CSM Meeting Minutes 4.005 raw log

[ 2010.01.24 14:22:37 ] ElvenLord > ==========================Meeting of the CSM #5 is starting now
[ 2010.01.24 14:22:49 ] ElvenLord > we have the minimum of 7 delegates
[ 2010.01.24 14:22:51 ] TeaDaze > Can those here X up
[ 2010.01.24 14:22:57 ] ElvenLord > x
[ 2010.01.24 14:22:58 ] Korvin > E
[ 2010.01.24 14:23:00 ] TeaDaze > x
[ 2010.01.24 14:23:02 ] Helen Highwater > x
[ 2010.01.24 14:23:06 ] Song Li > x
[ 2010.01.24 14:23:23 ] T'Amber > x"
[ 2010.01.24 14:23:38 ] Alekseyev Karrde > x
[ 2010.01.24 14:24:43 ] ElvenLord > Agenda for this meeting is:1. Shield bonuses2. Drone rigs and implants3. T3 refitting subsystems at pos / carrier4. ORE Faction Control Tower5. Tradable and Subscribable BlockLists (Version #2]
[ 2010.01.24 14:24:51 ] ElvenLord > 6. Scan probes of all types - an addable option to overview profiles7. CCP/CSM meeting - issues list
[ 2010.01.24 14:25:11 ] ElvenLord > First is an amended proposal rejected last time
[ 2010.01.24 14:25:15 ] ElvenLord > :P
[ 2010.01.24 14:25:20 ] Helen Highwater > !
[ 2010.01.24 14:25:21 ] ElvenLord > 1. Shield bonuses
[ 2010.01.24 14:25:21 ] T'Amber > :P
[ 2010.01.24 14:25:23 ] TeaDaze > http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Shield_gang_bonuses_should_be_applied_just_like_armour_ones_%28CSM%29
[ 2010.01.24 14:25:26 ] TeaDaze > !
[ 2010.01.24 14:25:31 ] ElvenLord > Helen Highwater go
[ 2010.01.24 14:25:59 ] Helen Highwater > The proposal hasn't been updated and Sok is not here to tell us what has changed. I would like it taken off the agenda until Sok can be arsed to do something useful with it
[ 2010.01.24 14:26:10 ] Helen Highwater > as it is he's just wasting more time[end]
[ 2010.01.24 14:26:17 ] ElvenLord > TeaDaze go
[ 2010.01.24 14:26:18 ] TeaDaze > Formally objecting to a proposal being re-raised with just a minor edit after being clearly rejected (not put back for rework but voted on and rejected).
[ 2010.01.24 14:26:36 ] Helen Highwater > /emote agrees with Tea
[ 2010.01.24 14:26:39 ] TeaDaze > Still no substance and hasn't addressed my concerns from last time[end]
[ 2010.01.24 14:26:41 ] Song Li > agree
[ 2010.01.24 14:26:44 ] ElvenLord > ok, accepted. Issue is rejected till further notice
[ 2010.01.24 14:26:44 ] T'Amber > !
[ 2010.01.24 14:26:50 ] ElvenLord > T'Amber go
[ 2010.01.24 14:26:55 ] TeaDaze > !
[ 2010.01.24 14:26:59 ] T'Amber > agree also
[ 2010.01.24 14:27:11 ] T'Amber > [end]
[ 2010.01.24 14:27:17 ] Alekseyev Karrde > !
[ 2010.01.24 14:27:29 ] ElvenLord > TeaDaze go
[ 2010.01.24 14:27:59 ] TeaDaze > Happy to work with whoever on this issue, but I think it would be better for the issues with capitals to be kept seperate from gang bonuses in general. [end]
[ 2010.01.24 14:28:12 ] T'Amber > +1
[ 2010.01.24 14:28:35 ] ElvenLord > As I said, this issue is rejected then. You are all welcome to consult with Sok and make a new proposal
[ 2010.01.24 14:28:39 ] ElvenLord > Alekseyev Karrde go
[ 2010.01.24 14:28:41 ] Alekseyev Karrde > Could TD restate which objections he felt were not met?  [end]
[ 2010.01.24 14:28:55 ] TeaDaze > !
