over 300 people, but with 250 people or so it didn't make much difference to the lag, it was bad either way. :)
[ 2010.01.03 16:35:47 ] Alekseyev Karrde > ! (skipped) Lag is mentioned in the prop as a possible con.  If it proves to be too bad i would rather have a smooth game than this feature.  But everyone i've talked to about the prop seems to think it can be done w/o much lag so... [end]
[ 2010.01.03 16:35:58 ] T'Amber > Being able to export data that has already been sent to your computer is cool
[ 2010.01.03 16:36:12 ] T'Amber > but the time they would need to spend on making the engine to replay it may take alot of time
[ 2010.01.03 16:36:24 ] T'Amber > although the idea is very cool and would be extremely useful.
[ 2010.01.03 16:36:27 ] T'Amber > [end]
[ 2010.01.03 16:36:58 ] T'Amber > There are two things here, that could be done in seperate stages to make it feasable
[ 2010.01.03 16:37:14 ] T'Amber > a) Video capture - simple
[ 2010.01.03 16:37:21 ] T'Amber > b) Data recorder - easy
[ 2010.01.03 16:37:22 ] TeaDaze > !
[ 2010.01.03 16:37:29 ] ElvenLord > TeaDaze go
[ 2010.01.03 16:37:29 ] T'Amber > c) dATA REPLay and editing - lots of work
[ 2010.01.03 16:37:35 ] Korvin > !
[ 2010.01.03 16:37:36 ] TeaDaze > video capture - use fraps
[ 2010.01.03 16:37:48 ] TeaDaze > data recorder - log server does some of this already
[ 2010.01.03 16:38:05 ] TeaDaze > playback - yes this is where the effort would be concentrated
[ 2010.01.03 16:38:24 ] T'Amber > although you could use a modified client i suppose :|
[ 2010.01.03 16:38:32 ] Alekseyev Karrde > why couldnt you?
[ 2010.01.03 16:38:39 ] TeaDaze > But they've talked about the renderthread things they have in the client now (e.g. preview window) so it might be possible now without huge effort
[ 2010.01.03 16:38:41 ] TeaDaze > [end]
[ 2010.01.03 16:39:01 ] T'Amber > !
[ 2010.01.03 16:39:07 ] ElvenLord > T'Amber go
[ 2010.01.03 16:39:08 ] Sokratesz > i have no idea in which format the data is transferred between the eve server and the client but it cant be much because eve works even on slow connections - so i dont think it would be hard to record and re-play it
[ 2010.01.03 16:39:14 ] T'Amber > Korvin is first
[ 2010.01.03 16:39:25 ] ElvenLord > ah Korvin go
[ 2010.01.03 16:39:29 ] Song Li > !
[ 2010.01.03 16:40:04 ] Korvin > well, the idea is cool by itself, since we can capture large fights and then look at them in high video setup
[ 2010.01.03 16:40:14 ] Korvin > and better quality to fraps
[ 2010.01.03 16:40:24 ] TeaDaze > (For those of you who haven';t used it - the logserver is what you can use on sisi to capture bugs and submit them to ccp)
[ 2010.01.03 16:40:31 ] Korvin > but the priority of this idea should be low
[ 2010.01.03 16:40:50 ] Korvin > so the main game development will be the primary
[ 2010.01.03 16:41:13 ] Korvin > [end]
[ 2010.01.03 16:41:19 ] ElvenLord > T'Amber
[ 2010.01.03 16:41:34 ] T'Amber > This idea was actually on my agenda, but my version
[ 2010.01.03 16:41:47 ] T'Amber > and i did some investigating by asking a dev friend of mine (for another game)
[ 2010.01.03 16:42:14 ] T'Amber > He said that it would be relatively easy as information gets sent to your client already
[ 2010.01.03 16:42:23 ] T'Amber > converting it into a format is one issue
[ 2010.01.03 16:42:35 ] T'Amber > but the one thing he said that would cause the problems is what isn't sent to the client
[ 2010.01.03 16:42:43 ] Helen Highwater > !
[ 2010.01.03 16:42:48 ] T'Amber > ie. whats not on your screen, directions items are facing
[ 2010.01.03 16:42:55 ] T'Amber > armour, shields stats etc.
[ 2010.01.03 16:43:07 ] TeaDaze > !
[ 2010.01.03 16:43:13 ] T'Amber > which would increase server load as you'd need to query things you normally dont see in game
[ 2010.01.03 16:43:28 ] T'Amber > so unless you could share information from the same battle with someone else it would mean more server queries
[ 2010.01.03 16:43:39 ] T'Amber > and they'd need to be in the same grid in game.
[ 2010.01.03 16:43:47 ] T'Amber > Im not sure if this would apply to eve
[ 2010.01.03 16:43:58 ] T'Amber > but maor server queries would be bad. imho
[ 2010.01.03 16:44:00 ] T'Amber > [end]
[ 2010.01.03 16:44:07 ] ElvenLord > Song Li go
[ 2010.01.03 16:44:09 ] Song Li > I think we all agree the concept is good and it's just down to work load on implementation, which is up to CCP to let us know. Banging out what is feasable we need a Dev for. I think we can prbably go on the vote on the actual concept. [end]
[ 2010.01.03 16:44:10 ] Alekseyev Karrde > we're starting to tread water here and we're running late.  let's vote?
[ 2010.01.03 16:44:35 ] ElvenLord > Helen Highwater go
[ 2010.01.03 16:44:41 ] T'Amber > *share information with someone who was in the same location
[ 2010.01.03 16:44:53 ] Helen Highwater > All that information is sent to your client but you typically only store it for as long as it's important. Once it stops being important you lose it otherwise log files bloat to insane sizes very fast. World logs for MMOs are *huge*.[end]
[ 2010.01.03 16:45:17 ] ElvenLord > TeaDaze go
[ 2010.01.03 16:45:21 ] TeaDaze > The proposal isn't to allow you to see anything past what your screen showed, though being able to pan around would be nice. You certainly shouldn't be able to pick any ship on grid and look at its status etc
[ 2010.01.03 16:45:46 ] T'Amber > Ah, it mentions being able to change camera angles
[ 2010.01.03 16:46:02 ] TeaDaze > IMO anyway. This is a blackbox from your ship, not a server grade deep dive on anything on grid
[ 2010.01.03 16:46:16 ] TeaDaze > Camera angles will probably be possible with the info sent to the client
[ 2010.01.03 16:46:17 ] Alekseyev Karrde > importing multiple files (everyone running capture in the fight) will prob help fill in holes
[ 2010.01.03 16:46:36 ] ElvenLord > ok, to make it short, we will vote on the concet of having some type of battle recorder
[ 2010.01.03 16:46:39 ] T'Amber > alek> yeah thats what i was saying inbetween all the spahm earlier
[ 2010.01.03 16:46:44 ] TeaDaze > it doesn't load grid as you pan around after all. But no way to seeing shield status etc for stuff you didn't have locked
[ 2010.01.03 16:46:46 ] TeaDaze > [end]
[ 2010.01.03 16:46:57 ] ElvenLord > ElvenLord > ok, to make it short, we will vote on the concet of having some type of battle recorder
[ 2010.01.03 16:47:02 ] ElvenLord > y or N
[ 2010.01.03 16:47:05 ] ElvenLord > ======================================
[ 2010.01.03 16:47:07 ] Song Li > y
[ 2010.01.03 16:47:07 ] T'Amber > Y
[ 2010.01.03 16:47:08 ] Korvin > =
[ 2010.01.03 16:47:09 ] Korvin > y
[ 2010.01.03 16:47:11 ] Sokratesz > y
[ 2010.01.03 16:47:11 ] Z0D > y
[ 2010.01.03 16:47:11 ] Alekseyev Karrde > Y
[ 2010.01.03 16:47:15 ] TeaDaze > y
[ 2010.01.03 16:47:15 ] Helen Highwater > N
[ 2010.01.03 16:47:20 ] ElvenLord > y
[ 2010.01.03 16:47:30 ] TeaDaze > passed 8 for, 1 against
[ 2010.01.03 16:48:04 ] ElvenLord > NEXT: 10. Tracking for Fighters lost in combat
[ 2010.01.03 16:48:05 ] TeaDaze > http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Tracking_for_Fighters_lost_in_combat
[ 2010.01.03 16:48:13 ] Helen Highwater > /emote would like to note that Zastrow is now here
[ 2010.01.03 16:48:30 ] Zastrow > poop
[ 2010.01.03 16:49:00 ] T'Amber > havent seen him talk, i must have him blocked
[ 2010.01.03 16:49:05 ] T'Amber > ;)
[ 2010.01.03 16:49:09 ] Z0D > lol
[ 2010.01.03 16:49:15 ] Zastrow > :smith:
[ 2010.01.03 16:49:27 ] ElvenLord > so who was lower alt?
