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

Meissa Anunthiel
Redshift Industrial
Rooks and Kings
Posted - 2009.06.09 13:31:00 - [31]
 

4. Logistic drones (Hull repair drones)
In raw text from: 2009.06.07 18:03:03

Vuk Lau introduced the issue.
No questions from anyone.
Issue passed (9 for, 0 against).
Dierdra added that real men hull tank, after all.

5. Change to Agro Mechanics Rep Outlaws
In raw text from: 2009.06.07 18:05:08

Larkonis introduced the issue.
Shatana agreed with Lark's issue.
Omber Zombie asked if one would get a GCC (Global Criminal Countdown) if the person one is repping incurs a GCC while being repped. Larkonis confirmed.
Erik suggested the auto-cycle should end in that case.
Larkonis pointed out that you normally get a little pop-up if you try to rep someone with a GCC.
Erik suggested the repper should have a way of avoiding acquiring a GCC in that situation.
Larkonis answered that it is currently already the case.

Vote passed (9 for, 0 against)

Meissa Anunthiel
Redshift Industrial
Rooks and Kings
Posted - 2009.06.09 13:32:00 - [32]
 

6. Factional Warfare Lag needs fixing now
In raw text from: 2009.06.07 18:15:14

Erik introduced the issue.
Issler stated that CCP knows lag needs fixing and that she doesn't see how bringin up lag related to FW makes any sense at all.
Meissa quoted CCP Wrangler and CCP RyanD's forum posts saying [paraphrased for the minutes] "we know, please don't bump, we'll let you know"
Omber Zombie asked how, other than whipping the coders, Erik expected CCP to fix this faster.
Erik replied that they had successfully adressed the lag in 0.0 on a much bigger scale.
Omber Zombie answered that this what a global system upgrade. To which Erik replied that it didn't work for FW systems.
Dierdra asked if the lag was specific to certain FW situations or if it was "regular lag" due to many people in the same place.
Larkonis stated that big 0.0 fights are easier to predict.
Issler answered that it hasn't been solved for 0.0 and that CCP is definately trying to improve it again.
Avalloc answered that the 0.0 lag was adressed by reinforcing nodes and that he imagined in FW systems are randomly lagged as blobs moved about.
Erik aknowledged CCP's aknowledgement of difficulties, but wants them to be more precise. He conceded to Lark and Avalloc that it may be a predictability issue.
Shatana noted that as lag was not predictable, it was hard to manage perfectly.
Erik said CCP has been posting "we are looking into it" for months and requested they be more specific.
Dierdra asked if Erik would like to adjust his issue to ask CCP where they are in terms of FW lag investigation as opposed to asking them to boost their effort in that area.
Erik said he would like CCP to be more specific. He mentioned that the emotions are high because CCP does explain why there's no fix, after months of trying.
Dierdra mentionned that he can support the reworded issue.
Issler wondered what Erik was expecting, as any further info would get seriously technical.
Omber said that CCP already stated they're working on it. Oz also wondered how would the CSM asking cause a different answer than the one they're already giving.
Erik replied that CCP has been more precise in other areas, that there's no reason they can't here.
Omber Zombie asked wether Erik had considered the possibility CCP might not have figured the problem yet.
Erik answered that the CSM asking would be a nice hint to CCP to increase their effort, although he was not litterally asking for that.
Meissa provided exemples of technical answers that wouldn't help at all and restated his point that the devs have already said on multiple occasions that they're aware of the problem and expressed his opinion that harassing them won't provide a faster solution.
Vuk agrees that FW needs some love, but agrees with Oz that this issue is pointless. He would however be happy to vote on a general FW issue as Oz did for the industry expansion.
Dierdra said that requests have resulted in more elaborate explanations in the past and that he sees supports asking CCP for more information. Dierdra further explained that the frustration comes from the lack of communication as it is just a matter of people not liking being ignored.
Erik thinks it's valid for the CSM to ask if the forum didn't bring the desired responses.
Meissa expressed his opinion that saying people are ignored is stupid as the numerous devs replies on the forum attest to the contrary.
Issler noted that any answer CCP might give right now wouldn't make any sense to someone who's not a software engineer with knowledge of how eve is implemented, and as such would be of little value.
Erik explained that it was more a matter of CSM sending a signal that something in FW isn't right more than a technical explanation.
Issler didn't think the CSM needed to signal CCP about FW.

Issue failed ( 5 against, 4 for: Erik, Dierdra, Meissa, Oz).

