open All Channels
seplocked Assembly Hall
blankseplocked [CSM] July 2011 Prioritization Crowdsourcing Preparation Plea
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic

Trebor Daehdoow
Gallente
Sane Industries Inc.
Posted - 2011.07.18 21:46:00 - [1]
 

Gentlepods,

In a few days I will begin another round of Prioritization Crowdsourcing. In preparation for that, I would appreciate your help in getting the list of items as accurate as possible.

I have done a pass of CSM's list of in-process items, and migrated completed and denied items as appropriate. I have also moved some items that CCP has sent back to CSM for review to a new "to-be-reviewed" category in the Wiki. I intend to prioritize both the in-process and to-be-reviewed items.

I particularly need help verifying that all the items listed in these categories are correctly categorized. No doubt there are a few that have actually been implemented in some form by CCP, and I'd like to move them off the list.

I have put up a skeleton page listing all the items on the wiki.

Based on feedback from the last prioritization, this time around I intend to let people vote both for and against items, and I'll generate results in multiple ways, so we'll be able to see the most loved, most hated, and most divisive items.

You should expect formal crowdsourcing to begin towards the end of the week or early next week.




E man Industries
Posted - 2011.07.18 22:01:00 - [2]
 

Edited by: E man Industries on 18/07/2011 22:05:44
Edited by: E man Industries on 18/07/2011 22:01:49
Sweet, enjoy doing these and seeing the results.
I do not see some items and am not sure how the list was populated.

Prioritizing the art departments work would also fall under this would it not. SO raising the desire to se engine trailes and new effects should eb there should it not. As well as the addition of corp logo's to ships via the CSM minutes(even thugh the CSM said it was low priority)

Celgar Thurn
Minmatar
Department 10
Posted - 2011.07.18 22:33:00 - [3]
 

Couldn't see my proposal listed on the 'skeleton page' to bring back the old/previous sound effects for the Strip Miners and Mining Drones. I have read numerous people asking for this to be done.

Doctor Invictus
Gallente
Industry and Investments
Posted - 2011.07.19 02:18:00 - [4]
 

My votes for prioritization (supporting all)...

1) Colonies*

2) Destructible Outposts

3) Modular Starbases

4) Individual Pilot Income Generation in 0.0

5) Unanchoring Abandoned, Offline POS

6) Ships Crews

7) Alliances and Factional Warfare

*I have a detailed proposal (linked summary here) which is vaguely similar to this, save that it is targeted towards a wider array of complaints about nullsec, and focused satisfying CSM/CCP's 'farms and fields' approach to nullsec. I don't suppose it could get some CSM love?

...

I'll just go back to my thread fortress of solitude.

Salpun
Gallente
Paramount Commerce
Posted - 2011.07.19 07:08:00 - [5]
 

Edited by: Salpun on 19/07/2011 09:11:48
Thoughts:

Forum revamp topics 61 and 62 can be removed becouse the new forums will be deployed soon. A new topic about the state of the new forums shoud be voted up from the Assembly Hall. Will not get votes anyways exept in the negative will delute votes.

Do you want the prioritization to reflect current state of game or prioritorization after the winter expansion/BBF stated items being worked on?

Soundwave has not responded to FW or Gallente balancing. Can you ask him to post on those issues before voting starts so they do not become black hole issues for votes. though they should be Wink

Clear messaging about what prioritization means. Your vote will show what you want CCP to worked on etc not I like/dislike this feature. Will be used in this manner for meta purposes anyway but for the average player the messaging could be clearer.

How many items can be voted to the bottom of the pile? None of the messaging has covered this topic.

Great work on the wiki.

When will the messaging game wide start for this project. Only forum and wiki warriers know about it so farTwisted Evil

More after we get more feed back in this thread.

Are there going to be any of the current topics in the Assembly hall voted on and added to the list?




Abdiel Kavash
Caldari
Paladin Order
Fidelas Constans
Posted - 2011.07.19 08:37:00 - [6]
 

I went through most of the points and offer some constructive criticism:


Duplicate issues: #7, #9, and #43. #19 and #20. #40 and #116. #57 and #59. #70 and #150. #108 and #109. #168 and #169.