[ 2010.01.03 16:49:36 ] TeaDaze > T'Amber
[ 2010.01.03 16:49:39 ] Song Li > Tamber
[ 2010.01.03 16:49:56 ] ElvenLord > T, you can now participate in discussion but not vote
[ 2010.01.03 16:50:18 ] T'Amber > \o/ wtb: hitman
[ 2010.01.03 16:50:58 ] TeaDaze > !
[ 2010.01.03 16:51:27 ] T'Amber > !
[ 2010.01.03 16:51:45 ] Korvin > !
[ 2010.01.03 16:52:01 ] ElvenLord > TeaDaze go
[ 2010.01.03 16:52:12 ] TeaDaze > Whilst I like the idea of having a tally of how many fighters we kill - I'm concerned on the level of additional server load in generating these "killmails" or whatever they become. Also the question will then come up about normal drones
[ 2010.01.03 16:52:25 ] Sokratesz > !
[ 2010.01.03 16:52:26 ] TeaDaze > [end]
[ 2010.01.03 16:52:40 ] ElvenLord > T'Amber go
[ 2010.01.03 16:52:56 ] Alekseyev Karrde > !
[ 2010.01.03 16:53:22 ] T'Amber > This idea is good, need to ask CCP when you go over there if this is possible and not something that is restricted by fighter drone code
[ 2010.01.03 16:53:23 ] T'Amber > [end]
[ 2010.01.03 16:53:37 ] ElvenLord > Korvin go
[ 2010.01.03 16:53:40 ] Korvin > 500 vs 500 fight, primary target gets enemy fighters on tail, uses smartbombs, eve crashes of a km spam
[ 2010.01.03 16:54:30 ] T'Amber > er, don't fighters come up on kill mails as the weapon already?
[ 2010.01.03 16:54:59 ] Korvin > yes, but you dont get km on each fighter lol
[ 2010.01.03 16:55:03 ] Korvin > [end]
[ 2010.01.03 16:55:10 ] T'Amber > !
[ 2010.01.03 16:55:11 ] ElvenLord > Sokratesz go
[ 2010.01.03 16:55:13 ] Sokratesz > As soon as you make it for fighters, people will want it for drones too. Unless they can make it work without any drawbacks on performance, i'm against [end]
[ 2010.01.03 16:55:23 ] Helen Highwater > !
[ 2010.01.03 16:55:30 ] ElvenLord > Alekseyev Karrde go
[ 2010.01.03 16:55:32 ] Alekseyev Karrde > @ TD/Sok: normal drones dont cost as much as some t2 frigates  @ Korvin are KM really breaking the servers back in a 500 v 500?  seems like you're missing the forest in the trees [end]
[ 2010.01.03 16:55:42 ] TeaDaze > !
[ 2010.01.03 16:55:48 ] ElvenLord > T'Amber go
[ 2010.01.03 16:55:57 ] T'Amber > nvm
[ 2010.01.03 16:56:06 ] Korvin > !
[ 2010.01.03 16:56:09 ] ElvenLord > TeaDaze go
[ 2010.01.03 16:56:12 ] ElvenLord > pardon
[ 2010.01.03 16:56:16 ] ElvenLord > Helen Highwater go
[ 2010.01.03 16:56:18 ] TeaDaze > Some people are bothered about a 1mil frigate, some drones cost that or more
[ 2010.01.03 16:56:19 ] ElvenLord > then TD
[ 2010.01.03 16:56:23 ] TeaDaze > [end]
[ 2010.01.03 16:56:24 ] Helen Highwater > Nobody cares about regular drones - or they shouldn't at least. Anyone arguing that this should also apply to normal drones needs to wait until an Ogre II costs the same as a fully TY2 fit cruiser[end]
[ 2010.01.03 16:56:32 ] Sokratesz > !
[ 2010.01.03 16:56:39 ] ElvenLord > Korvin go
[ 2010.01.03 16:57:04 ] Korvin > Alekseyev Karrde imagine 500 man fleet, make it 15 fighters each, and they all die in the same time from a smartbombs
[ 2010.01.03 16:57:19 ] Korvin > imagine the km spam you will have after
[ 2010.01.03 16:57:33 ] Korvin > combat logs would be a mess
[ 2010.01.03 16:57:37 ] Korvin > [end]
[ 2010.01.03 16:57:47 ] ElvenLord > Sokratesz go
[ 2010.01.03 16:57:48 ] Sokratesz > that's gonna be different for everyone helen and aleks and who are we to draw an arbitrary distinction? right now kill mails are already horrible malformed and delayed during lag (see: pl titan losses), no need to make that any worse..[end]
[ 2010.01.03 16:58:00 ] TeaDaze > !
[ 2010.01.03 16:58:27 ] Alekseyev Karrde > !
[ 2010.01.03 16:58:46 ] ElvenLord > TeaDaze go
[ 2010.01.03 16:58:58 ] Sokratesz > Also I have got to go eat dinner, t'amber has my vote til i return.
[ 2010.01.03 16:59:07 ] TeaDaze > Agree with Korvin. The overriding issue is how this can be put in when it is clear the servers are not up to huge battles as it is.
[ 2010.01.03 16:59:42 ] TeaDaze > And I'm not bothered about drone kills losses but I know some people are so fussed about K/D isk ratios that they might...
[ 2010.01.03 16:59:45 ] TeaDaze > [end]
[ 2010.01.03 17:00:04 ] ElvenLord > Alekseyev Karrde go
[ 2010.01.03 17:00:26 ] Alekseyev Karrde > Doesnt have to be KM.  All the prop is asking is for some tracking mechanism.  Simple text import/export would do it theoretically.  Talk about non fighter drone type is immaterial, it's not what the proposal is talking about [end]
[ 2010.01.03 17:00:37 ] Helen Highwater > !
[ 2010.01.03 17:00:59 ] ElvenLord > Helen Highwater go
[ 2010.01.03 17:01:21 ] Helen Highwater > It has to be bilateral - in other words the killer and the victim have to have independently verifiable records. Otherwise it's pointless. Hey I lost 25 Fighters yesterday and ehre's a txt file that proves it....[end]
[ 2010.01.03 17:01:25 ] Korvin > augmented ogres costs more than a fighters
[ 2010.01.03 17:01:38 ] T'Amber > so do hammerheads :|
[ 2010.01.03 17:01:44 ] T'Amber > er hellhounds rather
[ 2010.01.03 17:01:45 ] T'Amber > X)
[ 2010.01.03 17:02:37 ] ElvenLord > OK lets vote on this, Y or N
[ 2010.01.03 17:02:40 ] ElvenLord > ============================
[ 2010.01.03 17:02:43 ] ElvenLord > n
[ 2010.01.03 17:02:47 ] Korvin > N\
[ 2010.01.03 17:02:51 ] Alekseyev Karrde > Y
[ 2010.01.03 17:02:52 ] Z0D > n
[ 2010.01.03 17:03:11 ] Song Li > y
[ 2010.01.03 17:03:24 ] Helen Highwater > Y
[ 2010.01.03 17:03:29 ] Zastrow > y
[ 2010.01.03 17:03:37 ] T'Amber > <cough>
[ 2010.01.03 17:03:40 ] TeaDaze > y - but only if this is some after the event api type pull
[ 2010.01.03 17:04:06 ] T'Amber > ! I can't vote can i
[ 2010.01.03 17:04:16 ] ElvenLord > yes, Sok said so
[ 2010.01.03 17:04:17 ] Z0D > yep
[ 2010.01.03 17:04:19 ] TeaDaze > Sok passed his vote to T'Amber
[ 2010.01.03 17:04:22 ] T'Amber > #Y
[ 2010.01.03 17:04:27 ] TeaDaze > passed 6 for 3 against
[ 2010.01.03 17:04:31 ] Korvin > omg
[ 2010.01.03 17:05:05 ] Z0D > Song Dropped
[ 2010.01.03 17:05:32 ] Korvin > he got the first portion of fighters km lol
[ 2010.01.03 17:05:43 ] Z0D > yep
[ 2010.01.03 17:05:44 ] ElvenLord > ok NEXT: 11. Destroyer Improvements
[ 2010.01.03 17:05:50 ] TeaDaze > http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Destroyer_Improvements_%28CSM%29
[ 2010.01.03 17:06:15 ] Song Li > back
[ 2010.01.03 17:06:24 ] ElvenLord > we are on 11. Destroyer Improvements
[ 2010.01.03 17:06:27 ] Song Li > Sorry toddler grabed my data tehter cable
[ 2010.01.03 17:06:39 ] Z0D > !