Meissa Anunthiel
Redshift Industrial
Rooks and Kings
Posted - 2009.06.09 13:33:00 - [33]
 

7. Reroll Default Overview Settings to Pre Apoc 1.2
In raw text from: 2009.06.07 18:45:52

Larkonis introduced the issue.
Meissa agreed with the proposal but was unsure about the blinky part as it now clearly states someone who will shoot you (blinky) vs someone you can shoot at (red, blinky or not).
Larkonis answered that the blinky part was a question of pride for the outlaws.
Dierdra agreed with some changes to the default on the basis that it is harder for newbies to identify threats now, and that he loves his newbies and wants to keep them safe..ish.
Meissa and Larkonis argued a tiny bit more on the blinky part without exactly adding new elements.
Issue passed unanimously.

8.Give Assault Frigates a 4th Bonus
In raw text from: 2009.06.07 18:56:50

Erik introduced the issue.
Omber Zombie agreed they definately need to be looked at, but is unsure the examples given are required.
Dierdra asked how many needed rebalancing. He pointed out that the ishkur was already pretty good and that the AFs should be boosted because they're not good enough, not because all the other T2 ships have 4 bonuses. Shatana agreed.
Erik agreed that he was uneasy about that argument and that we should focus on putting them in the right line of power with other T2 ships.
Larkonis agreed that most of the AFs need a little buff and that a 4th bonus shouldn't be added for the sake of adding one.
Vuk added that beside missing a 4th bonus, AFs are suffering from a crapy slot layout that make tanking them passively or actively a difficult thing, concluding that a role bonus of -50% cap reduction on reppers would be a viable bonus for AFs.
Erik answered that he didn't think we need to point out exactly the details on how to boost the AFs. Vuk agreed.
Dierdra expressed his support for the issue since AFs seem a bit underpowered and that they need to be brought in line with other T2 ships, but not necessarily focusing on a 4th bonus.
Shatana said a general look at the AFs was a good idea.
Meissa agreed with Dierdra, and replied to Vuk that speed tanking the AFs was also somewhat of an option.
Oz agreed with Dierdra

Motion passed unanimously.

Meissa Anunthiel
Redshift Industrial
Rooks and Kings
Posted - 2009.06.09 13:34:00 - [34]
 

9. Factional Warfare Wardec Mechanic
In raw text from: 2009.06.07 19:14:40

Oz mentionned that this proposal could be exploitable thusly: 1. i make an alt corp, 2. I join militia with alt corp. 3 my main corp wardecs alt corp, 4. militia gets a free wardec back on my corp. 5. i just got to wardec most of a militia for the cost of wardeccing a single corp.
Larkonis answered that the offer was only for corps who wanted to and not automated.
Meissa didn't see why they should have a common front, further stating that one corp wardeccing a FW corp would end up facing 10 or 15 with no associated cost to the other FW corps, and that nobody else gets free wardecs when their friends get one.
Larkonis answered that if the attacker doesn't expect more counter-dec, it only means the attacker should have done a more thorough homework, and that there is no guarantee a corp will receive help. He also added that the agressor can always retreat.
Dierdra requested clarification. He also believes a free war not to be right, although a reduction of the cost may be acceptable, regardless of the fact that the base fees are too low, in his opinion.
Larkonis explained that the proposal can be summarized as: "Corp A wardecs Militia corp (corp M), all other militia corps get a counter dec, either for free or at base cost. Corp M decs corp A, this option is not available to corps within corp M's militia".
Meissa pointed out that any reduction in cost increases the odds of counter decs, and that the attacker decided to dec one corp, not one + some.
Shatana didn't think FW members should get free wardecs.
Dierdra asked if the "free dec" part would be removed from the proposal.
Larkonis agreed and pointed out that this is merely a way to allow militia corps an easier means to render aid to their fellow militia mates.
Meissa replied that the normal wardec fees were surely not too much to ask in order to help such good militia mates.
Larkonis stated once more that the costs quickly add up for all parties involved.
Dierdra suggested the focus be put more on the spirit of the proposal rather than a specific implementation. He was also inclined to agree with Meissa, saying that the increased fee is minimal, with the exception of an alliance wardeccing a FW corp.
Larkonis answered that the costs rises by 2 mil for each beligerent involved, and that if 20 corps were to counter dec, the bill would be 40 mil, with was significant albeit not a huge amount.

