open All Channels
seplocked Jita Park Speakers Corner
blankseplocked CSM3 meeting #2, Sunday June 7th 17:00
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2 3 4

Author Topic

Dierdra Vaal
Caldari
Veto.
Veto Corp
Posted - 2009.05.30 22:09:00 - [1]
 

Edited by: Dierdra Vaal on 11/06/2009 05:41:21
The first issues meeting of CSM3 on June 7th at 17:00.

Issue submission deadline will be June 6th 17:00

Items on the agenda:
1: Neutral alt repping (DV)
2: Factional Warfare, Lack of Development (Erik)
3: Industry Expansion (OZ)
4: Logistic drones (Hull repair drones) (Vuk)
5: Change to Agro Mechanics Rep Outlaws (Lark)
6: Faction Warfare lag needs fixing NOW (Erik)
7: Reroll Default Overview Settings to Pre Apoc 1.2 (Lark)
8: Give Assault Frigates a 4th Bonus (Erik)
9: Factional Warfare Wardec Mechanic (Lark)
10: The new L4 Agents - Wrong Approach (Erik)
11: Sentry gun aggression and Drones (Lark)

update: meeting minutes posted further down in this thread

Zastrow J
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2009.05.30 23:07:00 - [2]
 

!

Dierdra Vaal
Caldari
Veto.
Veto Corp
Posted - 2009.05.31 11:38:00 - [3]
 

Edited by: Dierdra Vaal on 31/05/2009 12:34:56
submitting the following items:

Neutral alt repping: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1076556

mazzilliu
Caldari
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2009.05.31 12:26:00 - [4]
 

Edited by: mazzilliu on 31/05/2009 12:33:26
how do you submit items, and how much support is the minimum before you can submit an item?

what if you want to make a minor change to the idea based on feedback in the original idea's thread? can you do that without having to gather support all over again?

EDIT: and how do you vote on issues that have multiple points that need debate and voting? i guess just vote on each sub-issue?

Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange
Nabaal Syndicate
Posted - 2009.05.31 13:01:00 - [5]
 

Originally by: mazzilliu
how do you submit items, and how much support is the minimum before you can submit an item?

what if you want to make a minor change to the idea based on feedback in the original idea's thread? can you do that without having to gather support all over again?

EDIT: and how do you vote on issues that have multiple points that need debate and voting? i guess just vote on each sub-issue?


You submit items via your internal email list or in this thread. There is no minimum support aside from your own judgment, but it has to be discussed for a week before it can be submitted. Minor changes are fine, whether they're intended as additional options or as amendments. Issues with multiple sub-topics are split if anyone in the meeting asks that they be split, though I suppose you could also split at submission time if you feel the need.

Erik Finnegan
Gallente
Polytechnique Gallenteenne
Posted - 2009.05.31 15:33:00 - [6]
 

Edited by: Erik Finnegan on 31/05/2009 18:30:41
Dierdra, please push these onto the agenda:

* Factional Warfare, Lack of Development
* Faction Warfare lag needs fixing NOW
* Give Assault Frigates a 4th Bonus
* The new L4 Agents - Wrong Approach

...and I so much want another font. ;)

mazzilliu
Caldari
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2009.05.31 15:40:00 - [7]
 

Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
Originally by: mazzilliu
how do you submit items, and how much support is the minimum before you can submit an item?

what if you want to make a minor change to the idea based on feedback in the original idea's thread? can you do that without having to gather support all over again?

EDIT: and how do you vote on issues that have multiple points that need debate and voting? i guess just vote on each sub-issue?


You submit items via your internal email list or in this thread. There is no minimum support aside from your own judgment, but it has to be discussed for a week before it can be submitted. Minor changes are fine, whether they're intended as additional options or as amendments. Issues with multiple sub-topics are split if anyone in the meeting asks that they be split, though I suppose you could also split at submission time if you feel the need.


ok cool, then here's the issues ill start with the first meeting. i think ill take it slow and put up two easy ones for the first day


http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1059463 - add a "can set standings" role for corps, rather then bundle the role with directorship

http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1058486 - solution to macro haulers

Omber Zombie
Gallente
Frontier Technologies
Posted - 2009.05.31 16:19:00 - [8]
 


Dierdra Vaal
Caldari
Veto.
Veto Corp
Posted - 2009.05.31 17:47:00 - [9]
 

Added the topic. atm I left off the eve font issue since that was voted through last april: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1042783

I'll add it if you really want it but I dont think its required to bring it up again 1 month after it was succesfully voted through.

