These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Assembly Hall

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

CSMX - SUMMIT I

First post First post
Author
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai
#61 - 2015-09-16 20:15:59 UTC
Will be waiting for the PvE session, but I guess it says a lot that it's been bundled with PvP content (Faction warfare)...

Roses are red / Violets are blue / I am an Alpha / And so it's you

Circumstantial Evidence
#62 - 2015-09-17 00:44:24 UTC
Day 2 Session: Individuality vs Uniformity - wrote:
Sugar - Stuff like the colors of the UI are an issue, people have lost the sliders for colors, and dont have the ability to customise their UI because EVE should look like EVE no matter where its viewed from.
[...]
CCP MannBjorn - There has been talk of customizing the UI, all kinds of things, but these are very expensive in terms of development time and focus is elsewhere.
The EVE client had perfectly serviceable UI color sliders, Dev time was spent to create UI color presets... and UI color sliders were removed. While the presets were being developed, it would have been fairly trivial to preserve UI color sliders. This dropped ball has been bouncing back at CCP ever since. Color me, and quite probably a thousand others: disappointed.
Circumstantial Evidence
#63 - 2015-09-17 01:38:47 UTC
Day 2 Session: Purpose of the Council - Sion Kumitomo - wrote:
For instance, if there was this venue and we had a process for this, thered be a closed forum for sov, where people could discuss this, and Id have a group of everyone who has an interst in sov, not just my leadership who have my bias, but everyone. Theres a lot of people who know about sov, and its a place where CCP can go without the toxicity, and look at solid feedback. With this kind of system youd have the accountability that we dont have right now. Youd take away the noise and give clear signal, because wed be accountable for the people who were in these discussions. .... I think Id like to see the CSM become the wranglers of this feedback so that we can filter this feedback.
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.
Alundil
Rolled Out
#64 - 2015-09-17 02:05:23 UTC
looking forward to the release of minutes for day #2

orangefrog wrote:
The loss of the IGB would be a major blow. I have always run EVE fullscreen and have absolutely no wish to run it in a window. I have one monitor and that fact will never change (no space for another one and no money either). I fully support Rivr Luzade's point that swapping to an out-of-game browser when hunting NPC's (and being shot at) is a very backward step. Please keep the IGB, or if that's not an option then replace it with a different browser engine viewable from within EVE.

If the IGB is going to go then CCP better get digging that bunker before I have target lock and start chucking torps their way Big smile

This is a very dead horse. IGB runs on an old (ancient tbqfh) version of Chromium with more holes and vulnerabilities than swiss cheese. It would be infeasible to replace that browser with another and update a 3rd party browser in their client every time it changed. As has been said in more places than one (but probably most recently in the very minutes you just read) their plan is to add functionality to crest such that 3rd party devs can create sites that can use that data for bigger and better things than the IGB would ever be capable of. Only then would they remove the IGB.

Disclaimer: full time wormhole player who relies on IGB functionality and who would be greatly inconvenienced without it (or an acceptable replacement)

I'm right behind you

Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#65 - 2015-09-17 06:19:59 UTC
Alundil wrote:
looking forward to the release of minutes for day #2

orangefrog wrote:
The loss of the IGB would be a major blow. I have always run EVE fullscreen and have absolutely no wish to run it in a window. I have one monitor and that fact will never change (no space for another one and no money either). I fully support Rivr Luzade's point that swapping to an out-of-game browser when hunting NPC's (and being shot at) is a very backward step. Please keep the IGB, or if that's not an option then replace it with a different browser engine viewable from within EVE.

If the IGB is going to go then CCP better get digging that bunker before I have target lock and start chucking torps their way Big smile

This is a very dead horse. IGB runs on an old (ancient tbqfh) version of Chromium with more holes and vulnerabilities than swiss cheese. It would be infeasible to replace that browser with another and update a 3rd party browser in their client every time it changed. As has been said in more places than one (but probably most recently in the very minutes you just read) their plan is to add functionality to crest such that 3rd party devs can create sites that can use that data for bigger and better things than the IGB would ever be capable of. Only then would they remove the IGB.

Disclaimer: full time wormhole player who relies on IGB functionality and who would be greatly inconvenienced without it (or an acceptable replacement)

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.

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.

Amarisen Gream
Pleasant Peninsula Productions
Digital Vendetta
#66 - 2015-09-17 08:04:06 UTC
I loved the discussion on the purpose of the CSM

(I did vote)

For the last few months I have been asking for something like this - I made a forum F&I post, copied it over to the CSM side and hot ISD'd.
There are also a lot of post that have great discussion but get locked do to people purposely trolling the idea or just not providing decent feedback.

I just started my 3rd year of EVE and believe in being a vocal member on the forums - because I want this game to last a long time and to keep being great.

+1 from me for CSM controlled discussions on some NDA items.