[ 2010.01.03 17:06:51 ] ElvenLord > Z0D go
[ 2010.01.03 17:07:07 ] Z0D > this one has multiple angles, but they are split with potential solutions which we can discuss and also vote in differently [zod]
[ 2010.01.03 17:07:10 ] Z0D > [end]
[ 2010.01.03 17:07:21 ] Helen Highwater > !
[ 2010.01.03 17:07:26 ] Korvin > !
[ 2010.01.03 17:07:28 ] ElvenLord > Helen Highwater go
[ 2010.01.03 17:07:42 ] T'Amber > !
[ 2010.01.03 17:08:31 ] Helen Highwater > I think CCP needs to revisit the role of the destroyer and come back to us with a clearer definition of what they should be. If they are just +frigates then they make t1 frigs obsolete. Other suggestions I've seen move them into AF territory which is
[ 2010.01.03 17:09:05 ] Zastrow > destroyers are anti-frigate platforms
[ 2010.01.03 17:09:06 ] Helen Highwater > just as bad. I'd like to see them made into something with a specific role such as aoe anti drone defence or small ewar paltforms[end]
[ 2010.01.03 17:09:22 ] ElvenLord > Korvin go
[ 2010.01.03 17:09:26 ] Korvin > t2 destroyers should be looked at aswell, and im voting #Y both hands
[ 2010.01.03 17:09:47 ] TeaDaze > !
[ 2010.01.03 17:10:33 ] T'Amber > ! Redefining or refining their role is something to take with you to iceland methinks. :)  [end]
[ 2010.01.03 17:10:49 ] ElvenLord > TeaDaze go
[ 2010.01.03 17:11:13 ] TeaDaze > I thought I had posted on this thread but seems I didn't in the end. The issue here is that the ships are used for close range or sniper and trying to change their bonuses (such as falloff for thrasher) is going to cause worse problems
[ 2010.01.03 17:12:01 ] TeaDaze > You either need to split them into close range and long range with appropriate bonuses (which is bad in some ways because then you know a close range ship vs a long one before you engage)
[ 2010.01.03 17:12:26 ] TeaDaze > Or you need something like a X bonus to close range guns or Y bonus to long range guns type bonus
[ 2010.01.03 17:12:43 ] T'Amber > !
[ 2010.01.03 17:12:52 ] TeaDaze > And the -25 rof can't go without putting them into battlecruiser DPS range with no tracking issues
[ 2010.01.03 17:13:03 ] TeaDaze > A fully skilled thrasher can put out 450dps
[ 2010.01.03 17:13:04 ] Zastrow > !
[ 2010.01.03 17:13:17 ] T'Amber > -! nvm teadaze covered
[ 2010.01.03 17:13:23 ] TeaDaze > blaster cats are not far off that too
[ 2010.01.03 17:13:48 ] Korvin > but with the range of 6km
[ 2010.01.03 17:14:07 ] Zastrow > buffing destroyers is going to either hurt frigates because destroyers are a frigate-counter, or cruisers are going to be less desirable as destroyers encroach on their role
[ 2010.01.03 17:14:10 ] TeaDaze > [end]
[ 2010.01.03 17:14:25 ] TeaDaze > (because people are talking over me anyway)
[ 2010.01.03 17:14:37 ] Zastrow > furthermore goonswarm already has a program that gets newbies into a destroyer doing like 200+ dps in 10 hours so we can unleash them in highsec to go kill hulks
[ 2010.01.03 17:14:45 ] Zastrow > i thnk they're viable ships already
[ 2010.01.03 17:14:50 ] TeaDaze > !
[ 2010.01.03 17:14:54 ] Zastrow > end
[ 2010.01.03 17:14:58 ] ElvenLord > TeaDaze go
[ 2010.01.03 17:15:08 ] Z0D > !
[ 2010.01.03 17:15:14 ] TeaDaze > If anyone thinks dessys are useless they need to look at the agony wolfpacks class which has been running for 3 years :P
[ 2010.01.03 17:15:23 ] TeaDaze > [end]
[ 2010.01.03 17:15:29 ] ElvenLord > Z0D go
[ 2010.01.03 17:15:32 ] Z0D > This is something we can bring to CCP as well in terms of balancing them. [end]
[ 2010.01.03 17:15:44 ] TeaDaze > (Also 10 hour hero dessy is pwn Zas :D)
[ 2010.01.03 17:15:54 ] Z0D > :)
[ 2010.01.03 17:16:03 ] T'Amber > Sorry TeaDaze
[ 2010.01.03 17:16:24 ] Alekseyev Karrde > !
[ 2010.01.03 17:16:44 ] TeaDaze > !
[ 2010.01.03 17:16:46 ] ElvenLord > and yes Aleks we will do that
[ 2010.01.03 17:16:49 ] ElvenLord > Alekseyev Karrde go
[ 2010.01.03 17:17:23 ] Alekseyev Karrde > Let's vote for them to be taken a look at and possible redesigned to better serve their role.  They arnt useless but they arnt really shining even against frigates compared to cruisers/af [end]
[ 2010.01.03 17:17:56 ] ElvenLord > TeaDaze go
[ 2010.01.03 17:18:07 ] ElvenLord > and you are last for this
[ 2010.01.03 17:18:34 ] TeaDaze > Anyway, most could use a bit more PG to ease fittings. If CPU is controlled then it should stop them getting an extra damage mod instead of a mapc. You have the flexibility of ~400dps at close range or less but at out to 50-70km (100km for cormie)
[ 2010.01.03 17:18:49 ] TeaDaze > this is what eve should be about, flexibility :P
[ 2010.01.03 17:18:51 ] TeaDaze > [end]
[ 2010.01.03 17:19:02 ] ElvenLord > VOTE FOR: "LOOKING INTO DESTROYER CLASS AND POSSIBLE TWEEKS ON THEM TO SERVE BETTER IN THEIR ROLE", Y AND N
[ 2010.01.03 17:19:05 ] ElvenLord > =======================================
[ 2010.01.03 17:19:09 ] Z0D > uy
[ 2010.01.03 17:19:11 ] TeaDaze > y
[ 2010.01.03 17:19:11 ] Z0D > y
[ 2010.01.03 17:19:12 ] ElvenLord > y
[ 2010.01.03 17:19:12 ] Korvin > y
[ 2010.01.03 17:19:13 ] Song Li > y
[ 2010.01.03 17:19:17 ] Zastrow > y
[ 2010.01.03 17:19:19 ] T'Amber > Y
[ 2010.01.03 17:19:21 ] Helen Highwater > Y
[ 2010.01.03 17:19:47 ] Alekseyev Karrde > y
[ 2010.01.03 17:19:47 ] ElvenLord > 9 for
[ 2010.01.03 17:19:49 ] TeaDaze > Amended proposal passed 9 for
[ 2010.01.03 17:20:15 ] ElvenLord > I will change the next topic per request of one of the delegates to
[ 2010.01.03 17:20:18 ] ElvenLord > 15. Suicide Ganking Discussion
[ 2010.01.03 17:20:25 ] ElvenLord > we will get back to rest after
[ 2010.01.03 17:20:29 ] TeaDaze > http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Suicide_Ganking_Part_3_%28CSM%29
[ 2010.01.03 17:21:04 ] Alekseyev Karrde > !
