These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

CSM Campaigns

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page12
 

Alyxportur for CSM9

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Alyxportur
From Our Cold Dead Hands
ORPHANS OF EVE
#21 - 2014-03-18 20:47:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Alyxportur
Forlorn Wongraven wrote:
Will you make copying more than 2000 bookmarks a non-pain in the arse?


A great aspect that I completely overlooked. Yes, I advocate being able to copy and move more than 5 bookmarks at a time. That would certainly go in-hand with increasing bookmark capacity. There's certainly a reason for the current limit, but changing it would be something I'd recommend as a priority.

EDIT: Aside from the maximum number of bookmarks that you can have in your corporation, there's not a limit on how many you can drag between your personal and corporate sections. Are you making bookmark-packs of something to sell? 2000 would bump up against other limits as well, forcing you to organize them into cans if you were to contract that many.
Pendux
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#22 - 2014-03-21 09:47:51 UTC
You have my vote!!
Alyxportur
From Our Cold Dead Hands
ORPHANS OF EVE
#23 - 2014-03-22 00:18:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Alyxportur
King of Warcraft wrote:
During the recent Wormhole townhall meeting, CCP Fozzie gave an explanation about how Alliances work and why making improvements to Alliance management is so difficult. How do you feel about his explanation, and how do you think it effects your platform?


I'll start off my response by posting the notes that I took while listening to the recording.

Quote:
  • fozzie likes that wh space is healthy and best pve content
  • likes that it makes for group bonding and teamwork
  • agrees black holes arent desirable to be in
  • change something about them
  • *check the black hole thread
  • nebulous pos mechanic changes
  • fozzie likes alliance bookmarks
  • issue because of a hack/not in the database
  • (sounds like they already plan to fix it)
  • linking bookmarks (fozzie not sure)
  • *look up eve down under keynotes (fozzie's talk)
  • *make sure each ship has a ton of uses but distinct personality
  • ships getting too many boosts?
  • orca = great ship with unique function (rorqual too)
  • more ships with unique functions?
  • gnosis will remain special edition, no bpo; limited run bpcs
  • the difficulty of wh space nagivation is an intentional mechanic/part of the interest
  • tweaking the randomness of wormhole connections to 'active' wormholes
  • wormhole 'landing' radius
  • blapdreads = fozzie wants it usable but not oppresive; currently strongest in
  • wormholes; reduces options; solution = larger jump radius around wh radius to decrease
  • liklihood of landing within moros optimal range; not get rid of it, but not leave it as is
  • logistics ships +/-
  • t3s = small % of subsystems being used = not good/not happy
  • coding issues = # programmers; multithreading
  • hacking 'abandoned' towers in wh space
  • getting word out to new players about how wh space really works
  • changes to local chat (nullsec/wh space)
  • how to drive conflict all over the game (and in wh space particular)
  • divisions for xlarge SAA


    • My answer to your question is that it sounded like the same explanation that I've heard before, but it sounded like he approves of changing it----although in light of the whole conversation, that has to be balanced with a lot of other issues for their programmers to work on.

    It also seems like the bookmark issues may be easier to fix than the overall alliance management:

    • expanding the corp limit on bookmarks is easiest
    • having bookmarks be linkable in a chat is less easy but possible? (I'd advocate this as one of the better solutions.)
    • an alliance bookmark folder is hardest because it involves the overall management changes



    So overall, actual changes to the management of alliances will take a while no matter what, but I would lobby to get them done sooner rather than later. For bookmarks in particular, I would honestly prefer they be linkable very soon. Whether or not CCP prioritizes alliance management, I think linkable bookmarks would satisfy a large part of the appetite involving bookmark changes----provided you can drag/drop more than 5 at a time in a channel....

    EDIT: I listened to the file from http://downthepipe-wh.com/csm-wh-townhall-meeting/
    Alyxportur
    From Our Cold Dead Hands
    ORPHANS OF EVE
    #24 - 2014-03-22 23:47:46 UTC
    With the announced compression changes, I expect the Rorqual bug created via trading it between players will never show up again, so that will now be a non-issue.