Issues already (at least in a large part) implemented: #32, #37, #49 (made irrelevant by agent changes), #143, #180.

#5 and #42 could potentially be merged.

#28 seems to be a very specific suggestion of a new game mechanic, this contrasts with most of the other items and with the idea that the CSM should help CCP in high-level decisions, not play backseat game designers.

#36 I think covers many relatively unrelated items, could be split into several points.

#45 already covers all of #44 and most of #46.

#47 is a bug report, not a prioritization issue.

#62 I think is no longer relevant.

The implemention of #92 is according to the CSM minutes very unlikely in the near future, I'd suggest removing it from the list.

#136 is no longer relevant with the agent changes a while back (you can always access some L1 agents).

#179 is an incredible o-m-g-wall-of-text.



Thanks for this initiative!

Trebor Daehdoow
Gallente
Sane Industries Inc.
Posted - 2011.07.19 10:18:00 - [7]
 

Originally by: E man Industries
I do not see some items and am not sure how the list was populated.

The in-process list shows all the active (AFAIK) formally-passed CSM items. So if you wanted to prioritize the art department, you need to raise an issue here in AH and get it taken up by the CSM; it would then appear in a future prioritization.

Originally by: Celgar Thurn
Couldn't see my proposal listed on the 'skeleton page' to bring back the old/previous sound effects for the Strip Miners and Mining Drones. I have read numerous people asking for this to be done.

See above; if it wasn't voted on by the CSM, it won't appear in the prioritization.

Originally by: Salpun
Forum revamp topics 61 and 62 can be removed becouse the new forums will be deployed soon. A new topic about the state of the new forums shoud be voted up from the Assembly Hall. Will not get votes anyways exept in the negative will delute votes.

Good point, I will flag them for removal from the final list.

Originally by: Salpun
Do you want the prioritization to reflect current state of game or prioritorization after the winter expansion/BBF stated items being worked on?

Current.

Originally by: Salpun
Soundwave has not responded to FW or Gallente balancing. Can you ask him to post on those issues before voting starts so they do not become black hole issues for votes. though they should be Wink

AFAIK, Gallente rebalancing is something Tallest will be addressing after he finishes destroying supercapitals. Twisted Evil FW is a much longer-term issue; I would not expect any love in the Winter Expansion.

Originally by: Salpun
Clear messaging about what prioritization means. Your vote will show what you want CCP to worked on etc not I like/dislike this feature. Will be used in this manner for meta purposes anyway but for the average player the messaging could be clearer.

Noted.

Originally by: Salpun
How many items can be voted to the bottom of the pile? None of the messaging has covered this topic.

Not quite sure what you mean by this.

Originally by: Salpun
When will the messaging game wide start for this project. Only forum and wiki warriers know about it so farTwisted Evil

Manifest has promised massive pimpage shortly after the prioritization starts.

Originally by: Salpun
Are there going to be any of the current topics in the Assembly hall voted on and added to the list?

Nope, no time.

Trebor Daehdoow
Gallente
Sane Industries Inc.
Posted - 2011.07.19 10:22:00 - [8]
 

Originally by: Abdiel Kavash
Duplicate issues: #7, #9, and #43. #19 and #20. #40 and #116. #57 and #59. #70 and #150. #108 and #109. #168 and #169.

I have cross-linked these items in the wiki and only one of each will appear in the final prioritization list.

Originally by: Abdiel Kavash
Issues already (at least in a large part) implemented: #32, #37, #49 (made irrelevant by agent changes), #143, #180.

I have moved #49 to resolved. I would like other people to comment on what the new status of the rest of the items should be (and why).

Originally by: Abdiel Kavash
#5 and #42 could potentially be merged.

Crosslinked; only one will appear.

Originally by: Abdiel Kavash
#28 seems to be a very specific suggestion of a new game mechanic, this contrasts with most of the other items and with the idea that the CSM should help CCP in high-level decisions, not play backseat game designers.

Yes, but I will leave it in out of deference to previous CSMs. CCP can formally reject it if they want.

Originally by: Abdiel Kavash
#36 I think covers many relatively unrelated items, could be split into several points.

Beyond the scope of what we can do at this time.