Motion failed (7 against, 2 for: Larkonis and Erik Finnegan)

10. The new L4 Agents - Wrong Approach
In raw text from: 2009.06.07 19:38:40

Erik introduced the issue.
Dierdra asked wether the proposal was a request to change/revert the current agent additions. Erik answered negatively, that it was more to add agents, but to the right side.
Avalloc said that according to the forum post, Ankhe wanted 23 new L4 agents for each non-caldari faction, something he was not to keen on.
Dierdra reminded that the CSM is voting on the wiki issue, not the forum thread.
Erik said that the details would be left to CCP, but that the other factions were kinda forgotten.
Meissa believed the agent change was because caldari agents hubs are overcrowded, a problem less significant for other factions. He added that more L4 agents for the other factions would be nice.
Dierdra commented that the issue seemed to lump together a number of issues that all have a common root cause (the nature of which was not explained in his message). He suggested it be explained better in the issue description.
Omber Zombie explained that the change was to spread the system load, and that it worked. Adding that while more agents for all factions would be nice, the agent system as a whole needs revision.
Erik agreed that the bundling of these issues might not be good. He asked wether he could withdraw the issue to split and rephrase and bring back later for a vote.

Chairman agreed, the issue was therefore withdrawn by Erik.

Meissa Anunthiel
Redshift Industrial
Rooks and Kings
Posted - 2009.06.09 13:34:00 - [35]
 

11. Sentry gun aggression and Drones
In raw text from: 2009.06.07 19:49:27

Larkonis introduced the issue.
Issler didn't think leaving people to fight at the gates longer was the way to go, adding that gate guns need to be buffed as being able to permanently tank sentry guns was never intended.
Larkonis replied that 90% of the fights occur at the gates, and that players tanking sentry guns was not the issue, except insofar as sentries not shooting drones would actually increased DPS on players.
Omber Zombie asked how this would prevent him from tanking a sentry in highsec and using his drones to kill someone before concord arrives.
Larkonis explained that sentries work on a 30 seconds cycle and that the agressing ship will always take the first cycle and since concord shows up well within 30 seconds even in 0.5, drones are never primarily agressed by sentries in highsec.
Meissa agreed with Larkonis that fight occur at gates and that he didn't want gate guns to be boosted. Sentries not shooting drones would add more variety and he therefore supported the proposal of making drones immune on the condition that ships are available in range to be shot at.
Dierdra disagreed with Issler, also stating that fight occur at gates. He expressed his concern that this technique could be exploited, particularly in highsec with drone suicide ganks.
Larkonis answered that concord disables the drones as well as the aggressor ship.
Issler continued on her point that gate guns are, in her opinion, a joke, leading to perma-camped gates.
Larkonis replied that operating under sentries will be unchanged and that anyone knowing what he's doing can get any ship through a lowsec camp.
Erik liked that the proposal fosters diversity in lowsec fights, an aspect on which he agreed with Meissa. He added that Gate camps are a seprate issue.

Motion passed (5 for, 4 against: Issler, Zastrow, Vuk, Omber Zombie)

Other Business

General chatter ensued about the time of the next meeting (which was agreed to be on June 21st), reporting on issue passing/failing during the meeting and the NDA coverage status of discussion with former CSM members.

Treelox
Posted - 2009.06.09 13:42:00 - [36]
 

thank you for the minutes, Meissa Anunthiel



Phantom Slave
Universal Pest Exterminators
Posted - 2009.06.09 16:41:00 - [37]
 

Woot thanks Meissa! I was really interested in the Assault Frig discussion and the Industry expansion (or lack thereof). Appreciate the work you all do!

Nur AlHuda
Amarr
Callide Vulpis
Posted - 2009.06.10 08:13:00 - [38]
 

The meeting regarding FW is such a fail i cant even describe it.

With such approach ccp doesnt need to bother fixing anythink FW related and will spam new content as there would be no tommorow.

Its like if i call a support and ask them what they will do with my problem and they say they are aware of that problem but not will give any explanation for a year.


Sappho Ajhannis
Sebiestor Tribe
Posted - 2009.06.10 14:07:00 - [39]
 

Seems any issue raised related to FW is gonna get nuked by this CSM. Ho hum.

Kuluskitur
Dominion Experiments
Posted - 2009.06.10 16:37:00 - [40]
 

3/3 FW issues voted down, wth?! One sad puppy here. Neutral

Dex Nederland
Caldari
Lai Dai Infinity Systems
Posted - 2009.06.10 17:13:00 - [41]
 

Originally by: Kuluskitur
3/3 FW issues voted down, wth?! One sad puppy here. Neutral

From the notes it seems like they don't understand the issues.

Originally by:
He was also inclined to agree with Meissa, saying that the increased fee is minimal, with the exception of an alliance wardeccing a FW corp.
Considering the idea/discussion was originally presented by a member of an alliance that is wardeccing multiple FW corporations and has been for over a year, it seems prudent to present the issue to CCP.

There is also the fact that while alliances are unable to join FW, some of the mutual defense advantages of an alliance should be confered to the faction aligned corporations. Even if this is a replying wardec at a set cost it would go a long way in providing that mutual defense aspect to the factions that alliances provide.

