open All Channels
seplocked Jita Park Speakers Corner
blankseplocked What ever CSM addresses these 2 ships gets the vote of me and my alts
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Author Topic

bbtop
Triangular Initiative
STR8NGE BREW
Posted - 2011.03.02 20:48:00 - [1]
 

The Retribution and Coercer need a second mid slot. No discussion. CSM address this issue and you have all of my votes.

E man Industries
Posted - 2011.03.02 21:02:00 - [2]
 

1) I agree with you. Single mid slot is fail

2) Any CSM who promises this is an idiot.

CSM can't make balnket changes like this and any promise to do so illistrates they do not undestand how the CSM works.

Asking CSM views on ship balance and there general opinion on things may let you know who to vote for better.

Karadion
Posted - 2011.03.02 21:03:00 - [3]
 

Edited by: Karadion on 02/03/2011 21:03:48
Then you're asking the CSM candidates to promise you that they'll do this but they will never push what you want because that isn't their job.

OhThis GuyAgain
Posted - 2011.03.02 21:06:00 - [4]
 

Has anyone ever made "improving T1 Destroyers" part of their platform?

I dunno it just seems like they don't really have a place in Eve

Meissa Anunthiel
Redshift Industrial
Rooks and Kings
Posted - 2011.03.02 21:28:00 - [5]
 

I agree with you the Retribution and Coercer need some attention, as do the other dessies.

We have requested CCP puts this on the list of items to check for rebalancing during CSM 2 and 5. I believe it is likely to happen shortly, but can make no promise to that regard.

No CSM member, existing or candidate, can make promises about results, never ever. No more than any lobbyist can.

And never can we tell CCP "this needs an extra slot" or "it needs 5% more damage".
We tell them ship X needs some attention, we think it could use this or that.
Then they come back to us and tell us the outcome of their evaluation, we give our feedback on what they have in mind suffices or not, and we take it from there.

So, yes, they need attention. Will that attention take the form of another mid slot, I don't know.
better get a correct answer than empty promises I hope...

OhThis GuyAgain
Posted - 2011.03.02 21:30:00 - [6]
 

Originally by: Meissa Anunthiel
We have requested CCP puts this on the list of items to check for rebalancing during CSM 2 and 5.


...

TWO? Really?

Wow, maybe the CSM really is broken.

...or maybe CCP really doesn't care about T1 Destroyers.

Meissa Anunthiel
Redshift Industrial
Rooks and Kings
Posted - 2011.03.02 21:39:00 - [7]
 

Originally by: OhThis GuyAgain
Originally by: Meissa Anunthiel
We have requested CCP puts this on the list of items to check for rebalancing during CSM 2 and 5.


...

TWO? Really?

Wow, maybe the CSM really is broken.

...or maybe CCP really doesn't care about T1 Destroyers.

(I think it was 2, may have been 3, don't remember exactly)

Priorities... CSM 2 is the time dominion was the focus. It got left a bit on the side at that time, and the CSM-CCP communication wasn't what it is now, as such promoting our issues was not as efficient as today. Hence the delay. The CSM obtained other things in the interim.

Meissa, CSM 2, 3, 4, 5 and maybe 6?

OhThis GuyAgain
Posted - 2011.03.02 21:45:00 - [8]
 

Originally by: Meissa Anunthiel

(I think it was 2, may have been 3, don't remember exactly)

Priorities... CSM 2 is the time dominion was the focus. It got left a bit on the side at that time, and the CSM-CCP communication wasn't what it is now, as such promoting our issues was not as efficient as today. Hence the delay. The CSM obtained other things in the interim.

Meissa, CSM 2, 3, 4, 5 and maybe 6?


So why wasn't the issue revisited later, once the big fancy flashy features were discussed and implemented?

Helen Highwater
GoonWaffe
Posted - 2011.03.02 22:07:00 - [9]
 

Originally by: OhThis GuyAgain

So why wasn't the issue revisited later, once the big fancy flashy features were discussed and implemented?


Because it was already in the backlog which means that the CSM agreed that it should happen and agreeing all over again doesn't change anything. CCP sets the schedule and if they decide that ship balance passes aren't going to happen soon then that's how it is. The CSM can try and influence the schedule to some extent but not on the micro scale like 'Fix these two specific ships in this specific way'. It's more like 'There are a lot of outstanding hull balance requests from players and we think that you should put that ahead of <other thing #765478 that you want to do>'.

OhThis GuyAgain
Posted - 2011.03.02 22:08:00 - [10]
 

Originally by: Helen Highwater
It's more like 'There are a lot of outstanding hull balance requests from players and we think that you should put that ahead of <other thing #765478 that you want to do>'.


Has saying that worked in the past?

Helen Highwater
GoonWaffe
Posted - 2011.03.02 22:20:00 - [11]
 

Originally by: OhThis GuyAgain
Originally by: Helen Highwater
It's more like 'There are a lot of outstanding hull balance requests from players and we think that you should put that ahead of <other thing #765478 that you want to do>'.


Has saying that worked in the past?


In some cases yes, but the CSM does not control the schedule. The '1000 little things' initiative is an example of the CSM putting pressure on CCP to allocate resources to something that we felt was important.

bbtop
Triangular Initiative
STR8NGE BREW
Posted - 2011.03.03 05:33:00 - [12]
 

I was never asking fo results, i was simply saying that whatever CSM presses the issue, or at least promises to bring it up to ccp has m vote.

Father Decus Daga
Posted - 2011.03.03 05:39:00 - [13]
 

Originally by: bbtop
I was never asking fo results, i was simply saying that whatever CSM presses the issue, or at least promises to bring it up to ccp has m vote.


Whats the point in raising an issue if you dont want results? Do you work for the US Govt by any chance? lol.

But seriously the CSM doesnt have any effect on things like this - their a pannel of judges CCP can bounce their prosepective changes upon and see the reactions - thats it.

Krutoj
Caldari
The xDEATHx Squadron
Legion of xXDEATHXx
Posted - 2011.03.03 06:58:00 - [14]
 

Originally by: bbtop
The Retribution and Coercer need a second mid slot. No discussion. CSM address this issue and you have all of my votes.


Retribution is amarr, it has that penalty for its awesome tank and dps, just like all amarr ships do. DEAL WITH IT

Coercer is fine as well. Again, deal with it.


 

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