Originally by: Abdiel Kavash
#45 already covers all of #44 and most of #46. #47 is a bug report, not a prioritization issue.

Cross-linked, as well as #48; one will appear in final list.

Originally by: Abdiel Kavash
Duplicate issues: #7, #9, and #43. #19 and #20. #40 and #116. #57 and #59. #70 and #150. #108 and #109. #168 and #169.

I have cross-linked these items in the wiki and only one of each will appear in the final prioritization list.

Originally by: Abdiel Kavash
Issues already (at least in a large part) implemented: #32, #37, #49 (made irrelevant by agent changes), #143, #180.

I have moved #49 to resolved. I would like other people to comment on what the new status of the rest of the items should be (and why).

Originally by: Abdiel Kavash
#5 and #42 could potentially be merged.

Crosslinked; only one will appear.

Originally by: Abdiel Kavash
#28 seems to be a very specific suggestion of a new game mechanic, this contrasts with most of the other items and with the idea that the CSM should help CCP in high-level decisions, not play backseat game designers.

Yes, but I will leave it in out of deference to previous CSMs. CCP can formally reject it if they want.

Originally by: Abdiel Kavash
#36 I think covers many relatively unrelated items, could be split into several points.

Beyond the scope of what we can do at this time.

Originally by: Abdiel Kavash
The implemention of #92 is according to the CSM minutes very unlikely in the near future, I'd suggest removing it from the list.

Oh, we can dream.

Originally by: Abdiel Kavash
#179 is an incredible o-m-g-wall-of-text.

Suffer. Twisted Evil

Thanks for this hard work, much appreciated.

Gunther Gabel
Caldari
Posted - 2011.07.19 12:55:00 - [9]
 

Fix the ****ing piece of **** Mac client

Poetic Stanziel
Gallente
Macbeth Transport and Freight LLC
Posted - 2011.07.19 13:00:00 - [10]
 

Is Avatar re-customization on the list? Whenever I jumpclone, my avatar resets to my original settings, the original look of the character I created when I first joined the game. It is rather annoying ... the look of my avatar should be fixed to my last change.

Raid'En
Posted - 2011.07.19 14:21:00 - [11]
 

Edited by: Raid''En on 19/07/2011 14:34:00
Edited by: Raid''En on 19/07/2011 14:33:42

Quote:
3) Add Character transfer and portrait change tokens just like PLEX (CSM)

char transfer are already available with PLEXes, and potraits are currently free (without total recrustomization)

Quote:
4) Add login history in your account managment (CSM)

i saw it on the new account page, so it's done.

Quote:
28) Colonies (CSM)

this is too old and need to be reviewed ; PI changed lots of things about this for example.

Quote:
37) Courier contract improvements (CSM)

90% of it is already live

there's lots of issue about complexity of issues also... a way to separate little things and big changes would be nice

Poetic Stanziel
Gallente
Macbeth Transport and Freight LLC
Posted - 2011.07.19 14:39:00 - [12]
 

Are shortcut keys on the list? The ASDQWE keys should apply to any selected item in any window, if applicable ... not just the overview.

Salpun
Gallente
Paramount Commerce
Posted - 2011.07.19 15:13:00 - [13]
 

Edited by: Salpun on 19/07/2011 15:35:01
Is not clear how the against voting will work. I am assuming that we can put only 20 topics in a valid voting post and that we can vote against/ vote to be worked on last by either puting a minus in front of one of the number or are we using a seperate line or grouping feature to indicate that choice.

edit number fu

Trebor Daehdoow
Gallente
Sane Industries Inc.
Posted - 2011.07.19 15:53:00 - [14]
 

Originally by: Raid'En
Edited by: Raid''En on 19/07/2011 14:34:00
Edited by: Raid''En on 19/07/2011 14:33:42

Quote:
3) Add Character transfer and portrait change tokens just like PLEX (CSM)

char transfer are already available with PLEXes, and potraits are currently free (without total recrustomization)


Noted as superseded and will be removed.

Quote:
Quote:
4) Add login history in your account managment (CSM)

i saw it on the new account page, so it's done.

Marked as resolved, will be removed.

Quote:
Quote:
28) Colonies (CSM)

this is too old and need to be reviewed ; PI changed lots of things about this for example.