[ 2010.01.03 17:21:14 ] ElvenLord > this is kinda similar to suicide discussion we had last meeting
[ 2010.01.03 17:21:17 ] ElvenLord > Alekseyev Karrde go
[ 2010.01.03 17:21:33 ] Alekseyev Karrde > Insurence on suicide ganking needs to go away.  other than that, i dont think too much needs to get touched.  end
[ 2010.01.03 17:21:37 ] TeaDaze > !
[ 2010.01.03 17:21:44 ] T'Amber > !
[ 2010.01.03 17:21:46 ] ElvenLord > TeaDaze go
[ 2010.01.03 17:22:21 ] TeaDaze > Agree to no insurance payout on a concord kill - It would make people pick targets a bit more carefully. but still allow it as a valid game mechanic [end]
[ 2010.01.03 17:22:24 ] ElvenLord > /emote note, Sok is back from afk
[ 2010.01.03 17:22:35 ] ElvenLord > T'Amber go
[ 2010.01.03 17:22:44 ] T'Amber > How would the server identify suicide gankers to take away their insurance? This would need to be bug free otherwise it could cause tears. [end]
[ 2010.01.03 17:22:58 ] Song Li > Q
[ 2010.01.03 17:23:00 ] Song Li > !
[ 2010.01.03 17:23:13 ] Sokratesz > !
[ 2010.01.03 17:23:15 ] TeaDaze > !
[ 2010.01.03 17:23:16 ] ElvenLord > Song Li go
[ 2010.01.03 17:23:19 ] Song Li > Just make it blanked CONCORD kills
[ 2010.01.03 17:23:21 ] Song Li > [end]
[ 2010.01.03 17:23:22 ] Alekseyev Karrde > @ Tamber: concord
[ 2010.01.03 17:23:37 ] T'Amber > sleepy. of course lol
[ 2010.01.03 17:23:42 ] Z0D > :)
[ 2010.01.03 17:23:46 ] T'Amber > haha.
[ 2010.01.03 17:24:00 ] Helen Highwater > !
[ 2010.01.03 17:24:09 ] ElvenLord > Sokratesz go
[ 2010.01.03 17:24:36 ] Sokratesz > not giving gankers insurance payout will only increase the value threshold of cargo you can transport without risk by 50 mil or so - having done many a gank (several marauders lately) i feel that a little increase there wouldnt hurt, but any suggestion
[ 2010.01.03 17:24:53 ] Sokratesz > that makes ganking obsolete is a step towards hello kitty online and will be fought with vigour [end]
[ 2010.01.03 17:25:34 ] ElvenLord > TeaDaze go
[ 2010.01.03 17:25:45 ] TeaDaze > As to how to stop recycled alts etc - that I don't have an answer for other than CCP deciding it is an exploit to use desposable alts and monitoring people who keep rerolling chars or logging IPs to link accounts
[ 2010.01.03 17:26:06 ] T'Amber > !
[ 2010.01.03 17:26:17 ] TeaDaze > [end]
[ 2010.01.03 17:26:20 ] ElvenLord > Helen Highwater go
[ 2010.01.03 17:26:22 ] Helen Highwater > Suicide ganking is an entirely legitimate activity. Even if you take out the grief element, it's the only way for example to interdict hostile logistics in EMpire if your targets aren't dumb enough to have their freighter pilots in corp.
[ 2010.01.03 17:27:21 ] Alekseyev Karrde > agree
[ 2010.01.03 17:27:23 ] Alekseyev Karrde > !
[ 2010.01.03 17:27:24 ] Helen Highwater > Make suicide ganking harder on prepared targets by making fleet members get kill rights on aggressors - thus allowing convoy ops in EMpire for valuable targets. But don't remove the risk for unpreparped/lazy people[end]
[ 2010.01.03 17:27:39 ] ElvenLord > T'Amber go
[ 2010.01.03 17:27:40 ] T'Amber > Changing somethign like this that will completely remove a player style from the game would have a negative effect elsewhere. I agree with Sock Rats and Helen [end]
[ 2010.01.03 17:27:57 ] ElvenLord > Alekseyev Karrde go
[ 2010.01.03 17:28:31 ] Alekseyev Karrde > It's a viable tactic but i think raising the cost will be a good balance.  IT'll still be possible to do esp as a tactic to hurt logistics but doing it for economic gain will require more planning and discretion than is currently the case [end]
[ 2010.01.03 17:28:49 ] ElvenLord > !
[ 2010.01.03 17:28:53 ] ElvenLord > and go me
[ 2010.01.03 17:28:54 ] TeaDaze > !
[ 2010.01.03 17:29:37 ] ElvenLord > I support suicide ganking as an game play, and its goals, but there is the issue of insurance that pops every now and then
[ 2010.01.03 17:30:01 ] ElvenLord > should it be granted for suicide gankings since it adds as a bonus reward
[ 2010.01.03 17:30:19 ] ElvenLord > most suicide ganking are done in t1 BSs with t1 fit
[ 2010.01.03 17:30:31 ] ElvenLord > so in terms of ISK they are risk free
[ 2010.01.03 17:30:44 ] Z0D > !
[ 2010.01.03 17:31:03 ] Zastrow > there's a lot of concord deaths every day unrelated to suicide ganking.  removing insurance is like the csm griefing the entire newbie base
[ 2010.01.03 17:31:14 ] ElvenLord > true
[ 2010.01.03 17:31:17 ] ElvenLord > [end]
[ 2010.01.03 17:31:22 ] ElvenLord > TeaDaze go
[ 2010.01.03 17:32:20 ] TeaDaze > It is tricky, because with insurance there isn't any risk in the suicide gank (you know the ship is lost when you start) but I agree there has to be some consideration for noobs getting concorded for shooting ninja salvagers :P [end]
[ 2010.01.03 17:32:31 ] Sokratesz > !
[ 2010.01.03 17:32:50 ] ElvenLord > Z0D go
[ 2010.01.03 17:32:51 ] Helen Highwater > !
[ 2010.01.03 17:32:51 ] Z0D > the insurance part should be either removed if caused by an illegal act, reduce the payment or make a higher premium for insurance for any activity type including suicide.. kinda like insuring your own car in RL with two ways.[end]
[ 2010.01.03 17:33:13 ] ElvenLord > Sokratesz go
[ 2010.01.03 17:33:23 ] Sokratesz > i'd like to add that the loss of sec is severe and ratting it up is the only way to compensate for it - which takes lots of time and cannot be circumvented, so even with no ISk loss there is a 'punishment'. not giving any insurance will make lots of
[ 2010.01.03 17:33:37 ] Sokratesz > newbies cry so i will suggest giving only base insurance [end]
[ 2010.01.03 17:33:42 ] T'Amber > !
[ 2010.01.03 17:33:50 ] ElvenLord > Helen Highwater go
[ 2010.01.03 17:33:56 ] Helen Highwater > There is a risk though, not a financial one but there's the time investment, waiting for a target that might never come, the security hit, the chance of not getting to the loot your target dropped before others on the gate and so on.
[ 2010.01.03 17:34:00 ] Alekseyev Karrde > base insurence could work (void insurence contract but not deprive altogether)
[ 2010.01.03 17:34:10 ] Helen Highwater > It's not the free money that a lot of anti-gankers claim it is[end]
[ 2010.01.03 17:34:28 ] ElvenLord > T'Amber go
[ 2010.01.03 17:34:50 ] T'Amber > I'm not too clued up on suicide ganking, but would a expodential modifier to the next concord related kill sec loss be usefull for this idea? Although i have nothing against this game style. [end]
[ 2010.01.03 17:35:04 ] Sokratesz > !