Vuk Lau
4S Corporation
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2009.05.31 19:02:00 - [10]
 

Edited by: Vuk Lau on 06/06/2009 09:54:21
*Logistic drones (Hull repair drones)
-Wiki

Larkonis TrassIer
State Breast Inspectorate
Posted - 2009.05.31 21:53:00 - [11]
 


RedSplat
Posted - 2009.05.31 23:32:00 - [12]
 

Not much in the way of interest for people that don't have a + sec status there...

Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange
Nabaal Syndicate
Posted - 2009.06.01 00:55:00 - [13]
 

Originally by: RedSplat
Not much in the way of interest for people that don't have a + sec status there...


Yes, because carebears had one of their major groups fold because of the standings role being tied into directorships, and a Lark thread about outlaw aggro mechanics is bound to be something the +sec types will love.

Omber Zombie
Gallente
Frontier Technologies
Posted - 2009.06.01 05:48:00 - [14]
 

i guess this is going to be a very long meeting then Razz

Vuk Lau
4S Corporation
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2009.06.01 07:09:00 - [15]
 

Originally by: Omber Zombie
i guess this is going to be a very long meeting then Razz


I am looking forward to it ugh Prepare webcams

RedSplat
Posted - 2009.06.01 10:47:00 - [16]
 

Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
Originally by: RedSplat
Not much in the way of interest for people that don't have a + sec status there...


Yes, because carebears had one of their major groups fold because of the standings role being tied into directorships, and a Lark thread about outlaw aggro mechanics is bound to be something the +sec types will love.


Oh boy do we feel favored!Rolling Eyes

Wink

Zastrow J
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2009.06.01 20:58:00 - [17]
 

Originally by: Omber Zombie
i guess this is going to be a very long meeting then Razz


yea i got some things to talk about but i dont want it to get buried in the 200 topics of this first meeting so i'll wait for round 2

Becq Starforged
Minmatar Ship Construction Services
Ushra'Khan
Posted - 2009.06.01 23:51:00 - [18]
 

Edited by: Becq Starforged on 01/06/2009 23:51:49
(Edit: added link)

I'm still looking for an official response/update on this issue:
http://evajobse.net/csmwiki/index.php/Alliances_and_Factional_Warfare_pt3
Has one been given? If so, a link would be appreciated; if not, perhaps CSM could spend 30 seconds of the meeting to prompt CCP for one?

Thanks,

small chimp
Posted - 2009.06.02 16:23:00 - [19]
 

why not about t3 production bottlenecks?

Nooto
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2009.06.02 16:45:00 - [20]
 

Edited by: Nooto on 02/06/2009 16:51:16
.

mazzilliu
Caldari
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2009.06.03 13:37:00 - [21]
 

So, I just realized I have a conflict with this meeting date... I have family coming over this weekend, so probably 99% chance I won't make this meeting. Alts you better be sure to log on, and can you please not raise the issues I brought up in this thread if I don't come? I'll bring them up instead next meeting.

so, consider that your official notification that i won't be here. dunno if i'm supposed to send that warning to some GM's email or what as well.

Crucifier
Gank Bangers
Moar Tears
Posted - 2009.06.03 14:48:00 - [22]
 

Edited by: Crucifier on 03/06/2009 14:48:46

Solo Player
Posted - 2009.06.03 17:11:00 - [23]
 

Go Issler! :)

Does this mean the participating alternate can also add issues to be raised?