Will be moved to the needs-review section.

Quote:
there's lots of issue about complexity of issues also... a way to separate little things and big changes would be nice

I have a way of combining items into categories that I can do after the main results are in.

Originally by: Salpun
Is not clear how the against voting will work. I am assuming that we can put only 20 topics in a valid voting post and that we can vote against/ vote to be worked on last by either puting a minus in front of one of the number or are we using a seperate line or grouping feature to indicate that choice.

My current plan is that you can put a - in front of an item number to vote against it.

So:

Salpun,1,2,3,4,-5,-6,-7

means votes for 1,2,3,4 and votes against 5,6,7. As with the last prioritization, you will have 20 points to allocate, voting for less than 20 items increases their weight (in this case, to 20/7), voting for more decreases their weight, with a max weight of 3 points per item. You can spend your points voting for or against, but each vote -- for or against -- costs you points.

I'll write up a clearer explanation of the process in a day or so, but it will be very similar to last time. My focus is on making it as simple as possible to vote.

Salpun
Gallente
Paramount Commerce
Posted - 2011.07.19 16:14:00 - [15]
 

Thanks for the confirmation on the format.

Raid'En
Posted - 2011.07.19 17:08:00 - [16]
 

Edited by: Raid''En on 19/07/2011 17:19:06
Edited by: Raid''En on 19/07/2011 17:18:45
Originally by: Trebor Daehdoow

My current plan is that you can put a - in front of an item number to vote against it.
So:
Salpun,1,2,3,4,-5,-6,-7
means votes for 1,2,3,4 and votes against 5,6,7.

there's a issue here ;
voting against something at first can't work
people need to know first what are the issues that people voted for.

you can't vote against something where there is 180+ possibilities, cause you don't know what will appear, and if some that will appear look really bad for you.

say for example that i don't want CCP to work on mining (64), cause i consider there's way too much others things to do.
i have the choice of wote for something else, or vote against mining.
but given i don't know if people will vote for mining i don't have much interest to vote against it
moreover i don't know if what i want will be voted a lot, so it's more sure to vote for it
voting against something is only interesting if you already know what the results of the vote will be.

so i would suggest you to make 2 votes, at different times ;
1st round : everyone vote for his things
2nd round : people, after looking at the current ranking, vote against things (or agaisnt / for things)
(there's still issues here, but seems better)

Doctor Invictus
Gallente
Industry and Investments
Posted - 2011.07.19 18:19:00 - [17]
 

Originally by: Raid'En
you can't vote against something where there is 180+ possibilities, cause you don't know what will appear, and if some that will appear look really bad for you.

say for example that i don't want CCP to work on mining (64), cause i consider there's way too much others things to do. i have the choice of wote for something else, or vote against mining. but given i don't know if people will vote for mining i don't have much interest to vote against it


Since you have to make at least 7 votes, then you can vote both for what you want and for what you specifically don't want. If you want them to work on faction warfare, then vote for it. If you think mining reform (as proposed) is the dumbest idea you've ever seen, then commit one of your votes to that.

The outcome of the poll will be the aggregate of the votes that players cast. To continue the example above, if faction warfare reform is highly popular, it will have a large number of positive votes. If mining reform is highly unpopular, it will receive negative votes (probably expressed by negative numbers). If players don't care about a topic, it will receive few votes. CCP/CSM can use each proposal's score/vote tally to assign it a level of priority among the developers.

Ahaz Darkfall
Posted - 2011.07.19 19:25:00 - [18]
 

the issue with off line POSes is a big one for me. I would really hate to see this bumped off until they do the complete POS revamp.

All I ask for is that when a POS goes off line or is anchored without being onlined it should have no shields. I am not talking about the bubble but the shield hity points are still there when the bubble goes down. How could it still have shields if it has no power.

A simple fix. I know many high sec pirates and small corps will actively seek out off line towers to pop if they had no shields making them 500% easier to kill.