[ 2010.01.03 17:35:05 ] T'Amber > that would give the noobs a chance
[ 2010.01.03 17:35:06 ] Alekseyev Karrde > !
[ 2010.01.03 17:35:09 ] ElvenLord > Sokratesz go
[ 2010.01.03 17:35:36 ] Sokratesz > its been suggested that SCC start keeping books about people and after losing lots of ships or losing them to cops will not insure after awhile, but that might be beyond the scope of this proposal. [end]
[ 2010.01.03 17:36:12 ] ElvenLord > yup its more in insurance overhaul
[ 2010.01.03 17:36:16 ] ElvenLord > Alekseyev Karrde go
[ 2010.01.03 17:36:18 ] Alekseyev Karrde > sec loss would impact noobs more imo since they start in 1.0 systems.  Voiding insurence contract or Sok's suggestion is much more elegant.  Also lets vote on some ideas soon i need to catch a plane ;p [end]
[ 2010.01.03 17:36:45 ] Z0D > !
[ 2010.01.03 17:36:52 ] ElvenLord > well the only idea was to give base insurance so ...
[ 2010.01.03 17:36:55 ] ElvenLord > Z0D go
[ 2010.01.03 17:37:02 ] Z0D > i like the possibility also of insurer denying insurance for certain time as well if done too much, cooldown time. [end]
[ 2010.01.03 17:37:58 ] Alekseyev Karrde > !
[ 2010.01.03 17:38:04 ] ElvenLord > Alekseyev Karrde go
[ 2010.01.03 17:38:25 ] Alekseyev Karrde > @ Zod similar to the SCC tracking idea?  If so i call vote on base insurence and SCC tracking
[ 2010.01.03 17:38:31 ] Alekseyev Karrde > seperatly
[ 2010.01.03 17:38:33 ] Z0D > yes
[ 2010.01.03 17:38:35 ] Alekseyev Karrde > [end]
[ 2010.01.03 17:38:48 ] TeaDaze > !
[ 2010.01.03 17:38:53 ] ElvenLord > TeaDaze
[ 2010.01.03 17:39:16 ] Helen Highwater > !
[ 2010.01.03 17:39:31 ] TeaDaze > Putting in insurance tracking is an interesting idea, but it won't change anything if people are using desposible rerolled alts - just saying lots of effort and thus need to justify it past a penelty for dying lots [end]
[ 2010.01.03 17:39:57 ] ElvenLord > Helen Highwater go
[ 2010.01.03 17:39:59 ] Helen Highwater > All of this is presupposing that there is even an issue to address. Why are we voting on fixes when there's still a debate about whether there's a problem?[end]
[ 2010.01.03 17:40:17 ] TeaDaze > !
[ 2010.01.03 17:40:23 ] ElvenLord > TeaDaze go
[ 2010.01.03 17:40:32 ] Zastrow > this isnt a problem near as widespread as the posts make it seem
[ 2010.01.03 17:40:37 ] T'Amber > +1 helen
[ 2010.01.03 17:40:59 ] TeaDaze > Indeed - are we saying suicide ganking is bad - thus we need a fix or are we saying it is a valid game mechanic but needs a tweak to balance the risk vs reward a bit? [end]
[ 2010.01.03 17:41:08 ] Sokratesz > !
[ 2010.01.03 17:41:21 ] Alekseyev Karrde > tweak risk v reward imo
[ 2010.01.03 17:41:26 ] Z0D > agreed
[ 2010.01.03 17:41:27 ] ElvenLord > Sokratesz go
[ 2010.01.03 17:41:28 ] Song Li > agreed
[ 2010.01.03 17:41:38 ] Sokratesz > personally i dont see a problem except maybe with the recycle alts but then again im firmly sat on this side of the fence [end]
[ 2010.01.03 17:41:53 ] ElvenLord > It seems we all agree suicide ganking is a legitimate tactics and that risk vs reward ration needs lokking into
[ 2010.01.03 17:42:17 ] ElvenLord > so Vote on "looking into risk vs reward ratio" would be more suited
[ 2010.01.03 17:42:27 ] ElvenLord > do you agree?
[ 2010.01.03 17:42:31 ] Z0D > y
[ 2010.01.03 17:42:32 ] Helen Highwater > Yes
[ 2010.01.03 17:42:33 ] TeaDaze > y
[ 2010.01.03 17:42:33 ] Alekseyev Karrde > sure
[ 2010.01.03 17:42:43 ] Korvin > and who will look at it?
[ 2010.01.03 17:42:59 ] T'Amber > i cant vote, but if i could sure
[ 2010.01.03 17:43:05 ] ElvenLord > as a discussion with CCP (brainstorming style in 10min :P)
[ 2010.01.03 17:43:13 ] TeaDaze > We should roll it into the insurance discussions with CCP
[ 2010.01.03 17:43:26 ] Sokratesz > agreed td
[ 2010.01.03 17:43:33 ] Alekseyev Karrde > i dont care what we roll it into as long as its discussed
[ 2010.01.03 17:43:37 ] ElvenLord > Lets vote on amended suggestion, Y or N
[ 2010.01.03 17:43:40 ] ElvenLord > ===============================
[ 2010.01.03 17:43:40 ] Z0D > part of the insurance problems
[ 2010.01.03 17:43:41 ] Alekseyev Karrde > Y
[ 2010.01.03 17:43:42 ] Sokratesz > and that again ties into the price ceiling/floor thing
[ 2010.01.03 17:43:43 ] Helen Highwater > N
[ 2010.01.03 17:43:43 ] Z0D > y
[ 2010.01.03 17:43:44 ] Sokratesz > y
[ 2010.01.03 17:43:45 ] TeaDaze > y
[ 2010.01.03 17:43:46 ] Korvin > y
[ 2010.01.03 17:43:54 ] Song Li > y
[ 2010.01.03 17:43:55 ] ElvenLord > y
[ 2010.01.03 17:44:01 ] Zastrow > n
[ 2010.01.03 17:44:07 ] TeaDaze > passed 7 for 2 against
[ 2010.01.03 17:44:11 ] Alekseyev Karrde > OK i need leave, buh bye.  Enjoy my vote T'Amber.  Dont do anything crazy with it ;)
[ 2010.01.03 17:44:17 ] ElvenLord > :D
[ 2010.01.03 17:44:22 ] Z0D > later Alek
[ 2010.01.03 17:44:38 ] T'Amber > heh :)
[ 2010.01.03 17:44:41 ] ElvenLord > note: T'amber takes Aleks's vote
[ 2010.01.03 17:44:59 ] ElvenLord > NEXT: 13. Lock Characters to Prevent Theft
[ 2010.01.03 17:45:02 ] TeaDaze > http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Lock_Characters_to_Prevent_Theft_%28CSM%29
[ 2010.01.03 17:45:12 ] ElvenLord > /emote sais one more left on agenda and we are done
[ 2010.01.03 17:45:23 ] Z0D > !
[ 2010.01.03 17:45:29 ] ElvenLord > Z0D go
[ 2010.01.03 17:45:48 ] TeaDaze > !
[ 2010.01.03 17:45:49 ] Helen Highwater > !
[ 2010.01.03 17:45:50 ] T'Amber > !
[ 2010.01.03 17:46:17 ] Z0D > that would is pretty straightforward, you should be able to if you want to block char transfers to anyone and open a transfer Via a petition if you want, its too easy to scam now
[ 2010.01.03 17:46:19 ] Z0D > [end]
[ 2010.01.03 17:46:37 ] ElvenLord > TeaDaze go
[ 2010.01.03 17:46:43 ] TeaDaze > I suggest that the character transfer system be modified asap to do something like the following.. 1) Lock all transfers by default 2) To unlock a Character you must confirm using a code sent via email.