[ 2010.01.24 14:29:12 ] ElvenLord > TeaDaze go
[ 2010.01.24 14:30:03 ] TeaDaze > Every post detailling this issue uses capital ships to hilight the problem. Furthermore the amendment is a nerf to regen tanking (which I admit with capitals isn't a worry) and that trying to put this forward "because armour tanking does it this way"
[ 2010.01.24 14:30:15 ] TeaDaze > is ignoring the other factors in play. [end]
[ 2010.01.24 14:30:52 ] ElvenLord > lets move on
[ 2010.01.24 14:30:53 ] Alekseyev Karrde > kk
[ 2010.01.24 14:31:00 ] ElvenLord > NEXT on agenda is: 2. Drone rigs and implants
[ 2010.01.24 14:31:02 ] TeaDaze > http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Drone_rigs_and_implants_%28CSM%29
[ 2010.01.24 14:31:19 ] TeaDaze > !
[ 2010.01.24 14:31:37 ] ElvenLord > TeaDaze go
[ 2010.01.24 14:32:03 ] TeaDaze > I agree in principle bout would like some guidence on the proposal as to how the rigs would work (i.e. are we suggesting that large rigs only work on large drones) [end]
[ 2010.01.24 14:32:20 ] ElvenLord > !
[ 2010.01.24 14:32:23 ] Alekseyev Karrde > !
[ 2010.01.24 14:32:39 ] Helen Highwater > !
[ 2010.01.24 14:33:06 ] ElvenLord > As far as I see it there can be drone speed rigs, control range rigs, HP boost rigs etc
[ 2010.01.24 14:33:14 ] ElvenLord > same goes for implants.
[ 2010.01.24 14:33:29 ] TeaDaze > !
[ 2010.01.24 14:33:56 ] ElvenLord > Implants by my standards should be added in Gallente LP store as drones are their weapon etc {end}
[ 2010.01.24 14:34:00 ] ElvenLord > Alekseyev Karrde go
[ 2010.01.24 14:34:15 ] Alekseyev Karrde > I think there's a fine amount of drone rigs out there compared to other weapon systems, no need to add more.  Highslot modules on the other hand....  I do agree there should be an implant line for drones though [end]
[ 2010.01.24 14:34:39 ] ElvenLord > Helen Highwater go
[ 2010.01.24 14:34:41 ] Helen Highwater > This is a typical Sok proposal, no actual work has gone into it beyond wishing for rainbows and ponies. I would like to see more depth to drones but this is a pretty lazy proposal. There's no analysis, no description of a solution and no real substance.
[ 2010.01.24 14:34:53 ] T'Amber > !
[ 2010.01.24 14:35:08 ] Helen Highwater > He's not made a case for the proposal beyond 'it would be cool if..' no demonstratrion of an actual balance issue and nothing to suggest that one exists[end]
[ 2010.01.24 14:35:19 ] ElvenLord > TeaDaze go
[ 2010.01.24 14:35:33 ] TeaDaze > Implants for guns/missiles are sized so I would hope that is the idea for drones too, but as Helen says this hasn't been addressed on the proposal[end]
[ 2010.01.24 14:35:45 ] Alekseyev Karrde > !
[ 2010.01.24 14:35:46 ] ElvenLord > T'Amber go
[ 2010.01.24 14:35:47 ] Helen Highwater > !
[ 2010.01.24 14:36:34 ] T'Amber > I think Teas issue is legitamate - what size drone rigs would work on which drones, or would the effect be for all drone types. I think implants definately would be a good idea, but this proposal needs more work and we will go in cirlces
[ 2010.01.24 14:36:38 ] T'Amber > [end]"
[ 2010.01.24 14:37:07 ] TeaDaze > !
[ 2010.01.24 14:37:18 ] ElvenLord > Alekseyev Karrde go
[ 2010.01.24 14:37:45 ] Alekseyev Karrde > I think the balance issue is that every weapon system has implants and drones dont lol.  Seems a bit obvious.  The size issue is a fair one, since all the other weapon systems have implants doled out like that [end]
[ 2010.01.24 14:38:04 ] ElvenLord > Helen Highwater go
[ 2010.01.24 14:38:13 ] Helen Highwater > I'd like this to be rejected until it meets a basic level of quality in the hope that he might finally begin to understand how this is supposed to work and stop just putting everything that occurs to him up as a vote without doing any work.
