Assembly Hall

Will be waiting for the PvE session, but I guess it says a lot that it's been bundled with PvP content (Faction warfare)...

This would require some forum development time, but how does this sound: CSM could start a thread on any topic. They'd have an ability to flag any response as "off topic" or "duplicate" - and perhaps add a note to the post explaining the reason for flagging in greater detail. This would hide the post text, but anyone could click to expand it, if they wanted.

CSM and CCP Developers would have an option to display responses sorted by "like" count, allowing them to quickly review voted feedback, but all unflagged visible responses would be easily readable below posts with "likes" and relevant to the topic.

Potentially controversial: CSM might be granted the ability to "like" a post multiple times, only in these special threads, to help sort the best responses for developers.

Hiding text instead of granting the CSM the power to delete posts, would be a check on CSM bias, since anyone could click to expand the text and make their own decision.

If a responder wanted to argue with CSM for hiding their posts, any such back and forth discussion would not take up much space, it would just be a list of text-free post headers, (with an 'expand' option,) to CCP developers and casual readers.

My problem is not that they remove it, my problem is that they will most likely rely on us using OOGB, which is particularly irritating and bothersome if you play fullscreen. Even in either Window-mode, it is bothersome as I have set up my FF browser window, for instance, in a way that would cover 80% of the EVE window, whereas my IGB window is set up in a way that all the important parts of the UI (overview, dscan/anom scanner, chats, HUD, ...) are always visible and never obscure by the browser.

I am (not really) looking forward on what CCP is going to do with the browser and browsing experience in EVE. Judging by past projects and FoxFour's way to dismiss the IGB, however, I have little hopes that something useful for me will be the outcome.

Regarding the "purpose of the CSM" discussion of day 2, the part about creating "closed discussion groups" :

I think it's a very good idea, but the possibility of being part of one of these groups should be advertised so that anyone can "apply" to join. CSM members should still be picking members and deciding who gets in (and out), but the groups shouldn't consist only of people close to CSM members or loud enough to be noticed on the forums. If I'm some random guy with good ideas but no ties to anyone in the CSM at all, I want to have a chance to be included too.

Why not have a CSM member or two in charge of each discussion group created ? Their role would be :
1. To animate the debates in their discussion group
2. To moderate the dicussions and remove toxic participants
3. To invite people in if they feel they can contribute : these could be either people they know, suggestions from other CSM members, or strangers applying to join the group - after an interview, the group managers could decide to take them in or not.

As a player willing to participate in such dicussion groups, I'd go check out a list of all current discussion groups and their associated CSM members. If I feel like I can contribute in a meaningful way to one of the discussion groups, I can just contact the CSM member in charge and have a chat with him for a chance to be included if he feels I can be useful enough.

I just hope CCP is discerning with the info they give the CSM that is under NDA. Half of the members on the CSM are there because of arrogant and very visible collusion among the power blocs, they play the game in the exact same fashion. They are the exact type of people that take advantage of the info in the NDA on the macro level, in fact I am certain that is half the reason they are there.

I am sure they also give a crap about meaningful change on some level, but CCP should not forget the type of people they are dealing with, and that type of person does what they do.

Edit: As I stated in the former post - I wanted to sit down and hash this idea out on a hybrid skill system. Here it is.

Hello again!
Another idea here from Amarisen Gream (some people like me and others hate me, I know). If you have seen me in the forums, you have probably seen a number of post by me about the skill/sp system over the years, and here comes another one.
First the TL:DR! (I feel a picture help, so I will work on something for it)
1: introduce a hybrid skilling system
2: general skills and groups would be a collective pool. example - Armor skills would be one group. Lasers another. Each race/faction would have their own spaceship command group.
3: Advanced/specialization skills would remain independent.
4: goal = a system that allows easier training on the general basic skill sets (like core skills), while maintaining a system that allows players to focus their character on a "trade"
5: SP in groups would apply to all know/unknown skills in the group - A player could train SP in to a group, yet not have injected all the skills in the group. This would allow players who may not be able to afford or inject a skill book to continue skilling toward it. (Replaces the request by people to allow injection/placement of skills that they do not have the prerequisites for.) Example - player trains into the Armor group, has the meet the requirements for the resistance compensation skills, yet has not bought or injected them, could still in theory be skilling toward them; so once they buy the books and inject they would have access to them and at whatever level they have SP toward.