    For reference: http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/reprocess-all-the-things/
    Lanctharus Onzo
    Caldari Provisions
    Caldari State
    #25 - 2014-03-25 01:08:23 UTC
    CSM9 Candidate Interview: Alyxportur
    http://www.capstable.net/2014/03/23/csm9alyxportur/

    Executive Editor, CSM Watch || Writer, Co-host of the Cap Stable Podcast || Twitter: @Lanctharus
    Alyxportur
    From Our Cold Dead Hands
    ORPHANS OF EVE
    #26 - 2014-03-25 07:22:54 UTC
    Lanctharus Onzo wrote:
    CSM9 Candidate Interview: Alyxportur
    http://www.capstable.net/2014/03/23/csm9alyxportur/


    I enjoyed it!
    Alyxportur
    From Our Cold Dead Hands
    ORPHANS OF EVE
    #27 - 2014-03-28 05:43:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Alyxportur
    More issues:

    - Link kill mail values to the average minimum sell price in Jita? Just because the region it was killed in doesn't have a market average, doesn't mean the kill isn't worth something.
    - Similarly, an inventory window option to link estimated values to Jita or Amarr sell prices? As much as I'd love a single round of Antimatter XL to be worth 2bil in my nullsec region, I'd prefer something more consistent. We all know Jita is the market hub of the universe, except our inventory window has yet to be taught that information.
    - BPO/BPC management for individual players. The tab within corporate management is very useful, unless you're trying to organize your personal collections.... Adding a similar tab to a player's personal assets window so that they can sort through their library of BPOs/BPCs is a simple solution.
    SeneschaI
    Ordo Arcana
    #28 - 2014-03-30 06:26:14 UTC
    "CCP Fozzie Interview" wrote:
    Q: Will you ever allow us to build stargates? It would be pretty interesting to have systems that will require you to build an exit yourself.
    A: "Yes, yes, we definitely will. That's something that has been announced by our senior producer as early as our last Fanfest and we reiterated that that our vision for the future of the game includes allowing players to build major projects together. One of those projects will be player controlled and player built stargates. I'll say that the result of that may not be what people expect. They may not take the form that people expect, but yes, we are definitely working on in the future allowing people to build stargates.
    The last changes in corp industry roles were very nice but there is one more step to go: Corp Hangar! How about a private tab where a member can share access to BPOs without letting everyone take them? Such a tab could be limited by role assignment. Better yet: A section of your private hangar that allows "view" access to other corp members.
    Yep, so a better way of allowing people to use your BPOs without having control to take them is something we've been thinking about for a while, and is definitely something that we would like to do. Um, I can't say for sure exactly how that implementation is going to work, but it is something we definitely want to do, yes. "

    Would you as a CSM member focus on past teasers whenever possible to engage CCP on a pragmatic level in prioritizing corporate management as something that's been so long on the backburner?

    Things i'd like to see is better lockdown abilities for CEOs that don't depend on the horrible voting system, dueling removed as a default popup (something you have to opt-in to) and merged into the corporate fratricide mechanics to prevent awoxing in high sec, removing the ability for griefers to use neutral logis (who don't currently get suspect flagged RRing awoxers), going all the way with the corporate fix made recently to prevent only those that installed (and directors/ceos) to 'deliver' jobs (either that or be able to track who delivers jobs because currently there isn't a column for that), etc etc.
    Alyxportur
    From Our Cold Dead Hands
    ORPHANS OF EVE
    #29 - 2014-03-31 01:05:59 UTC
    PVP/Killmail Idea: Adding FleetID of each participant onto a killmail. This allows third-party apps to easily identify who is on which side within a battle report. No more manual sorting.
    Alyxportur
    From Our Cold Dead Hands
    ORPHANS OF EVE
    #30 - 2014-03-31 01:24:38 UTC
    SeneschaI wrote:
    "CCP Fozzie Interview" wrote:
    Q: Will you ever allow us to build stargates? It would be pretty interesting to have systems that will require you to build an exit yourself.
    A: "Yes, yes, we definitely will. That's something that has been announced by our senior producer as early as our last Fanfest and we reiterated that that our vision for the future of the game includes allowing players to build major projects together. One of those projects will be player controlled and player built stargates. I'll say that the result of that may not be what people expect. They may not take the form that people expect, but yes, we are definitely working on in the future allowing people to build stargates.
    The last changes in corp industry roles were very nice but there is one more step to go: Corp Hangar! How about a private tab where a member can share access to BPOs without letting everyone take them? Such a tab could be limited by role assignment. Better yet: A section of your private hangar that allows "view" access to other corp members.
    Yep, so a better way of allowing people to use your BPOs without having control to take them is something we've been thinking about for a while, and is definitely something that we would like to do. Um, I can't say for sure exactly how that implementation is going to work, but it is something we definitely want to do, yes. "