"The Lord loosed upon them his fierce anger All of his fury and rage. He dispatched against them a band of Avenging Angels" - The Scriptures, Book II, Apocalypse 10:1

#NPCLivesMatter #Freetheboobs

Seliah
Moira.
Villore Accords
#67 - 2015-09-17 09:48:24 UTC
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.
Maria Kitiare
Ehefkae
#68 - 2015-09-17 11:45:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Maria Kitiare
In regards to session: Purpose of the Council.

I am one of those players who know what the CSM is. I read the minutes, I engage CSM members(sometimes) but If I could, I would vote blank.

This topic was a good one imo. Lots of good issues was brought to the table, but I feel like you jumped over or missed a few important ones.

Transparency and accountability.

You discussed CSM accountability towards CCP with the new suggestion of how the CSM should function, but not towards the player base and as I read it, the transparency will continue to be non existent. This is in my opinion the biggest issues of the CSM.

I can not vote on or feel represented by a bunch of players, who isn't accountable for what they tell CCP because of the lack of transparency. Sure, the minutes helps, but they are often not very detailed(as we saw last year) or the level of detail is at best unknown.

When you vote for the major of Reykjavik he gives you his political views, but after he is elected, you see his actions and judge him upon these. We don't have the option to judge our CSM upon their actions, cause we don't know what is going on in those smoke filled chat rooms behind the curtains. And without this transparency and accountability, the CSM will always just be a group of players, voted in due to their celebrity status who then receive a higher level of personal influence over the game.

I like the idea of more townhalls, but I am a bit sad that the session ended in only discussing this, cause an entire overhaul of the CSM as an institute is needed if I am not to be left with the image that the CSM receive special privileges for their personal gain from CCP.

I want to stress, before you ban me, that I am not saying the CSM gets any favoritism from the CCP. What I am saying is that without transparency, we don't know.

If the CSM member is arguing for the better of the game, based on a wide range of feedback, then there is no favoritism in play, but if the CSM member argue his own personal opinion or the opinion of the people he play with, then his position in the CSM gives him an advantage over the rest of the playerbase by making his personal opinions weigh more than those of other players, and if CCP reacts on that feedback and use it, then we're talking favoritism.
Ofc. that favoritism is based upon a vote, but lets be honest.. The "Vote for CSM" is completely irrelevant and useless without transparency and accountability.

So while I am super happy about the dissussion about the CSMs role, I feel like you jumped over or skipped the most important issues of the CSM.

Hugs
Harry Saq
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#69 - 2015-09-17 12:30:45 UTC
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.
Cismet
Silent Industry
Silent Company
#70 - 2015-09-17 12:54:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Cismet
Alundil wrote:
looking forward to the release of minutes for day #2

orangefrog wrote:
The loss of the IGB would be a major blow. I have always run EVE fullscreen and have absolutely no wish to run it in a window. I have one monitor and that fact will never change (no space for another one and no money either). I fully support Rivr Luzade's point that swapping to an out-of-game browser when hunting NPC's (and being shot at) is a very backward step. Please keep the IGB, or if that's not an option then replace it with a different browser engine viewable from within EVE.

If the IGB is going to go then CCP better get digging that bunker before I have target lock and start chucking torps their way Big smile

This is a very dead horse. IGB runs on an old (ancient tbqfh) version of Chromium with more holes and vulnerabilities than swiss cheese. It would be infeasible to replace that browser with another and update a 3rd party browser in their client every time it changed. As has been said in more places than one (but probably most recently in the very minutes you just read) their plan is to add functionality to crest such that 3rd party devs can create sites that can use that data for bigger and better things than the IGB would ever be capable of. Only then would they remove the IGB.

Disclaimer: full time wormhole player who relies on IGB functionality and who would be greatly inconvenienced without it (or an acceptable replacement)


I'm sorry, I disagree. It would be fairly trivial to attach the likes of Firefox into the game. Firefox is open source. Likewise Chromium is the source for the Chrome browser and is still updated. There is no need to update it every time it changes, they could quite happily only use the important security updates. They clearly already have a wrapper to put the browser in in-game, so no need to develop that either.

CREST isn't a solution to the issues that would be caused by the loss of the IGB, it won't have the functionality and opening an OOGB isn't a good solution in a game where being alt-tabbed can get you killed and as other's have said, forcing people to multi-window/play windowed isn't an appropriate solution and reeks of elitism. There's no need to apply each update to a browser, hell this one hasn't been updated in years by the looks of it and it's still adequate to the cause.
Amarisen Gream
Pleasant Peninsula Productions
Digital Vendetta
#71 - 2015-09-17 18:43:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Amarisen Gream
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.

"The Lord loosed upon them his fierce anger All of his fury and rage. He dispatched against them a band of Avenging Angels" - The Scriptures, Book II, Apocalypse 10:1

#NPCLivesMatter #Freetheboobs

Circumstantial Evidence
#72 - 2015-09-17 19:58:16 UTC
Cismet wrote:
I'm sorry, I disagree. It would be fairly trivial to attach the likes of Firefox into the game. Firefox is open source. Likewise Chromium is the source for the Chrome browser and is still updated. There is no need to update it every time it changes, they could quite happily only use the important security updates. They clearly already have a wrapper to put the browser in in-game, so no need to develop that either.
Here are two quotes from CCP FoxFour about the IGB difficulties:

[Link to post:]
CCP FoxFour wrote:
...the engine we are using, Awesomium I believe, was heavily modified to work with EVE. The end result is that it's not nearly as simple as upgrading to the newest version. Especially after all these years. It's an unfortunate situation but it is what it is.