[ 2010.01.24 14:38:54 ] Helen Highwater > Also to Aleks, jut missing implants in itself isn;t a balance issue, you have to demonstrate that drones suffer as a result and I'd argue they probably don't, after all they are a secondary weapon system for most ships
[ 2010.01.24 14:39:28 ] Helen Highwater > and if you can have drone implants and gunnery/missile implants how would that affect balance with dedicated drone boats vs things liek Ravens or Apocs for example?
[ 2010.01.24 14:39:30 ] Helen Highwater > [end]
[ 2010.01.24 14:39:39 ] ElvenLord > TeaDaze go
[ 2010.01.24 14:39:40 ] TeaDaze > Drone boat bonuses usually apply to all drones, yet the only drone damage rig is very specific to sentries. This strikes me as oddly specific. [end]
[ 2010.01.24 14:39:51 ] Song Li > !
[ 2010.01.24 14:39:59 ] ElvenLord > Song Li go
[ 2010.01.24 14:41:10 ] Song Li > As a drone boat pilot I believe that there is a defianate lack of depth the drone support rigs and implants so I'd really love to pass something for them. I don't think an empty proposal will do it so I think we should vote on this one and move on [end]
[ 2010.01.24 14:41:38 ] Helen Highwater > !
[ 2010.01.24 14:41:43 ] T'Amber > !
[ 2010.01.24 14:41:45 ] ElvenLord > Helen Highwater go
[ 2010.01.24 14:42:13 ] Helen Highwater > repeating my call to drop this until someone brings up an actual proposal and not just an empty suggestion[end]
[ 2010.01.24 14:42:35 ] ElvenLord > T'Amber go
[ 2010.01.24 14:42:37 ] T'Amber > Lets vote" to leave this issue and have it brought up again once its been refined and defined. [/end]
[ 2010.01.24 14:43:10 ] ElvenLord > OK, this issue is put on hold cause of missing specific proposal
[ 2010.01.24 14:43:51 ] ElvenLord > it can be raised again when it is updated properly with more substance
[ 2010.01.24 14:43:56 ] TeaDaze > +1
[ 2010.01.24 14:44:00 ] T'Amber > +1
[ 2010.01.24 14:44:00 ] ElvenLord > no need for vote
[ 2010.01.24 14:44:03 ] ElvenLord > ========================
[ 2010.01.24 14:44:13 ] ElvenLord > NEXT: 3. T3 refitting subsystems at pos / carrier
[ 2010.01.24 14:44:16 ] TeaDaze > http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/T3_Refitting_inside_Wspace_%28CSM%29
[ 2010.01.24 14:44:33 ] T'Amber > !
[ 2010.01.24 14:44:40 ] ElvenLord > T'Amber go
[ 2010.01.24 14:44:44 ] T'Amber > I'm all for it. +1 [end]
[ 2010.01.24 14:44:51 ] TeaDaze > !
[ 2010.01.24 14:44:53 ] Helen Highwater > !
[ 2010.01.24 14:45:01 ] ElvenLord > TeaDaze go
[ 2010.01.24 14:45:19 ] TeaDaze > There are two options for this which CCP would have to decide on (because only they know how much self sufficiency w-space has)
[ 2010.01.24 14:45:29 ] TeaDaze > Hopefully the concept is cound though [end]
[ 2010.01.24 14:45:33 ] TeaDaze > sound*
[ 2010.01.24 14:45:37 ] ElvenLord > Helen Highwater go
[ 2010.01.24 14:45:53 ] Song Li > !
[ 2010.01.24 14:46:19 ] Helen Highwater > I agree with refitting at a SMA but I wonder about balance issues if they can refit subsystems at something more mobile like a ship. I suspect that they might be too good in that case and too easy to refit for a specific threat with no real downside
[ 2010.01.24 14:46:44 ] Helen Highwater > A POS at least limits the opportunity without making htem worthless in W-space[end]
[ 2010.01.24 14:46:54 ] ElvenLord > Song Li go
[ 2010.01.24 14:47:02 ] Alekseyev Karrde > !
[ 2010.01.24 14:47:10 ] Song Li > The addisional change I think is superfluous since you can import fittings from an external source, so you could always have a fitting setup avaialble, it just require out of game work each time if you need to. Might was well not have it [end]
[ 2010.01.24 14:47:27 ] TeaDaze > !