[ 2010.01.03 17:46:55 ] TeaDaze > 3) Changing email address locks the transfers for 3 months (for example), emails the old address to say that it was changed and flags the Account to the GMs. The old address will also remain on the account and be notified of changes until the 3 months
[ 2010.01.03 17:47:03 ] TeaDaze > 4) Changing account owner, address or billing details should send a notification to the email address(es) assigned to the account and also flag the account in some way
[ 2010.01.03 17:47:21 ] Z0D > exactly
[ 2010.01.03 17:47:30 ] Korvin > does nothing
[ 2010.01.03 17:47:38 ] TeaDaze > So you can only transfer if you are the active email and an accoutn hack can't reset the email and transfer before you can get CCP to stop it
[ 2010.01.03 17:47:40 ] TeaDaze > [end]
[ 2010.01.03 17:47:44 ] ElvenLord > Helen Highwater go
[ 2010.01.03 17:47:46 ] Helen Highwater > How does this prevent someone accessing your account, changing your email and passwords so you can't get into it yourself, ulocking your characters and then selling them? If someone can sell your character, they already have control over your account.
[ 2010.01.03 17:47:51 ] Korvin > since most account stealing hacks the mail first
[ 2010.01.03 17:47:57 ] TeaDaze > !
[ 2010.01.03 17:48:12 ] Sokratesz > !
[ 2010.01.03 17:48:13 ] Song Li > !
[ 2010.01.03 17:48:16 ] ElvenLord > T'Amber go
[ 2010.01.03 17:48:18 ] T'Amber > TWo things
[ 2010.01.03 17:48:26 ] Helen Highwater > I read TD's proposal but given CCPs response times and general responses, I can't see tat this will solve anything[end]
[ 2010.01.03 17:48:26 ] T'Amber > 1st) Smiliar to what teadaze said but.
[ 2010.01.03 17:48:45 ] T'Amber > I trade in cahracters alot
[ 2010.01.03 17:48:55 ] T'Amber > 30day timers, and such would be a pain in the arse
[ 2010.01.03 17:49:00 ] T'Amber > If you want to sell a character
[ 2010.01.03 17:49:04 ] Helen Highwater > !
[ 2010.01.03 17:49:06 ] T'Amber > you select it in your account
[ 2010.01.03 17:49:11 ] T'Amber > you get 7 days to unlock
[ 2010.01.03 17:49:28 ] T'Amber > when it unlocks the original email adress supplied on the character from 1 month ago is sent a confirmation email
[ 2010.01.03 17:49:34 ] T'Amber > so you can stop it if you didnt do it
[ 2010.01.03 17:49:50 ] T'Amber > if you change email adress then resets after 30days or whatever
[ 2010.01.03 17:50:04 ] T'Amber > 2nd) Something to enhance this from Chribbas post 3 years ago
[ 2010.01.03 17:50:12 ] T'Amber > i will explain after everyone else talks, it compliments this idea
[ 2010.01.03 17:50:16 ] T'Amber > [end]
[ 2010.01.03 17:50:20 ] ElvenLord > TeaDaze go
[ 2010.01.03 17:50:21 ] TeaDaze > @Korvin They don't steal the email, they send a spam email into which the victim puts their username and password. The hacker then logs into the account page and changes the registered email - at that point they have control.
[ 2010.01.03 17:50:40 ] TeaDaze > @T'Amber - the 30 day lock is only after an email address change
[ 2010.01.03 17:50:54 ] T'Amber > yup that is good
[ 2010.01.03 17:51:03 ] T'Amber > T'Amber > if you change email adress then resets after 30days or whatever
[ 2010.01.03 17:51:18 ] TeaDaze > if it is the same address then you can unlock the account, get sent a confirmation code which you have to cut and paste into the account page - NO LINKS IN THE EMAIL or scammers will send out something similar
[ 2010.01.03 17:51:23 ] TeaDaze > [end]
[ 2010.01.03 17:51:27 ] ElvenLord > Sokratesz go
[ 2010.01.03 17:51:36 ] Sokratesz > Verone said it here:  http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1239439there are many ways to make it more secure but there is no definite - the only solution would be the ban of character sales or limiting them to be sold
[ 2010.01.03 17:51:36 ] T'Amber > !
[ 2010.01.03 17:51:37 ] Sokratesz > only once per year, 5 years or lifetime. Changing the system into this (after a long notification period) would make eve a better game for the many reasons listed in the link above. [end]
[ 2010.01.03 17:51:53 ] TeaDaze > !
[ 2010.01.03 17:51:59 ] ElvenLord > Song Li go
[ 2010.01.03 17:52:02 ] Song Li > Min'es been covered
[ 2010.01.03 17:52:11 ] ElvenLord > Helen Highwater go
[ 2010.01.03 17:52:12 ] Helen Highwater > It seems to me that the way forwads is to make it harder for people to change your details without your knowledge - requiring confirmation of all changes to the original email address etc.
[ 2010.01.03 17:52:31 ] Helen Highwater > Rather than a specific fix to a part of the overall problem, fix the main issue that it's too easy to take control of an account.
[ 2010.01.03 17:52:34 ] Helen Highwater > [end]
[ 2010.01.03 17:52:41 ] Z0D > !
[ 2010.01.03 17:52:49 ] ElvenLord > T'Amber go
[ 2010.01.03 17:53:04 ] T'Amber > sorry i found my csm agenda post
[ 2010.01.03 17:53:11 ] T'Amber > Make characters untransferable by default with a toggle which must be enabled in the account management page if you'd like to be able to trade your character. When this toggle is turned on the latest email address supplied to CCP is sent an email notify
[ 2010.01.03 17:53:22 ] T'Amber > ing you that this option has been changed and that your character will be able to be moved to another account in X amount of time. This is an easy function which would cut down on account hacks and unauthorized transfers from your account by key loggers
[ 2010.01.03 17:53:29 ] T'Amber > and frmo chribbas post:
[ 2010.01.03 17:53:31 ] T'Amber > to compliment:
[ 2010.01.03 17:53:39 ] T'Amber > Add an optional login feature that allows only certain IP adresses to access an account. This function would be an option for experienced users who would like an extra layer of security for their accounts.
[ 2010.01.03 17:53:42 ] T'Amber > [end]
[ 2010.01.03 17:53:49 ] ElvenLord > TeaDaze go
[ 2010.01.03 17:53:51 ] TeaDaze > My full post is in Verone's trhead here http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1239439&page=2#45 As I say it ensures you are emailed if somebody attempts to change the account details. It isn't specifically for transfers
[ 2010.01.03 17:54:21 ] TeaDaze > Locking transfers is fine as long as only the original email adress ( or a new address after a 30 day cooldown ) can do it
[ 2010.01.03 17:54:27 ] T'Amber > yup
[ 2010.01.03 17:54:32 ] TeaDaze > Stopping transfers completely I disagree with totally
[ 2010.01.03 17:54:37 ] T'Amber > +1
[ 2010.01.03 17:54:42 ] T'Amber > !
[ 2010.01.03 17:54:59 ] TeaDaze > [end]
[ 2010.01.03 17:55:02 ] ElvenLord > Z0D go
[ 2010.01.03 17:55:03 ] Z0D > any changes should be mandatory confirmed, not just changed without more to it, what about also a password for account management and one for logging char in game.... [end]
[ 2010.01.03 17:55:21 ] ElvenLord > T'Amber go
[ 2010.01.03 17:55:24 ] TeaDaze > !
[ 2010.01.03 17:55:26 ] T'Amber > Would i need to bring the IP login function up in a seperate post? it is related to this topic.
[ 2010.01.03 17:55:39 ] T'Amber > elven?
[ 2010.01.03 17:55:44 ] Z0D > i think it can relate
[ 2010.01.03 17:55:53 ] ElvenLord > I dont like the IP idea since there is a lot of ppl that use shitloads of diferent IPs
[ 2010.01.03 17:55:58 ] ElvenLord > me first
[ 2010.01.03 17:56:01 ] T'Amber > yes this is true
[ 2010.01.03 17:56:05 ] T'Amber > but, optional
[ 2010.01.03 17:56:06 ] ElvenLord > I have 3 dynamic links at home
[ 2010.01.03 17:56:09 ] T'Amber > even a ip mask range
[ 2010.01.03 17:56:13 ] T'Amber > would fix that problem
[ 2010.01.03 17:56:24 ] T'Amber > ?