Dierdra Vaal
Caldari
Veto.
Veto Corp
Posted - 2009.06.03 18:29:00 - [24]
 

Originally by: mazzilliu
So, I just realized I have a conflict with this meeting date... I have family coming over this weekend, so probably 99% chance I won't make this meeting. Alts you better be sure to log on, and can you please not raise the issues I brought up in this thread if I don't come? I'll bring them up instead next meeting.

so, consider that your official notification that i won't be here. dunno if i'm supposed to send that warning to some GM's email or what as well.


updated and removed your issues :)

Dead6re
Amarr
Ministry of War
Posted - 2009.06.08 11:39:00 - [25]
 

Any minutes yet, I'm keen to see what was discussed.

Phantom Slave
Universal Pest Exterminators
Posted - 2009.06.08 18:19:00 - [26]
 

Originally by: small chimp
why not about t3 production bottlenecks?


New dev blog released today addresses some of the t3 bottlenecks.

Also, just curious as to how long it normally takes for meeting minutes to be released?

Meissa Anunthiel
Redshift Industrial
Rooks and Kings
Posted - 2009.06.08 18:49:00 - [27]
 

Originally by: Phantom Slave
Originally by: small chimp
why not about t3 production bottlenecks?


New dev blog released today addresses some of the t3 bottlenecks.

Also, just curious as to how long it normally takes for meeting minutes to be released?


I'm 50% done.

I have to clean the logs, prepare a readable version (reword), prepare for wikification, save in selected formats, upload, spell check and then I'll post. So most likely tomorrow, maybe today. Either way it should take less than 3 days.

Phantom Slave
Universal Pest Exterminators
Posted - 2009.06.08 19:27:00 - [28]
 

Thanks Meissa! I'll check back in a few days.

Meissa Anunthiel
Redshift Industrial
Rooks and Kings
Posted - 2009.06.09 13:28:00 - [29]
 

Download: PDF | raw log - txt
Saturday 30 May 2009

Present: Dierdra Vaal, Vuk Lau, Avalloc, Erik Finnegan, Larkonis Trassler, Meissa Anunthiel, Zastrow J, Omber Zombie, Issler Dainze, Serenity Steele, Shatana Fulfairas
Apologies: Mazzilliu

Sorry for the length, the meeting was very long and I couldn't abbreviate too much, especially this early in the CSM.


Dierdra reminded everyone to sign their NDA and to wikify their issues when submitting them to the agenda before the deadline. For clarity, he also repeated the guidelines on how meetings are conducted.

1. Remote Repping and Agression
In raw text from: 2009.06.07 17:08:14

Dierdra introduced the issue.
Larkonis said he was favorable to the proposal, as it would assist against remote repping neutrals who flee during engagements. He requested that the dock/jump timer be tied to the recipient of the remote rep.
Oz agreed with Larkonis, and requested that energy transfer be added to the list and that it starts a regular aggression timer instead of a "blanket" 1 minute timer.
Dierdra agreed to modify the proposal.
Erik liked the concept and the extension to all forms of assistance. Erik also requested that this issue be discussed at the same time as issue number 5.
Dierdra stated that, as the issues aren't directly related, they would stay separate.
Avalloc agreed with the proposal. He however requested that Outpost owner shouldn't get an aggression flag in this instance, as people repping station services would be prevented from docking again should hostiles decide to shoot at the service.
Dierdra objected that being shot doesn't incurr a dock/jump timer, only shooting back does.
Avalloc clarified his statement.
Dierdra considered it a good point that he would add.
Meissa requested clarification on Larkonis' request that the repper's timer be tied to that of the repped, objecting to either interpretation anyway.
Meissa also opposed Avalloc's suggestion on the ground that it would give the outpost owner free repping; something that isn't fair for the attacker.
Larkonis clarified that the aggro timer would only apply if the repped is agressed at that point, and as such does not give a disadvantage to outpost owners unless they have an aggression timer through other means. Dierdra agreed.
Dierdra mentionned that that is what he had in mind, but that he didn't want to do any nitpicking over details, prefering to mention the problem to CCP and let them come up with their own solution.
Vuk agreed with Meissa, stating that repping a station should incur aggro as well, clarifying as "remote modules should have the same status as offensive modules when it comes to aggro mechanics".
Serenity said that it will also affect the repping of POSes and asked how we wanted to rule if the only solution was of the form of "one size fits all".
Avalloc replied to Meissa that he didn't know wether CCP could code a very specific aggression system in, thereby requesting that 0.0 be exempt and stated again that people repping an outpost would be at the mercy of quick hostiles.
Meissa tried to clarify the issue by reformulating it as redefining an aggression act, as far as jumping/docking is concerned, to include "assisting someone with an aggression timer", with the same penalities.
Dierdra and Erik agreed with the redefinition.
Meissa replied to Avalloc that if there was [code for] an aggression timer for shooting Outpost modules, code to handle penalties for repping those modules should be of the same difficulty.
Dierdra clarified that the vote was on "on the remote boosting and aggression mechanic revision. (changes made due to the meeting: all forms of boosting are included). To clarify, this vote issue does not include an exception for 0.0 outposts".