Quote:
Avalloc answered that the 0.0 lag was adressed by reinforcing nodes and that he imagined in FW systems are randomly lagged as blobs moved about.
Erik aknowledged CCP's aknowledgement of difficulties, but wants them to be more precise. He conceded to Lark and Avalloc that it may be a predictability issue.
Except it may not be as difficult as opponents are making it out to be and we aren't talking about fleets of 100s but rather fleets numbering in the 20-30s. Reinforcing constellations that are close to having their bunkers vulnerable, reinforcing the OMS-Tama corridor, all these things are either predictable or known events, regular events.


In general the idea that "CCP is aware of it, so we shouldn't bring it up" is a bad policy. CCP maybe aware of the issue, but CCP asks the player base to official raise issues through the CSM. The CSM rejecting issues based on CCP awareness means that the official line of communication between the players and CCP is not functioning.

Nebulaeus Moonstalker
Posted - 2009.06.10 18:11:00 - [42]
 

i was expecting more from ccp and the csm on the fw issues. it seems that they don't want to address it in the csm so they will use lame adminstrative and protocol tactics to avoid answering.

sounds to me that ccp have nothing planned and don't want to come out and say that for fear of losing subs.

Kane Starkiller
Minmatar
Posted - 2009.06.10 19:13:00 - [43]
 

Edited by: Kane Starkiller on 10/06/2009 19:28:29
FW abandoned yet again, Big surprise there. The longer I play the more I see the worthless atributes of EVE getting buffed and the fun being nerfed.

edit -->
Let's say you bought a car, this car was broken from day one. You took it to the mechanic and get promised that he is 'working on it'. Well he's been ****ing working on it for the past year with no updates.

You wouldn't get ****ed? C'mon people, get off your carebear asses and keep FW alive for all of us in it.

Meissa Anunthiel
Redshift Industrial
Rooks and Kings
Posted - 2009.06.10 19:31:00 - [44]
 

Originally by: Nebulaeus Moonstalker
i was expecting more from ccp and the csm on the fw issues. it seems that they don't want to address it in the csm so they will use lame adminstrative and protocol tactics to avoid answering.

sounds to me that ccp have nothing planned and don't want to come out and say that for fear of losing subs.


Just a note. CCP doesn't see the issues presented to the CSM directly. We assemble issues that passed (the ones we're voting on at the moment) and present them to CCP once every 2 months. CCP then gives an answer. As such bundling CCP and the CSM in this criticism is not correct.
As far as CCP's plans are concerned, we will probably learn more in the first CSM/CCP meeting, until then we rely on the dev blogs and forum posts like you.

Now, replying as myself:
As for the disapointment on FW issues, the "FW wardec fee" issue was a matter of opinion and not really an improvement on FW per se. The majority of the CSM disagreed with the proposal. It was more about wardecs than about FW anyway.

I can only recommend you read the other 2 proposals. The first one was "give FW a higher priority". Different people have different priorities. FW, as far as *I* am concerned, does not have a higher priority than other topics. We tried to have the champion of the issue to rephrase his proposal as a discussion on the FW developments, which a few more would have approved. He didn't, the proposal thus didn't pass.

The last FW was about the FW lag. I believe bug reports should be handled through the bug reports. Personally, I think that raising bug reports through the CSM is appropriate if:
- CCP doesn't aknowledge the issue on the forum.
- CCP doesn't display any veleity of fixing the problem.
- The problem is of a large enough scale that it seriously hampers play.

For the FW lag, I counted at least 8 dev answers on the subject, all of which state that they are ALREADY working on fixing the problem. I'll thus repeat here what others have said during the discussion. Imagine the issued had passed, we see CCP and tell them "ok, FW lag is an issue".
What, other than what they are already doing, do you want them to say/do? They said they don't know exactly where the issue is, they said they're already working on a fix. What more do you want?

Sun Clausewitz
Posted - 2009.06.10 19:49:00 - [45]
 

/me jots down notes to prepare for next CSM campaign season

Hurtado Soneka
Caldari
Vindicare Temple
Posted - 2009.06.10 19:54:00 - [46]
 

well played CSM you have failed yet again Rolling Eyes

Dex Nederland
Caldari
Lai Dai Infinity Systems
Posted - 2009.06.10 20:24:00 - [47]
 

Originally by: Meissa Anunthiel
As for the disapointment on FW issues, the "FW wardec fee" issue was a matter of opinion and not really an improvement on FW per se. The majority of the CSM disagreed with the proposal. It was more about wardecs than about FW anyway.

I disagree entirely, it is a FW issue and is very much related to the general issue of "Improvements to Factional Warfare".

It is about what are the 4 Factions (Amarr Empire, Caldari State, Gallente Federation, and Minmatar Republic) that the corporations joining factional warfare become part of.

