These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE Information Portal

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Dev Blog: CSM8 - Second Summit Minutes

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Chitsa Jason
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#41 - 2014-04-04 23:15:00 UTC
I do approve everything Malcanis posts!

Edit: Except wormhole stuff

Burn the land and boil the sea You can't take the sky from me
Trebor Daehdoow
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#42 - 2014-04-04 23:15:05 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Grarr Dexx wrote:
So cause we don't have the numbers to vote in a voice for lowsec on some arbitrary game council, lowsec is entirely irrelevant and off the map for updates? Great.


No I mean because you didn't get off your flabby, oleaginous rumps and vote, there was no one on CSM8 with the lo-sec experience required to make sure that any lo-sec specific impact of the proposals discussed was raised.

I hope this has been a valuable illustration of the value of the "sulk-whine-quit" strategy of political activism for you all.

So: who you gonna vote for in CSM9?

Why, DNSBLACK of course. After all, he owns Molden Heath (click on the ownership tab) Twisted

Private Citizen • CSM in recovery
CCP Xhagen
C C P
C C P Alliance
#43 - 2014-04-04 23:19:12 UTC
MailDeadDrop wrote:
Regarding ship skins, I know that the current crop of 8 or 9 ship skins are done to test the waters. Can you (or someone) tell us when CCP plans to evaluate the success of that test? Will there be a devblog about it?

MDD

We are gathering data and seeing how the usage of the skinned ships is now that they are a part of the larger economy. We will have to allow more time to pass before we can start communicating further.

CCP Xhagen | Associate Producer | @strangelocation
Michael Harari
Genos Occidere
TRUTH. HONOUR. LIGHT.
#44 - 2014-04-04 23:19:18 UTC
CCP Xhagen wrote:
SeneschaI wrote:
finally! yay!
"Session 16" wrote:
Xhagen threw out a question to the CSM regarding the differences between corporation mechanics and the social aspect of corporations.
Not as much 'differences' as 'handicaps' (mechanics that are beta programming dinosaurs) crippling the social aspects of corporations to the point where the CSM blindly agreed there's a "difference" between npc and player corps.

Really? The comparison shouldn't by all rights even be in the same ballpark as an NPC corp. Makes you wonder how much reflection bitter vets have for the blinkered view they acquire.

The fact the question elicited comments about NPC corps being comparable is proof positive people aren't looking at solutions beyond bandaids. The system is horrible. the fact that Xhagen's question provoked tepid response is horrifying to me and everyone who's been a CEO who at least tries to give power to the people (not just greedily hoard them for the directors/ceo as is the wont of the current overly complex, full of loopholes, paranoiac surrealistic nightmare mechanics)

The actual response to Xhagen's question should have been a resounded "There's a vast gulf!"

Good to know.

My line of thinking can also be described as "is the reason for forming a corp a social one or a game mechanic one?" and then the second thought is "would there be any benefit of having a social group, more than just a chat channel, without the baggage that corps are (i.e. the assets, wars, etc.)?"


It is entirely mechanical. All of the social aspects of a corp are replicated by having a common teamspeak and channel. In fact, a normal chat channel is much superior to a corp channel, since you can allow alts in.
Markku Laaksonen
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#45 - 2014-04-04 23:22:49 UTC
Billy Hix wrote:
Have the Dust minutes from the previous summit been completed yet?


This. Also, reserving this post for future editing to nag about the EVE-DUST link.

The last summit minutes on the EVE-DUST link were supposed to be made public 'very early' this year. Roll

DUST 514 Recruit Code - https://dust514.com/recruit/zluCyb/

EVE Buddy Invite - https://secure.eveonline.com/trial/?invc=047203f1-4124-42a1-b36f-39ca8ae5d6e2&action=buddy
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#46 - 2014-04-04 23:26:48 UTC
Grarr Dexx wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
And no Grarr this doesn't mean we're going to lift the restriction on drone assist, you can stop asking.


"No, pirates aren't allowed access to all of EVE Online's features, you naughty space pilots!"


Only dirty filthy blobbers in gangs of 11 or more are affected. Whay are you mad?

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
mkint
#47 - 2014-04-04 23:27:29 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Grarr Dexx wrote:
So cause we don't have the numbers to vote in a voice for lowsec on some arbitrary game council, lowsec is entirely irrelevant and off the map for updates? Great.


No I mean because you didn't get off your flabby, oleaginous rumps and vote, there was no one on CSM8 with the lo-sec experience required to make sure that any lo-sec specific impact of the proposals discussed was raised.

I hope this has been a valuable illustration of the value of the "sulk-whine-quit" strategy of political activism for you all.

So: who you gonna vote for in CSM9?

Are you sure EVE has room for more than 1 big blue donut?

Maxim 6. If violence wasn’t your last resort, you failed to resort to enough of it.
Markku Laaksonen
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#48 - 2014-04-04 23:27:56 UTC
A quick CTRL+F search for 'Dust' found two results for industry and a search for '514' found nothing. Guess I'll skim through these soon, but it looks like there was no mention of DUST in this summit.

DUST 514 Recruit Code - https://dust514.com/recruit/zluCyb/

EVE Buddy Invite - https://secure.eveonline.com/trial/?invc=047203f1-4124-42a1-b36f-39ca8ae5d6e2&action=buddy
Grarr Dexx
Cassowaries
Accept Your Fate
#49 - 2014-04-04 23:29:28 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Grarr Dexx wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
And no Grarr this doesn't mean we're going to lift the restriction on drone assist, you can stop asking.


"No, pirates aren't allowed access to all of EVE Online's features, you naughty space pilots!"


