These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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: CSM9 Summer Summit Minutes!

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Arronicus
State War Academy
Caldari State
#41 - 2014-10-30 01:25:55 UTC
RE: Replacing resigned members: Running another election is just going to allow major interest groups to shoehorn in another candidate. Passing the invitation to join to the candidates who got the next highest tallys of votes is far more reasonable toward respecting the votes of the general playerbase, and does not double the voting power of major coalitions.
CCP Falcon
#42 - 2014-10-30 01:29:03 UTC
Galphii wrote:
A fascinating read as always Smile
I enjoy the candor of everyone present talking in real terms about where Eve is and where it needs to be.


I spent three days being the secretary ***** for the summit, and tried to catch as much as I could.

When CSM added to it, we got a lot of extra material too, and in the editing process, I certainly tried to keep it direct and to the point.

Good to hear that you read it that way Smile

CCP Falcon || EVE Universe Community Manager || @CCP_Falcon

Happy Birthday To FAWLTY7! <3
Greygal
Redemption Road
Affirmative.
#43 - 2014-10-30 02:27:29 UTC
Amazing minutes, really liked the format and they seemed far more "open" that past summit minutes, if that makes sense.

Correction on Page 77 - This is the Corporations and Alliance section, but the headline says Team Five-0

> Alliance logos:
Please, make this happen! The watermark idea is a good idea, sure it's not perfect, but it's definitely better than the current no-new-logos situation.

> CEO switch to turn on/off ability to shoot fellow corpmates:
Love this idea, love the thinking behind it! See what Altrue posted above about messaging and options/warnings/time limits on toggling this, it's a great idea that addresses the concerns raised in the minutes.

> Corp Invites:
Oh please let me be able to send an invite to join my corp to a player! Yes, it could lead to scamming/griefing/spamming of invites, but you could put limits on how many invites are open to reduce the spamming issue, and scamming/griefing isn't necessarily a bad thing ...

> Nullsec/renting:
"Sion Kumitomo - It is what I dislike about renting. These are people who wanted to carve out their own destiny and they are locked into a serfdom." Spot-on, Sion.

I know I could get a system in nullsec for my alliance pretty much any time I wanted to, but it would be as a pet, renter, or otherwise subsuming our identity to a larger group, and any of that is anathema to me and my alliancemates. Should we ever go the sov path, I want it to be something we accomplished together and are emotionally invested in the gaining and holding and keeping of.

Just paying isk to someone for space (that doesn't have our name on it) is no challenge, no sense of accomplishment, but currently, it is truly the only feasible way for a small alliance to live in sov space without becoming a pet or becoming lost in a big alliance (although that is changing, drastically changing, with Phoebe and subsequent changes *fingers crossed!*)

Don't get me wrong - there is nothing inherently "wrong" with people renting space, if that is how they choose to play, but the simple fact it is essentially the only way for small alliances to get a foothold in sov space is no choice at all.

I look forward to the days when renter space is just one option among many that a player or alliance can choose as their way of getting a foothold in sov space.

> Bookmark packs:
"Discussion about "bookmark packs" and configuration settings (much like overview packs) concluded that dragging a bookmark into chat to share it would be awesome, but that not everyone is as awesome as CCP Karkur. "

Oh please, make linkable bookmarks a thing... /me gets on knees and begs ...

> NES Store
Add long, curly hair please!

> My favorite quote:
"Sugar - They are trying to find their childhood again. They remember why they like Eve. They remember being excited about Eve. "

Fantastic job on the minutes! Very impressive!

GG

What you do for yourself dies with you, what you do for others is immortal.

Free weekly public roams & monthly NewBro new player roams!

Visit Redemption Road or join mailing list REDEMPTION ROAMS for information
Michal Jita
Lords Of The Universe
#44 - 2014-10-30 02:40:58 UTC
CSM minutes as always are a great read, showing a lot of insight into CCP and CSM.