When you look at a corporation that is part of factional warfare it is a member of one of these Factions (the Faction's corporation list isn't dynamic, perhaps it should be), just like a corporation in an alliance. However the corporations in an alliance recieve a protection from a direct war declaration - a corporation or alliance can not choose to target a particular corporation within an alliance.

While I agree I don't think joining Factional Warfare should provide a corporation with freedom from outside wardecs, it should recieve some benefit from joining a larger group of corporations.

At the same time it has been said that Factions ~= Alliances and thus Alliances should not be allowed to join Factions. This argument ignores that the benefits of joining an NPC Faction are much less than joining a PC Alliance - 2 constant wardecs, opportunity to particpate in CTF Skirmish warfare, gain faction standing faster. A PC Alliance however provides individual corporate protection from wardecs, alliance level standings, ability to claim 0.0 space, party to any and all wardecs the alliance is part of, multitude of warfare styles dependent on alliance goals (except CTF wafare).

This question of "What are the Factions?" is a critical component of the FW mechanics and answering it answers questions that have been asked for more than a year like:
- Should alliances get to join FW?
- If you want to wardec a FW corp, what responses are available to the defenders and their allies? Can you even target the FW corp directly or do you have to target the Faction as a whole? (I suspect Star Fraction would love to be able to just wardec whole Factions.)
- Should factions be able to claim 0.0 sovreignty through their FW corps? (Would CVA & AM disband and join the Empire wholesale, to create a true Imperial Providence? What about EM & U'K?)

These go right into Factional Warfare Improvements discussion that was turned down based on interpertation of the document provided by a single individual and not a general FW/RP community desire to provide feedback via the CSM to CCP on a desire to see changes in what many feel is their preferred endgame.

Raimo
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
Posted - 2009.06.10 20:58:00 - [48]
 

Edited by: Raimo on 10/06/2009 21:09:08

Originally by: Meissa Anunthiel

The last FW was about the FW lag. I believe bug reports should be handled through the bug reports. Personally, I think that raising bug reports through the CSM is appropriate if:
- CCP doesn't aknowledge the issue on the forum.
- CCP doesn't display any veleity of fixing the problem.
- The problem is of a large enough scale that it seriously hampers play.

For the FW lag, I counted at least 8 dev answers on the subject, all of which state that they are ALREADY working on fixing the problem. I'll thus repeat here what others have said during the discussion. Imagine the issued had passed, we see CCP and tell them "ok, FW lag is an issue".
What, other than what they are already doing, do you want them to say/do? They said they don't know exactly where the issue is, they said they're already working on a fix. What more do you want?


Bolded the 2 important bits to you. Yes, CCP has investigated the issue, they have asked for logserver files, the corporation PERVS even organized an arranged blobfest fight between the factions that (I think) CCP observed...

Yet, several months later the issue persists. No updates on their progress have come in a *long* time.

For an example as it stands now, our corp is nearly unable to use RR battleships in a gang of 10-20 (Our maximum gang size) facing anything more then 20 opponents. We love to be outnumbered but if the number difference is too great (opponents have 3 times our numbers etc) we need RR and other super-effective tactics, currently they just don't work most of the time because of the lag.

Also, there is a "session change" bug associated with this lag that seems to be pretty unique to FW (Though it was seen in one of PL's 0.0 videos but from what I've come to understand it's not common at all in 0.0)

Hmm. 0.0 can have a couple of reinforced nodes that support hundreds of players (or a thousand?) fighting. Can FW have *ONE* such node to itself? All we would need is 5-15 systems that can support 50 players fighting after all... Not asking much is it?

To reiterate, we're talking about lag that's *horrible* with 30-40 people on grid and nobody else in system. Is that acceptable?

I sincerely wish that you get your act together soon, CSM.

(Props to Larkonis and *Gasp* Erik for this round)

Edit: added a bit

Meissa Anunthiel
Redshift Industrial
Rooks and Kings
Posted - 2009.06.10 20:58:00 - [49]
 

Edited by: Meissa Anunthiel on 10/06/2009 21:02:11
Originally by: Dex Nederland
Originally by: Meissa Anunthiel
As for the disapointment on FW issues, the "FW wardec fee" issue was a matter of opinion and not really an improvement on FW per se. The majority of the CSM disagreed with the proposal. It was more about wardecs than about FW anyway.

I disagree entirely, it is a FW issue and is very much related to the general issue of "Improvements to Factional Warfare".


That's why I said it's a matter of opinion. It's about wardecs as it pertains to FW corps. How would you have reacted to a similar proposal about "every industrialist corp should have free wardecs if one of them get decced" or "Every corporation living in lowsec Metropolis gets free wardec if one of them get decced".
It's about wardecs as it pertains to a certain group of corps who happen to otherwise have a similar objective.