[Link to looong post:]
CCP FoxFour wrote:
Really the only question and problem with moving from the IGB to CREST is the fact that you can browse the IGB from the client versus alt-tabbing. From our, or mine anyways, understanding most of you guys have multiple monitors and that's not an issue. There are also other applications that will overlay your current web browser with the game. Things like Overwolf I think it's called. The benefits from us doing things through CREST and relying on you guys to use an existing browser are immense. We get to focus on making cool things instead of trying to maintain a customized browser in the client. Not sure you guys realize just how much work there is in maintaining something as complex as a browser and how much of a security problem for everyone this is.

Anyways, nothing is happening anytime soon, when it does it will be because we, CCP and you the players and the CSM, have had a good long discussion about it, and only once something else is in place to replace it.
SpaceSaft
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#73 - 2015-09-17 21:22:26 UTC
Hello,

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

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.
Freelancer117
So you want to be a Hero
#74 - 2015-09-17 21:54:29 UTC
CCP Seagull wrote:
EVE should be a universe where the infrastructure you build and fight over is,

as player driven and dynamic as the EVE market is now.

source: http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/looking-behind-and-looking-ahead-an-update-from-executive-producer-ccp-seagull/


I have a question about the eve market being player driven and dynamic,

during the o7 show on 17 September this graph was shown as an metric for isk sinks & faucets:

http://i.imgur.com/2d5OqCb.jpg


It shows an isk sink of ~665 billion and ~16 trillion isk faucet for the Commodity NPC Market.

My question is how the Commodity NCP market works:


Is the supply and demand of NPC trade goods (antibiotics, spiced wine, etc.) based on player driven and dynamic gameplay ?


Regards, a Freelancer

Eve online is :

A) mining simulator B) glorified chatroom C) spreadsheets online

D) CCP Games Pay to Win at skill leveling, with instant gratification

http://eve-radio.com//images/photos/3419/223/34afa0d7998f0a9a86f737d6.jpg

http://bit.ly/1egr4mF

Circumstantial Evidence
#75 - 2015-09-18 00:59:44 UTC
Day 3 Session: Quality Assurance - Sort Dragon wrote:
If you guys want more people, it would be great to put out a blog about how to connect to sisi.
Long ago I read a proposal to add this functionality to the Launcher. Some players just aren't comfortable messing with their file system.
Vilar Diin
Pandemic Horde Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#76 - 2015-09-18 17:27:19 UTC
CCP Foxfour,

I saw that you are considering charging for different cloak colors and it made think of the old cloaking sound as well as the old strip miner sound.

Is there a way to make different sounds available for items and then charge for them or is that not possible (non-coder here )?
Halan Devan
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#77 - 2015-09-18 17:36:06 UTC
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.




Vilar Diin
Pandemic Horde Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#78 - 2015-09-18 17:43:58 UTC
CCP Fozzie,

Reading the minutes regarding Sov, I see that Sort refers to the task of hacking and guarding the hacker as boring, I would tend to agree.

have you considered adding abilities to the command nodes that only become apparent as soon as they are hacked?

for example: (just using stuff you have in game) consider each node randomly being able to do damage , web, scram, nothing or any combo.

So the attacker hacks the node and it might have no defenses say 50% of the time but it might web the attacker or in very rare instances be a sentry, web, scram node. It would keep things interesting .

Perhaps there would also be an anchorable that increases the chances of a each node having a defense that would need to be placed in a particular citadel so attackers might want to kill that citadel as a preface to a genuine invasion.
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#79 - 2015-09-18 23:46:46 UTC
Freelancer117 wrote:
CCP Seagull wrote:
EVE should be a universe where the infrastructure you build and fight over is,

as player driven and dynamic as the EVE market is now.

source: http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/looking-behind-and-looking-ahead-an-update-from-executive-producer-ccp-seagull/


I have a question about the eve market being player driven and dynamic,

during the o7 show on 17 September this graph was shown as an metric for isk sinks & faucets:

http://i.imgur.com/2d5OqCb.jpg


It shows an isk sink of ~665 billion and ~16 trillion isk faucet for the Commodity NPC Market.

My question is how the Commodity NCP market works:


Is the supply and demand of NPC trade goods (antibiotics, spiced wine, etc.) based on player driven and dynamic gameplay ?


Regards, a Freelancer




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.

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter

Patrick Yaa
The Dark Space Initiative
Scary Wormhole People
#80 - 2015-09-19 11:46:00 UTC
"Restrict from self destruct while inside a POS"

--> How about not.... This would disrupt the playstyle of the "Corp Heist" player, one of the great stories of infiltrations, of stolen and destroyed assets.