Raid'En
Posted - 2011.07.19 19:55:00 - [19]
 

Originally by: Doctor Invictus

Since you have to make at least 7 votes, then you can vote both for what you want and for what you specifically don't want. If you want them to work on faction warfare, then vote for it. If you think mining reform (as proposed) is the dumbest idea you've ever seen, then commit one of your votes to that.


what i'm trying to say is that on this configuration you have no reasons to lose vote by voting against something. it's always better to vote for something else.
oh man do what you want, but i would be surprised if there much people using the against option here.

Bagehi
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises
Posted - 2011.07.19 21:14:00 - [20]
 

Edited by: Bagehi on 19/07/2011 21:15:03
Originally by: Trebor Daehdoow
Originally by: Abdiel Kavash
Issues already (at least in a large part) implemented: #32, #37, #49 (made irrelevant by agent changes), #143, #180.

I have moved #49 to resolved. I would like other people to comment on what the new status of the rest of the items should be (and why).

#32 seems to already be in the game. It would be nice if the contract notifications would automatically dismiss after you look at them though. I've forgotten a few times and gotten excited only to find that I failed to dismiss an old notification.
#37 could've sworn CCP rewrote courier contracts along with the rest of the contracts, but this has some interesting suggestions that I don't think are in the game.
#143 Pretty sure we already can do that.
#180 If this has already been implemented, they did a bad job of making it visible, because I can't find it. With the whole WiS and the giant screens we now have, I would hope this will be a future use of the useless main screen.

Originally by: Trebor Daehdoow
Originally by: Abdiel Kavash
The implemention of #92 is according to the CSM minutes very unlikely in the near future, I'd suggest removing it from the list.

Oh, we can dream.

The suggestion in the May Meeting Minutes that moon goo was being reworked led me to cross my fingers harder that POSs would also be reworked.

Originally by: Trebor Daehdoow
Originally by: Abdiel Kavash
#179 is an incredible o-m-g-wall-of-text.

Suffer. Twisted Evil

I'm assuming this wall of text can be better summed up by simply linking to the farms & fields discussion here and I'm under the impression CCP already has this under the works for Winter 2011 anyway.

Abdiel Kavash
Caldari
Paladin Order
Fidelas Constans
Posted - 2011.07.20 10:49:00 - [21]
 

Edited by: Abdiel Kavash on 20/07/2011 10:51:14
Originally by: Bagehi
#180 If this has already been implemented, they did a bad job of making it visible, because I can't find it. With the whole WiS and the giant screens we now have, I would hope this will be a future use of the useless main screen.

Click the in-game clock.

Quote:
The suggestion in the May Meeting Minutes that moon goo was being reworked led me to cross my fingers harder that POSs would also be reworked.

The minutes state that the art team is tied up and no new art assets will be made anytime soon. The suggestion clearly requires those.


Thanks for taking my input into consideration.


Edit, question: what exactly does a negative vote mean? Is it "I do not think this item should be a high priority", or "I do not think this item should be implemented at all, as I think it would be bad for the game"?

Doctor Invictus
Gallente
Industry and Investments
Posted - 2011.07.20 13:45:00 - [22]
 

Originally by: Abdiel Kavash
Edit, question: what exactly does a negative vote mean? Is it "I do not think this item should be a high priority", or "I do not think this item should be implemented at all, as I think it would be bad for the game"?


My understanding is that each topic will be prioritized based on the number of positive or negative votes it receives; high positive numbers mean 'we really want this', numbers approaching zero mean 'we don't care about this one way or the other' and high negative numbers mean 'we hate this, don't even think about implementing it'.

I'm not sure how else they could work it, based on how they've explained it so far.

Trebor Daehdoow
Gallente
Sane Industries Inc.
Posted - 2011.07.20 13:46:00 - [23]
 

Originally by: Bagehi
#32 seems to already be in the game. It would be nice if the contract notifications would automatically dismiss after you look at them though. I've forgotten a few times and gotten excited only to find that I failed to dismiss an old notification.

Marked as resolved with a note that a new issue can be raised if it needs tweaking.
Originally by: Bagehi
#143 Pretty sure we already can do that.

Marked as resolved.
Originally by: Bagehi
The suggestion in the May Meeting Minutes that moon goo was being reworked led me to cross my fingers harder that POSs would also be reworked.

CCP wants to redo POS's, but it is a big job and as always, :resources:. So not in 2011.