Originally by: Dex Nederland
At the same time it has been said that Factions ~= Alliances and thus Alliances should not be allowed to join Factions.
CCP already agreed to this. Point is moot.

Originally by: Dex Nederland
These go right into Factional Warfare Improvements discussion that was turned down based on interpertation of the document provided by a single individual and not a general FW/RP community desire to provide feedback via the CSM to CCP on a desire to see changes in what many feel is their preferred endgame.

It doesn't, it was specifically asked of the CSM rep who raised the issue if it was a general FW improvement issue/discussion or something else, after that document had been discared from the proposal. He answered that it was about increasing the priority of FW development. While nearly everyone (myself included) in the CSM believed FW needs some improvement, only one in nine believed it should be given precedence over other issues. That's the reason the proposal failed, not because everyone in the CSM secretely hates FW and everyone who takes part in it.

The problem with this first meeting, as far as FW is concerned, was that the 2 out of 3 FW proposals were poorly worded/presented/defended. The FW corp wardec issue was a very valid one, that I happened to disagree with, but a valid one nonetheless.

Don't worry too much, I'm certain there will be better FW proposals in the following meetings.

Raimo
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
Posted - 2009.06.10 21:05:00 - [50]
 

Originally by: Meissa Anunthiel
Edited by: Meissa Anunthiel on 10/06/2009 21:02:11
Originally by: Dex Nederland
Originally by: Meissa Anunthiel
As for the disapointment on FW issues, the "FW wardec fee" issue was a matter of opinion and not really an improvement on FW per se. The majority of the CSM disagreed with the proposal. It was more about wardecs than about FW anyway.

I disagree entirely, it is a FW issue and is very much related to the general issue of "Improvements to Factional Warfare".


That's why I said it's a matter of opinion. It's about wardecs as it pertains to FW corps. How would you have reacted to a similar proposal about "every industrialist corp should have free wardecs if one of them get decced" or "Every corporation living in lowsec Metropolis gets free wardec if one of them get decced".
It's about wardecs as it pertains to a certain group of corps who happen to otherwise have a similar objective.



Do all industrialist corps share blue standings between each other and do they *all* have a wardec on 2 "alliances" in common?

I thought not.

Seriously flawed analogies FTL.

Dex Nederland
Caldari
Lai Dai Infinity Systems
Posted - 2009.06.10 21:45:00 - [51]
 

Originally by: Meissa Anunthiel
Edited by: Meissa Anunthiel on 10/06/2009 21:02:11
Originally by: Dex Nederland
Originally by: Meissa Anunthiel
As for the disapointment on FW issues, the "FW wardec fee" issue was a matter of opinion and not really an improvement on FW per se. The majority of the CSM disagreed with the proposal. It was more about wardecs than about FW anyway.

I disagree entirely, it is a FW issue and is very much related to the general issue of "Improvements to Factional Warfare".


That's why I said it's a matter of opinion. It's about wardecs as it pertains to FW corps. How would you have reacted to a similar proposal about "every industrialist corp should have free wardecs if one of them get decced" or "Every corporation living in lowsec Metropolis gets free wardec if one of them get decced".
It's about wardecs as it pertains to a certain group of corps who happen to otherwise have a similar objective.
If every industrialist corporation joined the same alliance, all the corporations in the alliance would be party to the wardec if one of them was wardeced. If every corportion living in lowsec Metropolis joined the same alliance, all the corporations in the alliance would be party to the wardec.

Every corporation joining the Gallente Federation Faction/Alliance is not party to the wardecs of the other corporations in the Gallente Federation Faction/Alliance.

Is GOONS or MM or AAA not a certain group of corps who happen to otherwise have similar objectives? How do wardecs pertain to them?

There would also be a downside to being 'afforded' the protection of joining an NPC Faction/Alliance, no PC corporation is an executor corporation and thus no PC corporation can declare war on the part of the Faction/Alliance. No offensive war declarations on the part of anyone joining NPC Factions/Alliances.

Originally by: Meissa Anunthiel
Originally by: Dex Nederland
At the same time it has been said that Factions ~= Alliances and thus Alliances should not be allowed to join Factions.
CCP already agreed to this. Point is moot.

No, the point is not moot. If it is CCP's position that PC Alliances can not join NPC Factions because NPC Factions are analogous to PC Alliances; it should follow that the PC corporations that are part of the NPC Factions should be afforded similar opportunities to aid the corporations within their Faction that those in an Alliance are.

You are arguing that in one case Factions are not Alliances and in the other that Factions are Alliances. Choose one or the other.