[ 2010.01.24 14:47:32 ] ElvenLord > Alekseyev Karrde go
[ 2010.01.24 14:48:23 ] Alekseyev Karrde > I think the versitility of T3 will be better realized by having pos and sma functionality.  Modular ship is only cool if you can actually adapt it easily, otherwise it's almost more headache than feature [end]
[ 2010.01.24 14:48:49 ] ElvenLord > TeaDaze go
[ 2010.01.24 14:48:56 ] TeaDaze > The additional issue is that at a carrier fitting service or SMA the load fittings button doesn't work (clicking it does nothing), if you allow swapping subsystems it will make the process much longer if you can't simply load the fit [end]
[ 2010.01.24 14:49:11 ] Song Li > !
[ 2010.01.24 14:49:20 ] ElvenLord > Song Li go
[ 2010.01.24 14:49:55 ] Song Li > Oh is this in addition to manual swapping and not instead of? Sorry my sleep deprived addled brain is a bit slow [end]
[ 2010.01.24 14:50:17 ] TeaDaze > !
[ 2010.01.24 14:50:23 ] ElvenLord > TeaDaze go
[ 2010.01.24 14:50:36 ] TeaDaze > Correct, it is in additon to either option 1 or 2 as proposed
[ 2010.01.24 14:50:57 ] Song Li > !
[ 2010.01.24 14:51:03 ] TeaDaze > I suspect It is technically a bug but it would be rather nice to have if changing a ship in space[end]
[ 2010.01.24 14:51:05 ] ElvenLord > Song Li go
[ 2010.01.24 14:51:13 ] Alekseyev Karrde > !
[ 2010.01.24 14:51:14 ] Song Li > Motion to move to vote [end]
[ 2010.01.24 14:51:19 ] ElvenLord > Alekseyev Karrde go
[ 2010.01.24 14:51:31 ] Helen Highwater > !
[ 2010.01.24 14:51:36 ] Alekseyev Karrde > There might be a graphics issue with this as t3 subsystems change the ship model.  How would that work? [end]
[ 2010.01.24 14:51:46 ] TeaDaze > !
[ 2010.01.24 14:51:46 ] ElvenLord > Helen Highwater go
[ 2010.01.24 14:52:02 ] Helen Highwater > I'd only support this proposal if it was limited to POS SMAs and didn't include ship based arrays.
[ 2010.01.24 14:52:05 ] Song Li > !
[ 2010.01.24 14:52:06 ] Helen Highwater > [end]
[ 2010.01.24 14:52:12 ] ElvenLord > TeaDaze go
[ 2010.01.24 14:52:13 ] TeaDaze > Graphically it should be no different to in the hanger. [end]
[ 2010.01.24 14:52:26 ] ElvenLord > Song Li go
[ 2010.01.24 14:52:42 ] ElvenLord > !
[ 2010.01.24 14:53:37 ] Song Li > Might be an issue with changes graphics but I'm sure CCP will comment on that. As for POS only, specific reasons? [end]
[ 2010.01.24 14:53:56 ] ElvenLord > ElvenLord go :P
[ 2010.01.24 14:54:14 ] ElvenLord > I agree with Helen to limiting refiting to POSs only
[ 2010.01.24 14:54:17 ] ElvenLord > [end]
[ 2010.01.24 14:54:24 ] TeaDaze > !
[ 2010.01.24 14:54:29 ] ElvenLord > TeaDaze go
[ 2010.01.24 14:54:47 ] TeaDaze > I suggest we split the vote. One vote on refitting at a pos and a second for at ship [end]
[ 2010.01.24 14:55:08 ] ElvenLord > as you wish
[ 2010.01.24 14:55:15 ] ElvenLord > We will split this proposal in 2
[ 2010.01.24 14:55:27 ] Helen Highwater > !
[ 2010.01.24 14:55:33 ] ElvenLord > Helen Highwater go
[ 2010.01.24 14:56:30 ] Helen Highwater > Song Li, my objection to ship based refitting of subsystems is that I think it would give far too much flexibility ion the field for a t3 ship, you can radically change the role of the ship on the fly too easily. I agree they should be able to do so
[ 2010.01.24 14:56:53 ] Helen Highwater > at a static structure but beingg able to reconfigure at a friendly carrier is too much in my opinion[end]
[ 2010.01.24 14:57:11 ] Alekseyev Karrde > !
[ 2010.01.24 14:57:15 ] ElvenLord > Alekseyev Karrde go
[ 2010.01.24 14:57:30 ] Alekseyev Karrde > Considering the carrier would be putting itself at risk i dont think it's OP at all [end]
[ 2010.01.24 14:57:43 ] T'Amber > !