Couple of things I would like to point though.
The most important part of CSM meeting, EVE roadmap, the single biggest thing that keeps a lot of people interested in the game (hey one day it might actually become interesting again, so I;ll just stick around), this part is under NDA, what ****.
We, me, all players want to know what is on the roadmap, what I can expect to happen in next 3 months, 6 months, 12 months, in the future. We all know you are working on new Dust, Valkyrie, corporations, alliances, sov, starbases, etc, but clearly these are just topics, I want to know how far are you into them, what hurdles, what achievements you have, I don't think this expectation is unreasonable. You have so many fine ways of communicating with players, EVE TV, forums, devblogs, CSM, yet you somehow ALWAYS chuck things in the last minute, we are 5 days away from Phoebe and we don't 100% know what's going to be shipped!

On second point, a lot of null sec work discussed in CSM summit has already been out (power projection etc.) but what has been discussed in the Summit and in various media afterwards is very worrying.
"CCP Greyscale - We'd like to be in a position where there are dense pockets of activity in nullsec to
create clusters that are worth defending rather than a spread of population over a wider area that will
afk at the first sign of trouble."
What you MIGHT be saying here is that in system XXX with sec status -1.0 a big alliance will have 40 NYX ratting 24/7 because this is worth defending and no one is going to EVER be able to challenge that! What I want to get across in this post is the fact that no system should be used by more then 10-20 people at the time, this is what current null sec systems can sustain and this is what shouldn't be under any circumstances EVER changed upwards.
When someone tackles a rating NYX or a ratting Archon, an alliance will have a choice, light a cyno or get a defence fleet into the system through gates to defend it NOT just warp other 50+ people from other anoms.

Just my 2 cents here, trying to put it across back to CCP while they are still early in the design cycle but also reminding them that your communication with clients is poor.

Thank you.
Michal
Zappity
New Eden Tank Testing Services
#45 - 2014-10-30 02:59:26 UTC
CSM minutes wrote:
As this is a very short session, Steve Ronuken thought he'd bulk it out a little with a recipe for his favourite bolognese style sauce. Since bolognese is not under NDA, this remains in the minutes...

Hehe :)

Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.
Persifonne
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#46 - 2014-10-30 03:27:32 UTC
CCP Masterplan - We're looking at changing three things before the end of the year. First is the intracorp aggression rules - At the moment all members can now freely aggress each other. We are looking to change this so that being in the same member corp does not give you the right to legally kill your corp mates. The main goal of this is to make recruitment safer for the recruiter and the recruitee.

Page 70something...... WTF???

No.
Xuixien
Solar Winds Security Solutions
#47 - 2014-10-30 03:33:28 UTC
CCP, when will you stop buffing HiSec?

Epic Space Cat, Horsegirl, Philanthropist
mr ed thehouseofed
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#48 - 2014-10-30 03:37:15 UTC
great read , looking foward to seeing some of these things being implemented Smile

i want a eve pinball machine...  confirming  CCP Cognac is best cognac
Persifonne
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#49 - 2014-10-30 03:49:12 UTC
CCP says its cuz players hide in ncp corps[ie their stats on player retention for npc corps == ccps money lost] to avoid safaris.

No ccp its cuz of wardecs. Thats why in npc corps.

So remove wardecs!!
Zappity
New Eden Tank Testing Services
#50 - 2014-10-30 06:16:57 UTC
What does this mean?

CSM Minutes wrote:
CCP Fozzie: To go back to Funky's words on the back and forth balance, there's a discussion whether we want EVE to be hard and gritty or whether we want it to be tough. It's a discussion that comes up every couple of years and we'll maybe look at it at some point.

Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#51 - 2014-10-30 06:25:58 UTC  |  Edited by: MeBiatch
Persifonne wrote:
CCP says its cuz players hide in ncp corps[ie their stats on player retention for npc corps == ccps money lost] to avoid safaris.

No ccp its cuz of wardecs. Thats why in npc corps.

So remove wardecs!!


No i say remove non noob npc corps from the game.


After you play the game for a month you get a pop up saying that you have now graduated from the basic training and its time to either join a corp or form a corporation.