Merdaneth
Amarr
Defensores Fidei
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
Posted - 2009.06.10 22:20:00 - [52]
 

My impression of the voting against the FW issues seemed that some CSM members didn't know or didn't care.

Also, my impression was that there was considerable agitation against the FW issues raised by some CSM members. Either they had their minds made up already, and were unwilling to listen to arguments, or they felt somehow insulted in the manner that the issues were raised.

That is of course entirely possible. I'll be contacting CSM members personally if I can and they are willing to try and understand this agitation and real reasons for voting so harsh against it. The reasons stated here seem to omit vital info.

Meridius Dex
Amarr
24th Imperial Crusade
Posted - 2009.06.10 23:01:00 - [53]
 

(Sigh) I knew going into the elections for this CSM that those of us languishing in the CCP ghetto of Faction Warfare would continue to be utterly neglected. Between the empire carebears and 0.0 nullsuckers, this CSM will certainly be dedicated to deriding any and all attention that might be brought to facwar and its utterly sorry state.

Ankhesentapemkah
Gallente
Posted - 2009.06.10 23:52:00 - [54]
 

Edited by: Ankhesentapemkah on 11/06/2009 00:25:41

Originally by: Meissa Anunthiel

On FW lag:

- CCP doesn't display any veleity of fixing the problem.

Check.

Originally by: Meissa Anunthiel
- The problem is of a large enough scale that it seriously hampers play.

Check.

Originally by: Meissa Anunthiel
For the FW lag, I counted at least 8 dev answers on the subject, all of which state that they are ALREADY working on fixing the problem.

They've been saying Soon(TM) for the past 6 months now, just like they've been saying that Alliances in FW would be introduced in Empyrean Age 1.2, no wait, somewhere in October, before QR, in QR, Q1 2009, very Soon(TM) after Apocrypha...... It's typical for CCP to either ignore FW issues completely or give them such a low priority that they never get assigned a slot to be implemented as there is always something else bumping it from the to-do list.

Cloak exploit anyone?

Originally by: Meissa
What, other than what they are already doing, do you want them to say/do? They said they don't know exactly where the issue is, they said they're already working on a fix. What more do you want?


The CSM going up there and saying that the players are unhappy with the way CCP has dealt with the problem so far and are seriously concerned, and asking CCP to make some commitments to this issue.

Originally by: Meissa

It doesn't, it was specifically asked of the CSM rep who raised the issue if it was a general FW improvement issue/discussion or something else, after that document had been discared from the proposal. He answered that it was about increasing the priority of FW development. While nearly everyone (myself included) in the CSM believed FW needs some improvement, only one in nine believed it should be given precedence over other issues.

Given a higher priority =/= taking a precedence over other issues. Since Apoc, CCP has split its organisation into many different teams and can thus work on multiple aspects of the game in parallel. FW has been out for exactly one year now, yet nothing in the slightest has been done to make any kind of improvements whatsoever. Instead CCP decided to work on crappy features which noone asked for: such as COMBAT SIMULATORS, and tossed all that work into the garbage bin. I have a problem with a non-issue like combat simulators having a higher priority than fixing some outstanding FW issues.

Originally by: Meissa
The FW corp wardec issue was a very valid one, that I happened to disagree with, but a valid one nonetheless.

Just one thing here, not criticizing, but I've voted in favor of issues I personally disagreed with, just because they are a valid concern from the playerbase which I deemed worthy of discussing with CCP. Just like my documents often have multiple perspectives, which I do not necessarily agree with. To be specific, when I brought up the mission topic, it also included a part which said that there are players that believe all L4s should be moved out of highsec. I don't agree with that position, but I understand where that type of player comes from and thought it was worthy to discuss with CCP.

Issler Dainze
Minmatar
Tadakastu-Obata Corporation
The Honda Accord
Posted - 2009.06.11 06:39:00 - [55]
 

So I think the CSM do realize that FW is not complete and needs some attention. However this CSM clearly understands that this could be said about a lot of Eve. A number of things have been introduced that are not "complete" in terms of the intended experience. A lot of those predate FW. So I think the CSM is saying with their votes "FW, we love you but get in line behind all the stuff that needs that CCP luvin before you".

Sorry to everyone that doesn't realize there is more to Eve than FW,

Issler (who clearly will never get a FW vote if she ever runs again)


Ziriko Keplit
Posted - 2009.06.11 07:40:00 - [56]
 

Edited by: Ziriko Keplit on 11/06/2009 08:13:15
CSM failed.

Obviosully You did not get that simple fact CSM are NOT supposed bring up only those questions that is important for CSM members. CSM is NOT your private high priority whining chamber.

Reason why FW was ignored on CSM is obvious - none of you are interested in it (except maybe Ankh). Classical case of dirty scambags who gets power only to use it for getting all goodies to themselves.