Now for the long part:
Last week, as I was reading the CSM minutes as well as a few other post on the F&I, it got me thinking of a different option for how the skill system could work.
I made a general post in the comment thread for the CSM minutes, yet I felt like part of the idea was missing and not so well hashed out.

Updated idea with listing of possible groupings.
The basic idea is that the skill groups would act more like a skill pool. So instead of always skulking for a single skill, players skill into the group and unlock skills and skill levels as the progress.
The skill groups would take the current total SP for those skills at max and that would be the max SP for the group.
Example: The Armor group would have a total of say 5 million SP. As you trained/supplied SP to the group you would level as well as unlock more skills.

The main issue that I kept thinking about, how would it work for the major groups like gunnery or missiles or spaceship command.
It isn't a perfect idea - but I think it will work for the more general skill in those groups.
The primary group of gunnery would stay and putting SP in this group would skill up the gunnery support skills, like controlled burst; while Sub-Gunnery groups would deal with the weapon family.
Spaceship command would have sub-groups focused on the different races: Amarr, Caldari etc., while the general stuff would be under the main group.
What about T2/T3 ships? I would leave these in their own place. They are specialized options for players and should remain independent of a general group skill system.

Hello,

I'm very interested in being in on one of these expert groups. so HYPE

I honestly did not expect to see that and a "Individuality vs. Uniformity" session. Good stuff.

Going to call MannBjorn out on "UI colors are hard to change", that's nonsense. It's a color vector. To turn up one or two values a notch so the contrast doesn't literally hurt my eyes is all I want.

Long ago I read a proposal to add this functionality to the Launcher. Some players just aren't comfortable messing with their file system.

I think the CCP Dev was referring only to the CSM members themselves when he mentioned everyone using multiple monitors. If he meant eve players as a group then he is seriously mistaken. Not everyone is as committed to EvE as the CSM are (le gasp!), nor do we have the spare cash to grab monitors due to a single game making good use of them.

Try adding "multiple monitors" to the minimum computer specs for EvE and see what response this gets from new players looking at trying the game. Might be a different viewpoint entirely.

I really despise the "buy another monitor" comment that was made. Elitist comment, expecting that anyone who dares to play eve had better have a setup that supports multiple monitors?

If that is the case then it comes down to CCP having the player spend their money to fix an issue that CCP creates within EvE. And since CCP seems cool with that idea lets apply it to both sides for a second, shall we?

(Warning: Internet sarcasm!) If i get to fix their issues then they can fix my issues. Sounds fair to me at least...

Personally, i would need another computer desk, computer case, power supply, oh and lets add in a new OS since you won't be supporting mine anymore, and obviously a shiny new video card to run both monitors on as i doubt mine would handle twice the visual real estate in game.

But no worries, i will get that new monitor like you told me to, right? (End of Internet sarcasm.)

Seriously though, my point is that it is hardly just "go buy another monitor" for many to fix things in the manner suggested via additional hardware on our side.

Expecting your players to shell out more real life money, so that your company can claim that dropping the IGB will not be an issue to anyone is being deliberately blind to anyone's concerns.

And is a different 3rd party program to overlay things on screen a fix? Is it secure and safe? No vulnerabilities in the program, no unsafe sites claiming to be the place to download this "Overwulf" program that was vaguely mentioned in passing? Is the program going to be updated and work with all browsers?

I think there are good reasons why your CSM is asking you to do this AFTER they leave their positions and don't have to deal with the fallout. Get the fixes in and facts straight before you decide when/if the IGB dies, or grab an officer bunker to shelter in.

Something you're missing is it also includes the blue loot from wormholes.

And to answer the questions as well, buy and sell orders are affected by player activity, adjusting by up to 10% when interacted with. That's on an order by order basis, rather than a global one.