Dont remove wars remove npc corps that cant be war decced

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#52 - 2014-10-30 06:37:57 UTC
starting at page 124, general game design. stopping by to chime in with my support for this tidbit:

Quote:

CCP Soniclover - It is not great that you can only do level fours for a certain number of agents and if you
wanted to go and work for another faction you have to start with level ones again. It is a ridiculous
thing. It can also become an issue if you have been working for a faction for a long time and now you
need to correct your standings. The only option is to do level one missions for a long time. There should
be ways for you to rectify this beyond endless level one missions. We are looking at something similar to
Tags4Sec

It may be a while before I try missions again, or need to fix my standings (with Gallente, for the very reason mentioned by Soniclover), but with the standings situation in the same place I left it, this is really good news to hear. Even that it's being considered.

Standings for tags thread of mine from not too long ago

For the sake of full disclosure, the specific missions that I farmed (and trashed my standings) was the Enemies Abound series, in Caldari space. With two or three shooters, and a logi or two, they can be farmed like mini incursions. Compared to incursions, the payout is about the same per pilot, although the value is in the faction tags dropped in Enemies Abound rather than LP. There's a bit more gate travel involved than incursions, but the location is stable and incoming DPS is lower. The skill requirement is also lower, with Oracles or Tornadoes for the shooters, and a scimitar or two as logi. 4 or 5 characters versus 10, with a total ship and fittings cost around 500 million ISK, rather than blinged Nightmares for 8 shooters.

o7

still reading,
xoxo2soniclover.

Help, I can't download EVE

President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub

PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
CCP Leeloo
C C P
C C P Alliance
#53 - 2014-10-30 06:56:02 UTC
Arronicus wrote:
RE: Replacing resigned members: Running another election is just going to allow major interest groups to shoehorn in another candidate. Passing the invitation to join to the candidates who got the next highest tallys of votes is far more reasonable toward respecting the votes of the general playerbase, and does not double the voting power of major coalitions.

Let me explain why I consider this a bad idea.

1. People, who gave their vote for the candidate who had to resign are **** if we just grab the next guy on the list. If we re-run the ballot without the one who has left, then all those votes are back in the basket, so people still have their CSM rep accordingly to their votes. This will also encourage people not to vote randomly.

2. If you happen to be #15 you will do all you can to make sure that at least one person leaves the current council. I would not appreciate that kind of encouragement... However, if you don't know who will leave you can't precisely predict who will be next on the list.

3. Same as 2 it can backfire to the person who is #15 or whichever is next on the list, he can get harassed and all that bad stuff. Which, again, I would love to avoid.

CCP Leeloo | Community Developer | @ccp_leeloo | leeloo@ccpgames.com
Arronicus
State War Academy
Caldari State
#54 - 2014-10-30 06:59:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Arronicus
Session: Nullsec, Page 61

"CCP Fozzie - We have said in the past that we want there to be more interesting game play there. AFK
cloaking, however, is an entirely social form of power. To me, it is the equivalent of posting on the
forums until someone stops ratting. It has the same physical impact in many ways. ..."

It would be nice here if we could have some clarification of whether CCP Fozzie has ever been to null-sec before or not. Without getting into a discussion of whether AFK cloaking is good or bad, whether it is harmful to the game or not, whether it should be changed, or not, to say that it is entirely social and equivalent to forum posting is not only naive, but shows an utter lack of understanding for null-sec resident disruption, and alternative isk rackets.

Forum posts by random alts do not make players dock up. They do not carry the potential to drop fleets into your system. They do not carry the potential to snag a stray hauler on the gate, or ninja loot from a faction/officer spawn.

I'm not looking for Fozzie's head on a pike, that is completely unreasonable, but this sort of comment when it comes to game design brought up by the CSM is the sort of thing that erodes chunks of player confidence.

Edit: Removed minor typos
drunklies
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#55 - 2014-10-30 07:01:03 UTC
Quote:
. Add a small handful of appropriate herbs.


CCP publishing a recipe using unspecified herbs, no way that could go wrong. Shocked Cooking will commence at 16:20Big smile.


Favorite line :)
Quote:
CCP Gargant - Sven >>>CHange to CCP name<<<<


Otherwise an excellent document. It is immensely reassuring to know the levels and aspects of the game that are considered by the CSM, and the candor in their responses. Bring on phoebe and 2015.
Arronicus
State War Academy
Caldari State
#56 - 2014-10-30 07:02:58 UTC
CCP Leeloo wrote:
Arronicus wrote:
RE: Replacing resigned members: Running another election is just going to allow major interest groups to shoehorn in another candidate. Passing the invitation to join to the candidates who got the next highest tallys of votes is far more reasonable toward respecting the votes of the general playerbase, and does not double the voting power of major coalitions.