[ 2010.01.03 17:56:36 ] ElvenLord > maybe, we can add it as optional
[ 2010.01.03 17:56:39 ] ElvenLord > TeaDaze go
[ 2010.01.03 17:56:43 ] TeaDaze > Seperate username and password between account and in game won't help if you can get into the account management and change the game password.
[ 2010.01.03 17:57:05 ] T'Amber > +1
[ 2010.01.03 17:57:05 ] TeaDaze > As I also put in my post "CCP should run a query over the user database looking for any accounts where the account name is the same as a character on that account. Those (active) people should be contacted and given the option to have their account
[ 2010.01.03 17:57:07 ] TeaDaze > renamed
[ 2010.01.03 17:57:25 ] TeaDaze > Basic account security
[ 2010.01.03 17:57:28 ] TeaDaze > [end]
[ 2010.01.03 17:57:58 ] ElvenLord > I like most of what I read from TD here
[ 2010.01.03 17:58:01 ] ElvenLord > so
[ 2010.01.03 17:58:21 ] Z0D > !
[ 2010.01.03 17:58:43 ] ElvenLord > TD I would you add all that to the wiki proposal, the entire design and mechanics?
[ 2010.01.03 17:58:51 ] ElvenLord > *without I
[ 2010.01.03 17:58:58 ] TeaDaze > Sure
[ 2010.01.03 17:59:06 ] ElvenLord > Z0D go
[ 2010.01.03 17:59:07 ] Z0D > i think this is something we can and should ask CCP while in Iceland as well [end]
[ 2010.01.03 17:59:17 ] TeaDaze > !
[ 2010.01.03 17:59:23 ] ElvenLord > TeaDaze go
[ 2010.01.03 18:00:08 ] TeaDaze > Just as a wrap up - if you get you email account hacked that is a far greater problem than Eve. However CCP should put in somethign like we've discussed to help with the Eve side of things. [end]
[ 2010.01.03 18:00:13 ] TeaDaze > your*
[ 2010.01.03 18:01:01 ] ElvenLord > ok lets do this this way, you add mechanics of locking the char in, make a full proposal with entire solution and we can vote on it on next meeting
[ 2010.01.03 18:01:15 ] TeaDaze > Fine with me
[ 2010.01.03 18:01:21 ] ElvenLord > cool
[ 2010.01.03 18:01:39 ] T'Amber > *include: Add an optional login feature that allows only certain IP adresses to access an account. This function would be an option for experienced users who would like an extra layer of security for their accounts.
[ 2010.01.03 18:01:42 ] T'Amber > :)
[ 2010.01.03 18:01:53 ] Z0D > :)
[ 2010.01.03 18:01:57 ] ElvenLord > this issue has been moved to next meeting for vote due to slight work on it
[ 2010.01.03 18:02:02 ] T'Amber > Chribba might even give me a new corpse X)
[ 2010.01.03 18:02:04 ] TeaDaze > I'd rather we had SSH certificates :P
[ 2010.01.03 18:02:11 ] T'Amber > what is SSH?
[ 2010.01.03 18:02:22 ] ElvenLord > shh :P
[ 2010.01.03 18:02:23 ] ElvenLord > last one on the agenda: 14. Put More Faction Items On Market
[ 2010.01.03 18:02:32 ] ElvenLord > I fint it a minor thing
[ 2010.01.03 18:03:13 ] Z0D > !
[ 2010.01.03 18:03:14 ] Helen Highwater > !
[ 2010.01.03 18:03:15 ] T'Amber > #Y if they are names after famous eve players x)
[ 2010.01.03 18:03:21 ] TeaDaze > http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Make_More_Faction_Items_Tradable_on_Market_%28CSM%29
[ 2010.01.03 18:03:27 ] TeaDaze > !
[ 2010.01.03 18:03:54 ] ElvenLord > Z0D go
[ 2010.01.03 18:03:56 ] Z0D > especially for modules, as they are very common in their nature. [end]
[ 2010.01.03 18:04:06 ] ElvenLord > Helen Highwater go
[ 2010.01.03 18:04:23 ] Helen Highwater > Just a comment on this, at the moment because they are all on contracts, it means that the prices are moslty normalised across the game. Making them a market commodity moves them to regional variances.
[ 2010.01.03 18:04:33 ] T'Amber > !
[ 2010.01.03 18:04:44 ] Helen Highwater > I can see the poinjt for consumables but mods etc shoudl probably stay as they are.[end]
[ 2010.01.03 18:04:55 ] ElvenLord > TeaDaze go
[ 2010.01.03 18:04:56 ] TeaDaze > Navy cap boosters are already on the market, which was the main thing in the proposal.
[ 2010.01.03 18:04:58 ] ElvenLord > !
[ 2010.01.03 18:05:17 ] TeaDaze > Otherwise I agree with Helen [end]
[ 2010.01.03 18:05:21 ] ElvenLord > T'Amber go
[ 2010.01.03 18:05:23 ] Sokratesz > !
[ 2010.01.03 18:05:28 ] T'Amber > Is this for all items not linkable (hellhounds, guardian vexors, some faction mods etc), and items that cannot be seen on the market? or specific items?
[ 2010.01.03 18:05:54 ] T'Amber > [end]
[ 2010.01.03 18:06:00 ] Z0D > !
[ 2010.01.03 18:06:04 ] ElvenLord > ElvenLord :P
[ 2010.01.03 18:06:50 ] ElvenLord > Well, I wouldent like to see all stuf on market, but things like faction ENAMs or faction tracking computers that clog the contract a bit yea
[ 2010.01.03 18:07:04 ] TeaDaze > !
[ 2010.01.03 18:07:13 ] ElvenLord > like dark blood energized adaptive nano, or Navy tracking comp
[ 2010.01.03 18:07:16 ] ElvenLord > [end]
[ 2010.01.03 18:07:22 ] ElvenLord > Sokratesz go
[ 2010.01.03 18:07:25 ] Sokratesz > i dont see that as a problem helen - it will improve the opportunities for traders to make some ISK with these items and possibly decentralise jita a bit as the place to be for expensive stuff [end]
[ 2010.01.03 18:07:39 ] Sokratesz > and by that* i mean contracts showing galaxy wide and market orders only regionwide
[ 2010.01.03 18:07:45 ] ElvenLord > /emote to add no officer mods on market
[ 2010.01.03 18:07:52 ] ElvenLord > Z0D go
[ 2010.01.03 18:07:54 ] Z0D > mostly mods / LP related stuff, the very common stuff, leave ships as they are off course on contracts. [end]
[ 2010.01.03 18:07:55 ] Song Li > !
[ 2010.01.03 18:08:13 ] ElvenLord > TeaDaze go
[ 2010.01.03 18:08:14 ] TeaDaze > Perhaps we should suggest all navy faction stuff be on the market, but deadspace and officer remain contract only?
[ 2010.01.03 18:08:27 ] T'Amber > +1
[ 2010.01.03 18:08:32 ] ElvenLord > and ships
[ 2010.01.03 18:08:33 ] TeaDaze > So the market doesn;t get too clogged with empty categories [end]
[ 2010.01.03 18:08:37 ] Helen Highwater > !
[ 2010.01.03 18:08:41 ] ElvenLord > Song Li go
[ 2010.01.03 18:08:44 ] Song Li > I tink there's a volume threshold that has to be looked at.
[ 2010.01.03 18:09:09 ] Song Li > I'm with high volume items like navy modules and stuff there since they're so prolific
[ 2010.01.03 18:09:28 ] Song Li > [end]
[ 2010.01.03 18:09:30 ] ElvenLord > Helen Highwater go
[ 2010.01.03 18:09:43 ] Helen Highwater > Just to clarify, I don't have a problem with faction stuff on the market, just pointing out the consequences of it.[end]
[ 2010.01.03 18:09:57 ] Song Li > !