[ 2010.01.24 14:57:43 ] Song Li > !
[ 2010.01.24 14:57:47 ] ElvenLord > T'Amber go
[ 2010.01.24 14:58:07 ] T'Amber > I'm not sure about how many pilots fly t3 ships in 0.0sec, but this would get more flown in the long run which I think CCP wants [end]
[ 2010.01.24 14:58:19 ] ElvenLord > Song Li go
[ 2010.01.24 14:58:31 ] Song Li > Agree with Alek and T'Amber [end[
[ 2010.01.24 14:59:13 ] ElvenLord > ok to finish thisFirst vote on T# ships being able to refit on POS, Y and N pls
[ 2010.01.24 14:59:15 ] ElvenLord > ============================================
[ 2010.01.24 14:59:17 ] Helen Highwater > Y
[ 2010.01.24 14:59:19 ] TeaDaze > Y
[ 2010.01.24 14:59:19 ] ElvenLord > y
[ 2010.01.24 14:59:21 ] Alekseyev Karrde > Y
[ 2010.01.24 14:59:22 ] Song Li > y
[ 2010.01.24 14:59:25 ] T'Amber > Y (Mr Puddles Condones this vote)
[ 2010.01.24 14:59:27 ] Korvin > =
[ 2010.01.24 14:59:28 ] Korvin > y
[ 2010.01.24 14:59:37 ] TeaDaze > Passes 7 for
[ 2010.01.24 14:59:38 ] ElvenLord > passed 7/0
[ 2010.01.24 15:00:27 ] ElvenLord > second, allowing t3 ships to be refitted on ships with required parts, Y and N pls
[ 2010.01.24 15:00:29 ] ElvenLord > ========================================
[ 2010.01.24 15:00:31 ] ElvenLord > N
[ 2010.01.24 15:00:32 ] Korvin > y
[ 2010.01.24 15:00:33 ] TeaDaze > Y
[ 2010.01.24 15:00:34 ] Helen Highwater > N
[ 2010.01.24 15:00:34 ] Song Li > y
[ 2010.01.24 15:00:42 ] Alekseyev Karrde > Y
[ 2010.01.24 15:01:08 ] T'Amber > Y
[ 2010.01.24 15:01:11 ] TeaDaze > Passed 5 for, 2 against
[ 2010.01.24 15:01:20 ] ElvenLord > ==================
[ 2010.01.24 15:01:26 ] TeaDaze > I will record the objections and both votes in the wiki
[ 2010.01.24 15:01:35 ] T'Amber > thnks Tea
[ 2010.01.24 15:01:41 ] ElvenLord > Next: 4. ORE Faction Control Tower
[ 2010.01.24 15:01:42 ] TeaDaze > http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/ORE_Faction_Control_Tower_%28CSM%29
[ 2010.01.24 15:02:29 ] T'Amber > !
[ 2010.01.24 15:02:31 ] ElvenLord > as far as I'm concerned this is a nice initiative, to add more versability to POS
[ 2010.01.24 15:02:34 ] ElvenLord > T'Amber go
[ 2010.01.24 15:02:42 ] Song Li > !
[ 2010.01.24 15:02:56 ] T'Amber > I like this idea, except im not sure living in WHs should be that easy. A penalty to using one of these in WH would be cool X)
[ 2010.01.24 15:02:57 ] T'Amber > [/end]
[ 2010.01.24 15:03:06 ] ElvenLord > Song Li go
[ 2010.01.24 15:03:08 ] Helen Highwater > !
[ 2010.01.24 15:03:11 ] Korvin > !
[ 2010.01.24 15:04:06 ] Song Li > This can roll into the modular/POS change proposal as well as a component. [end]
[ 2010.01.24 15:04:13 ] T'Amber > +1
[ 2010.01.24 15:04:16 ] ElvenLord > Helen Highwater go
[ 2010.01.24 15:04:30 ] Helen Highwater > I expect that the refinery efficiency at POSs is deliberate and intended to ensure that a POS can't be too self sufficicent and to encourage the moving of materials around the galaxy. As it is, you trade efficiency for convenience/safety which seems
[ 2010.01.24 15:04:57 ] Helen Highwater > fair to me. If you want perfect refines then you need to move your ore to a station.