    Would you as a CSM member focus on past teasers whenever possible to engage CCP on a pragmatic level in prioritizing corporate management as something that's been so long on the backburner?

    Things i'd like to see is better lockdown abilities for CEOs that don't depend on the horrible voting system, dueling removed as a default popup (something you have to opt-in to) and merged into the corporate fratricide mechanics to prevent awoxing in high sec, removing the ability for griefers to use neutral logis (who don't currently get suspect flagged RRing awoxers), going all the way with the corporate fix made recently to prevent only those that installed (and directors/ceos) to 'deliver' jobs (either that or be able to track who delivers jobs because currently there isn't a column for that), etc etc.



    I support:
    - Adding an auto reject duel option that is in the same place as the auto reject invites/conversations setting
    - I believe the usage of neutral logi/reps will be fixed when logi are able to get on killmails (which they've said they are working on fixing). Once they're getting on killmails, that implies that they participated in the fight (i.e. aggression). In short, I support neutrals being given aggression for their actions in helping someone die and/or survive in a fight.
    - I agree on BPO lockdown. BPOs can be locked 'en masse' when put into a secure can, but not selected in a corporate station hangar and locked down that way. That needs to be changed.
    - Being able to kill corporation members without CONCORD interfering has its uses, however it makes sense that the leadership of a corp should be able to turn that option on/off the same as raising/lowering taxes. If that option is added, then the safety button would give a warning (depending on how you have it set) when you're about to kill a corp mate 'against corp policy'. On the alternative side, I can see the argument that CONCORD shouldn't start interfering with how corps are run because they're intrusive enough as it is. Personally, I support that on/off option being added though, but turned on by default for new corps. Awoxing is a valid method of play and should not be completely removed.
    - Corporate management is being revamped as CCP has said several times, but it's a long slog to complete it (multi-year). I would support corporate jobs only being deliverable by the installer *AND* any CEOs/Directors. As a corporate job, you may have installed it for the corp, but leadership should have access to anything that uses their infrastructure, otherwise they can't cancel a job when a pos needs to be moved and you're afk on a beach somewhere.
    Alyxportur
    From Our Cold Dead Hands
    ORPHANS OF EVE
    #31 - 2014-04-01 09:14:39 UTC
    Idea: having relevant bookmarks show up in search results (e.g. when you search a system name and have a station bookmarked in the system) and/or being able to change the dropdown search to just your Bookmarks, along with System, Agent, etc.
    Alyxportur
    From Our Cold Dead Hands
    ORPHANS OF EVE
    #32 - 2014-04-04 21:58:35 UTC

    Quote:
    --------------------------------
    Player Behavior
    From: CYL0N72
    Sent: 2014.04.04 13:19
    To: Alyxportur,

    Do you support banning players, for actions, like Erotica 1 ?

    Thanks to ISD limiting our public conversation, regarding this matter, from the forums. I can only wait until Monday for a reply.
    On Monday the results of this poll will be released.
    If we do not receive a reply from you by Monday, and based on the recalcitrant answers from those saying "Yes they support it", we will be forced to assume you also agree with the ban, although it will be noted that you didn't reply.


    Yes, I support the ban. CCP seems to be doing the best they can in determining the line between scamming which is a valid game mechanic and things which cross over into meta-game bullying. I support their decision in this case.
    Abla Tive
    #33 - 2014-04-05 15:02:31 UTC
    CCP Dolan
    C C P
    C C P Alliance
    #34 - 2014-04-07 15:49:19 UTC
    This is a campaign thread was created by a character who is not a candidate in the CSM9 elections, as such i will be locking it.

    CCP Dolan | Community Representative

    Twitter: @CCPDolan

    Gooby pls
    Previous page12