Trebor Daehdoow
Gallente
Sane Industries Inc.
Posted - 2011.07.20 13:51:00 - [24]
 

Originally by: Doctor Invictus
Originally by: Abdiel Kavash
Edit, question: what exactly does a negative vote mean? Is it "I do not think this item should be a high priority", or "I do not think this item should be implemented at all, as I think it would be bad for the game"?


My understanding is that each topic will be prioritized based on the number of positive or negative votes it receives; high positive numbers mean 'we really want this', numbers approaching zero mean 'we don't care about this one way or the other' and high negative numbers mean 'we hate this, don't even think about implementing it'.


Pretty much this. A + vote means "I really want CCP to work on this", no vote means "meh, who cares", and a - vote means "I really don't want CCP to work on this".

My plan is to run the numbers in multiple ways, both with and without negative votes.

Salpun
Gallente
Paramount Commerce
Posted - 2011.07.20 14:00:00 - [25]
 

Edited by: Salpun on 20/07/2011 14:00:58
negative votes are best described as wait on working on that item till last votes. While it can also mean I do not like this item.

The question is when do we work on this topic? (Sooner or later) not do we want CCP to work on this at all. That was the purpose of the CSM up/down vote.

While including a vote for a needs review item might be a like/ dislike vote for simplicity lets treat all votes as a work on this feature now/ later so everyone votes with the same state of mind based on the core question.

Trebor can comment if I am right or not Cool

edit beat me Confused

Darth Helmat
Posted - 2011.07.20 18:07:00 - [26]
 

Originally by: Trebor Daehdoow
Gentlepods,

In a few days I will begin another round of Prioritization Crowdsourcing. In preparation for that, I would appreciate your help in getting the list of items as accurate as possible.

I have done a pass of CSM's list of in-process items,





There is a huge mishmash of things here. Some of them are trivial bugs that should be routinely fixed through a bug report, some are trivial things that should take 10 minutes to implement, some of them are discussional (mining) with no definate objective, some of them are posturing (commit to excellence) and encapsulate ethos not effort, some of them are major reworks that would be a significant part of a 6 month expansion cycle.

tbh, It would be better to break up biglonglist into categories, based on the resource level needed to work them and have seperate votes in each group. In particular break out the set of things that would take 50% or more of a release cycle to do into a separate list.... otherwise how the hell can you compare "rework mining" and "drones are bugged" sanely?







Wendy Holl
Posted - 2011.07.20 19:24:00 - [27]
 

Fix or reroll the turret icons

Salpun
Gallente
Paramount Commerce
Posted - 2011.07.21 06:30:00 - [28]
 

Edited by: Salpun on 21/07/2011 07:05:40
24- in work by team BFF
118- Second half of suggestion impleminted.
29- jump distance indicated in game not sure if it fullfills the objective of the topic.

27- can some one test this one. As all my characters are in wh space I can not test this.
111- improvements over what as already been done not possible per CCP.
105- in work by team BFF.

Trebor Daehdoow
Gallente
Sane Industries Inc.
Posted - 2011.07.21 14:54:00 - [29]
 

Originally by: Salpun
Edited by: Salpun on 21/07/2011 07:05:40
24- in work by team BFF
118- Second half of suggestion impleminted.
29- jump distance indicated in game not sure if it fullfills the objective of the topic.

27- can some one test this one. As all my characters are in wh space I can not test this.
111- improvements over what as already been done not possible per CCP.
105- in work by team BFF.

24,105: not removed because no guarantee they will hit game. 118: updated to note partial completion. 27: need someone to check this. 111: source?

Salpun
Gallente
Paramount Commerce
Posted - 2011.07.21 16:52:00 - [30]
 

GM Lelouch
1) Our goal with the skill queue was to make skill training more manageable for players who cannot find the time to micro-manage their skill training 23/7, especially when it comes to shorter skills which can now be queued up en-masse. We had concerns at the time that a longer skill queue might result in decreased player activity which is the reason for the limitations.
2) There are currently plans for this.
3) Skill training needs to be paused due to the possibility of the character's attributes changing due to implants in either jump clone.
4) Answered by CCP Grayscale here.

http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1553118


Pages: [1] 2

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