All 3 FW problems that was mentioned are very serious and must be brought up now.

You are pathetic.

P.S. Lets hope on next voting FW people will be more active and will remeber you and what you did ("did NOT" to be exact).

Dierdra Vaal
Caldari
Veto.
Veto Corp
Posted - 2009.06.11 08:36:00 - [57]
 

Edited by: Dierdra Vaal on 11/06/2009 11:55:43
to everyone who is unhappy with the FW issue voting results - sorry but Eve is more than just FW. Sure its not perfect, but other areas have just as many - if not more - problems. So ya, we didnt agree with a blanket 'higher development priority' for FW. Dont accuse us of only looking out for ourselves while demanding a higher development commitment to the small part of Eve you happen to play; you're doing exactly what you're accusing us of.

And while I personally wouldnt have minded asking CCP about the FW lag, it is likely that there wouldnt be much news on it. Reserve your judgement of this CSM for the end of the CSM term.

Morphisat
Hidden Agenda
Deep Space Engineering
Posted - 2009.06.11 12:15:00 - [58]
 

Originally by: Dierdra Vaal
Edited by: Dierdra Vaal on 11/06/2009 11:55:43
to everyone who is unhappy with the FW issue voting results - sorry but Eve is more than just FW. Sure its not perfect, but other areas have just as many - if not more - problems. So ya, we didnt agree with a blanket 'higher development priority' for FW. Dont accuse us of only looking out for ourselves while demanding a higher development commitment to the small part of Eve you happen to play; you're doing exactly what you're accusing us of.


Looks like most CSM members have no clue about FW. Also hull repper drones ??? Why is this even an issue on the list ? Of all things in eve that are broken / need to be looked at I'd say that's not even on the list ... Aren't ther more important issues to discuss ? Makes me wonder why I even bothered voting.

David Caldera
Gallente
Strix Armaments and Defence
Posted - 2009.06.11 12:57:00 - [59]
 

Originally by: Dierdra Vaal
Edited by: Dierdra Vaal on 11/06/2009 11:55:43
to everyone who is unhappy with the FW issue voting results - sorry but Eve is more than just FW. Sure its not perfect, but other areas have just as many - if not more - problems. So ya, we didnt agree with a blanket 'higher development priority' for FW. Dont accuse us of only looking out for ourselves while demanding a higher development commitment to the small part of Eve you happen to play; you're doing exactly what you're accusing us of.
With all due respect, your arguments makes little sense.

Firstly you'll find that most FW supporters don't claim that FW is the only thing that matters in EVE. Your seemingly accusing people that they think only FW needs attention. You'll find that if you talk to them this is not the case. In the same way I can start argueing that the CSM only considers 0.0 to be EVE, etc. As CSM you're supposed to be the communication bridge between us, the players, and CCP. Let's not dismiss valid arguments because you assume people think that's the only thing that matters.

All this however doesn't take away the simple fact that the entire mechanics behind FW are broken, and they have been for over a year now. No rewards, no lag fixing (and yes, the difference between 0.0 and FW is a bit strange considering how small FW battles are), bad plex spawn mechanics, risk of permanent standing destruction without compensation and still bugged with exploits such as cloaked plexing. FW has now come to full stop on the Gallente-Caldari front due to the capturing of all systems. How bad must it be before the CSM realises FW needs a bit of attention?

For a main feature from an expansion, that was presented as the best thing since sliced bread, you can't claim FW doesn't need to be looked at soon. It was even designed in an attempt to get people to PvP and fill low-sec. Regardless of whether it succeeded in doing that or not, it's a feature that was supposed to have an impact on the backstory and on players, forcing them to get into fights.

Will the CSM wait until FW is completely dead and then claim things are fixed, or will we finally get some attention to the matter, even if it's just a recent status update or a dev blog? Active FW players are disappearing left and right, and those who remain apparently can't scream hard enough in frustration for the CSM to realise how bad things are.

Raimo
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
Posted - 2009.06.11 13:28:00 - [60]
 

Edited by: Raimo on 11/06/2009 13:35:08

Originally by: Dierdra Vaal
Edited by: Dierdra Vaal on 11/06/2009 11:55:43
to everyone who is unhappy with the FW issue voting results - sorry but Eve is more than just FW. Sure its not perfect, but other areas have just as many - if not more - problems. So ya, we didnt agree with a blanket 'higher development priority' for FW. Dont accuse us of only looking out for ourselves while demanding a higher development commitment to the small part of Eve you happen to play; you're doing exactly what you're accusing us of.




14.076 players/ characters is "a small part of EVE"? (Number is current from the IC FW stats page)

The lag affects everyone of them, and it's not "normal" EVE lag.


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