Issue passed unanimously (9 for, 0 against)

Meissa Anunthiel
Redshift Industrial
Rooks and Kings
Posted - 2009.06.09 13:29:00 - [30]
 

2. Factional Warfare, Lack of Development
In raw text from: 2009.06.07 17:32:41

Erik introduced the issue.
Vuk asked if using Eva's document was something we can do [Note: the original proposal was changed to include a link to a word document that former CSM member Ankhe had redacted and privately sent to CCP]
Meissa stated that CCP had already aknowledged the issues presented in the proposal in CSM meeting 2.3 and that the proposal misrepresented CCP's stance on alliances in FW, as they had already accepted to make it possible for alliances to join FW.
Issler said that FW was just one of many things needing atttention, of no higher priority than others, adding that CCP is already aware of the points made and that escalation was unnecessary.
Omber Zombie had no issue asking "wtf is going on with FW" [sic] but was not sure that stating that they had broken a promise was correct, as they had already said they would do most of the things listed but hadn't given a timeline to their implementation.
Erik conceded that he might want to work on the phrasing, as it still carried "Ankhe's anger". Erik added he wants CCP to commit to something.
Vuk stated that the document included in the proposal would have to be removed, as it had not been presented publicly in the correct timeframe.
Meissa requested the proposal to be modified to be less whiney and presented in a less childish manner.
Erik stated he was not familiar with the proceedings and apologized for the mistake. Erik further asked wether Eva's document had been presented as part of a prior FW issue and as such was already public.
Omber Zombie answered he had never seen the document before, that it was sent directly to CCP and that, had he seen it before, he would have "ripped it to pieces".
Dierdra agreed with Omber Zombie, adding that it was fair to ask CCP about their plans for FW, and siding with Issler in stating that FW wasn't more important than other issues presented.
Serenity said that if issues are raised for which there is no specific communication, their relative priority in the product backlog should be requested.
Issler expressed her sadness that Ankhe sent the document without CSM review, further noting that the wording was unacceptable.
Erik conceded that we could not design the game for CCP and as a consequence he would skip Eva's document. He added that considering lag wasn't solved, this is a general issue. He also agreed with Serenity's suggestion, and what Meissa said.
Meissa stated that prioritization is done prior to the meeting with CCP, and that the discussion was on wether we wanted this particular topic adressed as presented.
Omber Zombie suggested changing the issue to request explanations as to where development of FW was, and when said developments would reach the game.
Dierdra requested that Erik clarifies what the CSM will vote on.
Erik asked if we can ask CCP to commit to anything.
Dierdra answered that we can ask, but they can deny the request.
Omber Zombie added that a request for information couldn't be avoided.
Erik restated the issue as "a request to give FW a higher priority"

The issue failed to pass (8 votes against, 1 for)

3. Industry Expansion

In raw text from: 2009.06.07 17:56:03
Omber Zombie introduced the issue.
Omber Zombie stated that despite the issue listing a few specifics, it was essentially an open question for CCP to answer.
Shatana, Meissa said they would love to see some effort in that direction, as the Industry Patch was overdue.
Issler added that mining really needs some love and as such, getting CCP to comment on the revamp is needed.
Dierdra agreed with everyone, since it is simply asking CCP for information, he has no problem supporting the motion.

Issue passed (8 for, Zastrow against [voted late])


Pages: [1] 2 3 4

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only