Only dirty filthy blobbers in gangs of 11 or more are affected. Whay are you mad?


It's good to know you don't even understand what the **** we're talking about.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#50 - 2014-04-04 23:38:30 UTC
Grarr Dexx wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Grarr Dexx wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
And no Grarr this doesn't mean we're going to lift the restriction on drone assist, you can stop asking.


"No, pirates aren't allowed access to all of EVE Online's features, you naughty space pilots!"


Only dirty filthy blobbers in gangs of 11 or more are affected. Whay are you mad?


It's good to know you don't even understand what the **** we're talking about.


If only the low sec community had pulled its thumb out of its ass and allowed that primary speech orifice to vote in its own interest, I'd have had someone to consult with to explain the issues to me in a coherent and convincing way, and then I would very likely have supported them.

If

Only

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
mkint
#51 - 2014-04-04 23:42:12 UTC
CCP Xhagen wrote:
SeneschaI wrote:
finally! yay!
"Session 16" wrote:
Xhagen threw out a question to the CSM regarding the differences between corporation mechanics and the social aspect of corporations.
Not as much 'differences' as 'handicaps' (mechanics that are beta programming dinosaurs) crippling the social aspects of corporations to the point where the CSM blindly agreed there's a "difference" between npc and player corps.

Really? The comparison shouldn't by all rights even be in the same ballpark as an NPC corp. Makes you wonder how much reflection bitter vets have for the blinkered view they acquire.

The fact the question elicited comments about NPC corps being comparable is proof positive people aren't looking at solutions beyond bandaids. The system is horrible. the fact that Xhagen's question provoked tepid response is horrifying to me and everyone who's been a CEO who at least tries to give power to the people (not just greedily hoard them for the directors/ceo as is the wont of the current overly complex, full of loopholes, paranoiac surrealistic nightmare mechanics)

The actual response to Xhagen's question should have been a resounded "There's a vast gulf!"

Good to know.

My line of thinking can also be described as "is the reason for forming a corp a social one or a game mechanic one?" and then the second thought is "would there be any benefit of having a social group, more than just a chat channel, without the baggage that corps are (i.e. the assets, wars, etc.)?"

Any time I start an alt, I put it in CAS. When I need to take that alt out of CAS for mechanics reasons, I always feel my EVE social experience is diminished. I like my corp. I've done the big corp thing, and it was pretty fun for a while, but a stressful mess. Now I'm doing the small corp thing, and even though we hardly see each other, I can't see myself leaving it. Now my EVE social experience is being bitter on the forums, and chatting in public channels. I think the only reason I never ended up just dropping into an NPC corp is because of the stigma of it. Being forced into a specific NPC corp sucks.

What is my ideal situation? It would be nice if there were non-political social channels or structures. Sort of a not-a-corp corp. Sort of like channels that build up around incursions except not limited to a specific activity. Maybe if it was a game mechanic that had a "club" structure... stuff you can do when you're not doing stuff with your corp. It wouldn't serve the nullbear big blue donut, at least until they start using it to poach recruits. But if it worked as intended, it might encourage otherwise solo-ish highsec-ers with nothing much to do to fleet up. Something worth thinking about, and could add value to the game, help with player retention, both new and vet.

Maxim 6. If violence wasn’t your last resort, you failed to resort to enough of it.
BadAssMcKill
Aliastra
#52 - 2014-04-04 23:42:35 UTC
Do you mean the no assigning fighters in .4 space thing Grarr
Michael Harari
Genos Occidere
TRUTH. HONOUR. LIGHT.
#53 - 2014-04-04 23:48:55 UTC
BadAssMcKill wrote:
Do you mean the no assigning fighters in .4 space thing Grarr


No, he means that drone assign doesnt work properly in crimewatch areas, forcing him to instead resort to titan bridging t1 cruisers with absolutions instead of domis.
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#54 - 2014-04-05 00:04:32 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Most of you probably should have learned this by now, but you're pretty much always best to ignore anything Malcanis posts (on any forum).


The Eagle is too powerful and grossly overused. It needs a brutal nerf.


i know you bump into an eagle at every gate .. sometimes a swirling mass of them like swarms :)

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
Myxx
The Scope
#55 - 2014-04-05 00:14:37 UTC
What I get from this is that CCP has essentially ceased any new content creation and that expansions are now just large bugfixes and QOL patches.

Am I correct? I see no proof otherwise.
Phoenix Jones
Small-Arms Fire
#56 - 2014-04-05 00:19:43 UTC
Threads been up for hours.. only hit page 3? ... oh you put it in the Info Portal and not the general forums.

Avoiding the thread-naught aren't we :-)

Yaay!!!!
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#57 - 2014-04-05 00:23:58 UTC
Myxx wrote:
What I get from this is that CCP has essentially ceased any new content creation and that expansions are now just large bugfixes and QOL patches.

Am I correct? I see no proof otherwise.


there are so many things that need fixing and/or updating .. there is a long que before any real new content ...

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#58 - 2014-04-05 00:24:57 UTC
Phoenix Jones wrote:
Threads been up for hours.. only hit page 3? ... oh you put it in the Info Portal and not the general forums.

Avoiding the thread-naught aren't we :-)

Yes, by putting this thread where they always are (and with the usual direct link from the blog), they're trying to ensure that no-one will have any chance of finding it…
Zappity
New Eden Tank Testing Services
#59 - 2014-04-05 00:40:23 UTC
Good format, length and useful content - thanks.

Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.
Beofryn Sedorak
#60 - 2014-04-05 01:04:02 UTC
Zappity wrote:
Good format, length and useful content - thanks.


Bet you say that to all the boys!