Let me explain why I consider this a bad idea.

1. People, who gave their vote for the candidate who had to resign are **** if we just grab the next guy on the list. If we re-run the ballot without the one who has left, then all those votes are back in the basket, so people still have their CSM rep accordingly to their votes. This will also encourage people not to vote randomly.

2. If you happen to be #15 you will do all you can to make sure that at least one person leaves the current council. I would not appreciate that kind of encouragement... However, if you don't know who will leave you can't precisely predict who will be next on the list.

3. Same as 2 it can backfire to the person who is #15 or whichever is next on the list, he can get harassed and all that bad stuff. Which, again, I would love to avoid.


While these are very valid points, it just seems kindof silly to allow a group of 15,000 players to muscle in 2 candidates. Additionally, a large group could do the same as #2 that you mentioned, doing everything they can to make sure at least one person, other than their elected candidate leaves, allowing them to mass vote in a second? I wonder if to that, not allowing players who's votes counted toward a currently seated CSM member, who is not the one that stepped down, would be doable? A revote, that only counted the votes of those whose vote is not currently represented.
Dwissi
Miners Delight Reborn
#57 - 2014-10-30 08:31:23 UTC
Arronicus wrote:
CCP Leeloo wrote:
Arronicus wrote:
RE: Replacing resigned members: Running another election is just going to allow major interest groups to shoehorn in another candidate. Passing the invitation to join to the candidates who got the next highest tallys of votes is far more reasonable toward respecting the votes of the general playerbase, and does not double the voting power of major coalitions.

Let me explain why I consider this a bad idea.

1. People, who gave their vote for the candidate who had to resign are **** if we just grab the next guy on the list. If we re-run the ballot without the one who has left, then all those votes are back in the basket, so people still have their CSM rep accordingly to their votes. This will also encourage people not to vote randomly.

2. If you happen to be #15 you will do all you can to make sure that at least one person leaves the current council. I would not appreciate that kind of encouragement... However, if you don't know who will leave you can't precisely predict who will be next on the list.

3. Same as 2 it can backfire to the person who is #15 or whichever is next on the list, he can get harassed and all that bad stuff. Which, again, I would love to avoid.


While these are very valid points, it just seems kindof silly to allow a group of 15,000 players to muscle in 2 candidates. Additionally, a large group could do the same as #2 that you mentioned, doing everything they can to make sure at least one person, other than their elected candidate leaves, allowing them to mass vote in a second? I wonder if to that, not allowing players who's votes counted toward a currently seated CSM member, who is not the one that stepped down, would be doable? A revote, that only counted the votes of those whose vote is not currently represented.


I very much like this idea as well. The remaining members already have proven to be voted for - a revote by the same rules for a member that steps down will just repeat the result that was already given to form the then acting CSM. But every vote that isnt represented by then is basically invalidated - so choosing out of that pool or electing just with those votes would be the most decent approach. In most democratic election systems there will be a 'pull' from those who havnt made it into a council without a complete revote. The 'pulled' member might not be the perfect representative for the open topic but will definitely have been voted for during the same elective period. The council is supposed to represent - not make lonely decisions of what they believe is right. So in the end it doesnt really matter if the 'pulled' member is the perfect pick for the topic as that person can overcome this by enhanced communication with the playerbase.

Proud designer of glasses for geeky dovakins

Before someone complains again: grr everyone

Greed is the death of loyalty
Aineko Macx
#58 - 2014-10-30 10:06:41 UTC
The amount of "unorthodox" phrasing and missing words in sentences in the minutes is impressive.

iveeCore 3.0: The PHP engine for industrial activities and CREST library
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#59 - 2014-10-30 11:25:05 UTC
Yay for the Minutes.

Small convenience request: make the table of content bullet points links to the respective pages.

UI Improvement Collective

My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.
ChromeStriker
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#60 - 2014-10-30 11:43:17 UTC
I would like to ask that the bolognese is surved at fanfest... thank you

No Worries