[ 2010.01.03 18:10:02 ] ElvenLord > Song Li go
[ 2010.01.03 18:10:13 ] Song Li > Those are oportunities, not consequences ;-0
[ 2010.01.03 18:10:17 ] Song Li > ;-) [end]
[ 2010.01.03 18:10:37 ] T'Amber > !
[ 2010.01.03 18:10:42 ] ElvenLord > T'Amber go
[ 2010.01.03 18:10:56 ] T'Amber > Vote to brind it up with ccp and discuss their reasoning why this hasn't happened already.
[ 2010.01.03 18:11:07 ] T'Amber > there might be some design reason for the way it is
[ 2010.01.03 18:11:09 ] T'Amber > [end]
[ 2010.01.03 18:11:12 ] TeaDaze > +1 - so we can wrap up :P
[ 2010.01.03 18:11:19 ] T'Amber > *bring
[ 2010.01.03 18:12:09 ] ElvenLord > Lets vote on "discussing with CCP on Putting More Faction Items On Market depending on volume treshold ...", Y or N
[ 2010.01.03 18:12:11 ] ElvenLord > =====================================
[ 2010.01.03 18:12:15 ] Song Li > y
[ 2010.01.03 18:12:16 ] T'Amber > #Y
[ 2010.01.03 18:12:16 ] Z0D > y
[ 2010.01.03 18:12:18 ] Helen Highwater > y
[ 2010.01.03 18:12:19 ] ElvenLord > y
[ 2010.01.03 18:12:20 ] TeaDaze > y
[ 2010.01.03 18:12:24 ] Korvin > y
[ 2010.01.03 18:12:29 ] Sokratesz > y
[ 2010.01.03 18:12:40 ] ElvenLord > /emote slaps Zas
[ 2010.01.03 18:12:56 ] Zastrow > y
[ 2010.01.03 18:12:59 ] TeaDaze > Passed 9 for
[ 2010.01.03 18:13:39 ] ElvenLord > OK, anyone want to add anything more for this meeting or we can arrange the next one (with added reminder)?
[ 2010.01.03 18:13:55 ] Z0D > next meet time setup
[ 2010.01.03 18:13:59 ] Korvin > !
[ 2010.01.03 18:14:03 ] Zastrow > not so early next time x(
[ 2010.01.03 18:14:04 ] ElvenLord > Korvin go
[ 2010.01.03 18:14:18 ] T'Amber > ! Early its 7:15am :}
[ 2010.01.03 18:14:30 ] Korvin > the hybrid problem still can be brought to discussion with ccp?
[ 2010.01.03 18:14:39 ] TeaDaze > Not without another proposal
[ 2010.01.03 18:14:51 ] ElvenLord > yes if you make a new specific proposal
[ 2010.01.03 18:14:51 ] Z0D > enough Time for it Korvin
[ 2010.01.03 18:14:57 ] ElvenLord > about that
[ 2010.01.03 18:14:59 ] TeaDaze > Because you didn't actually explain what the problem was.
[ 2010.01.03 18:15:01 ] Korvin > ok
[ 2010.01.03 18:15:08 ] T'Amber > !
[ 2010.01.03 18:15:10 ] ElvenLord > we need to submit the list by 28th January
[ 2010.01.03 18:15:17 ] ElvenLord > T'Amber go
[ 2010.01.03 18:15:21 ] T'Amber > Is that the end date for new proposals?
[ 2010.01.03 18:15:33 ] T'Amber > I have reworked the blocklist idea and some others
[ 2010.01.03 18:15:33 ] Z0D > 30 days prior yes
[ 2010.01.03 18:15:37 ] Song Li > !
[ 2010.01.03 18:15:38 ] T'Amber > huh?
[ 2010.01.03 18:15:46 ] T'Amber > 30 days before you can include them? i thought it was 7
[ 2010.01.03 18:15:50 ] ElvenLord > by 28th January we need to have a list  of issues for discussion with them
[ 2010.01.03 18:15:56 ] TeaDaze > 7 for a meeting, 30 for the summit
[ 2010.01.03 18:16:08 ] T'Amber > Ah kk.
[ 2010.01.03 18:16:11 ] T'Amber > thx
[ 2010.01.03 18:16:12 ] ElvenLord > and list can contain only issues passed by this CSM
[ 2010.01.03 18:16:24 ] T'Amber > yup on it, i didnt know about the summit bit.
[ 2010.01.03 18:17:06 ] ElvenLord > SO I propose 2 meetings, one on 16th or 17th January for new issues (and amended ones from today) and 23-24th for voting on the list
[ 2010.01.03 18:17:29 ] Helen Highwater > I would prefer the 17th
[ 2010.01.03 18:17:34 ] T'Amber > 17th
[ 2010.01.03 18:17:39 ] Z0D > 17th
[ 2010.01.03 18:17:42 ] Sokratesz > same, 16th no good for me
[ 2010.01.03 18:17:54 ] Song Li > I"m good with the 17th
[ 2010.01.03 18:17:55 ] T'Amber > 16th so i have sock rat's vote
[ 2010.01.03 18:17:57 ] Z0D > (any time good for me)
[ 2010.01.03 18:17:59 ] T'Amber > ;)
[ 2010.01.03 18:18:03 ] Sokratesz > noooo
[ 2010.01.03 18:18:03 ] ElvenLord > ok so 17th lets say at 16:00?
[ 2010.01.03 18:18:17 ] Z0D > y
[ 2010.01.03 18:18:18 ] Song Li > 14:00 would be better for me
[ 2010.01.03 18:18:19 ] Sokratesz > y
[ 2010.01.03 18:18:23 ] Song Li > Same as today
[ 2010.01.03 18:18:45 ] ElvenLord > well it was a problem today to gett ppl in :P
[ 2010.01.03 18:18:46 ] T'Amber > 15:00
[ 2010.01.03 18:18:54 ] ElvenLord > we almost didnt get enough ppl on
[ 2010.01.03 18:19:09 ] ElvenLord > all OK with 15:00?
[ 2010.01.03 18:19:13 ] Song Li > yes
[ 2010.01.03 18:19:14 ] Helen Highwater > Makes no difference to me but Zas was pretty much not ok with starting that early and I'd guess Trzzbk too as he;s also US based
[ 2010.01.03 18:19:36 ] TeaDaze > but they are +3 or 4 hours from Song Li
[ 2010.01.03 18:19:41 ] Song Li > helen: They're east coast... 3 hours ahead of me.. it's middle mornding for them at that point
[ 2010.01.03 18:19:44 ] T'Amber > i am, but isnt the majority of members closer to us times?
[ 2010.01.03 18:20:10 ] Helen Highwater > We have 4 Euros 3 east coasters and 2 westerners iirc
[ 2010.01.03 18:20:13 ] Song Li > If I can make those times, they should easily be able to
[ 2010.01.03 18:20:30 ] Song Li > Who's the other PSTer?
[ 2010.01.03 18:20:39 ] Z0D > (drink less beer previous day) :)
[ 2010.01.03 18:20:42 ] Helen Highwater > I thought there were two
[ 2010.01.03 18:20:47 ] T'Amber > i think im the only one with major time difference and im not important so it doesnt matter X)
[ 2010.01.03 18:20:52 ] Helen Highwater > I may be wrong, I'm just going off memory
[ 2010.01.03 18:20:53 ] TeaDaze > Aww
[ 2010.01.03 18:21:01 ] Song Li > Pretty sure I'm the only 1
[ 2010.01.03 18:21:04 ] T'Amber > +12 GMT ftw!
[ 2010.01.03 18:21:20 ] ElvenLord > OK, next issue meeting is 17th January at 15:00 eve time, Topic list for CCP meeting is on 24th time tbd
[ 2010.01.03 18:21:25 ] Z0D > T'Amber you are almost on another planet...
[ 2010.01.03 18:21:33 ] ElvenLord > this meeting is over
[ 2010.01.03 18:21:36 ] ElvenLord > ======================================================