[ 2010.01.24 15:05:09 ] TeaDaze > !
[ 2010.01.24 15:05:36 ] Helen Highwater > This just seems to be an attempt to make everything the same for the sake of it. I can't supprot it as it stands[end]
[ 2010.01.24 15:05:44 ] ElvenLord > Korvin go
[ 2010.01.24 15:06:00 ] Korvin > "removes the importance of outposts in 0.0 space" - is a bad idea, first of all, ccp want the players to build them
[ 2010.01.24 15:06:15 ] Korvin > and if there would be no benefits, they wouldns
[ 2010.01.24 15:06:43 ] Korvin > and the second thought is - that zero alliances uses outposts to take taxes
[ 2010.01.24 15:07:09 ] Korvin > they will probably prohibit to ancher such poses in their space
[ 2010.01.24 15:08:01 ] Korvin > that will make more troubles in alliances economy
[ 2010.01.24 15:08:05 ] Korvin > [end]
[ 2010.01.24 15:08:11 ] ElvenLord > TeaDaze go
[ 2010.01.24 15:08:12 ] T'Amber > !
[ 2010.01.24 15:08:14 ] TeaDaze > Just wondering what % yeild you currently get from a pos array vs outposts. Also the idea that people wouldn't build outposts because this tower was available is a bit of a stretch. Outposts have docking, repair, clone facilities etc. If anything
[ 2010.01.24 15:08:30 ] Song Li > 75&
[ 2010.01.24 15:08:37 ] Song Li > 75%
[ 2010.01.24 15:09:01 ] T'Amber > - !
[ 2010.01.24 15:09:05 ] TeaDaze > it would allow smaller entities build into 0.0. Also if you don;t want people putting these in your space then you have the chance to shoot them ;) [end]
[ 2010.01.24 15:09:16 ] ElvenLord > T'Amber go
[ 2010.01.24 15:09:26 ] T'Amber > - ! what teadaze said [end]
[ 2010.01.24 15:09:31 ] T'Amber > :)
[ 2010.01.24 15:09:44 ] ElvenLord > !
[ 2010.01.24 15:10:08 ] ElvenLord > if they do go for % bonus, that bonus should be lower then OP refining bonus
[ 2010.01.24 15:10:18 ] Alekseyev Karrde > aye
[ 2010.01.24 15:10:24 ] TeaDaze > +1
[ 2010.01.24 15:10:26 ] ElvenLord > if its 75% atm it should not go above 85%
[ 2010.01.24 15:10:52 ] ElvenLord > [end]
[ 2010.01.24 15:10:55 ] T'Amber > !
[ 2010.01.24 15:11:00 ] ElvenLord > T'Amber go
[ 2010.01.24 15:11:16 ] T'Amber > If this was extremely time consuming and the costs were high this could balance some of these issue. [end]
[ 2010.01.24 15:11:25 ] T'Amber > !
[ 2010.01.24 15:11:32 ] ElvenLord > go on
[ 2010.01.24 15:11:39 ] TeaDaze > !
[ 2010.01.24 15:11:54 ] T'Amber > ie. Some of the items that are cheap but take up lots of cargo space (cant think of them off the top of my head)
[ 2010.01.24 15:12:25 ] T'Amber > if these poses required large amounts of these (relativey cheap) but required lots of time spent moving them, this could balance these pos towers from outposts and the other issues
[ 2010.01.24 15:12:25 ] ElvenLord > TeaDaze go
[ 2010.01.24 15:12:27 ] TeaDaze > I agree that a decidated outpost should be more efficent so the idea of an 85% limit could work. 10% better is still a buff and is in line with other faction items.
[ 2010.01.24 15:12:29 ] T'Amber > [/end]
[ 2010.01.24 15:12:37 ] TeaDaze > [end]
[ 2010.01.24 15:12:58 ] ElvenLord > then should we vote on amended proposal?
[ 2010.01.24 15:13:09 ] ElvenLord > with limiting bonuses
[ 2010.01.24 15:13:17 ] T'Amber > +1
[ 2010.01.24 15:13:24 ] TeaDaze > no objection
[ 2010.01.24 15:13:26 ] Song Li > Are we setting the limit or leaving TBD?
[ 2010.01.24 15:13:36 ] TeaDaze > Limit to be lower than outpost
[ 2010.01.24 15:13:39 ] TeaDaze > ?
[ 2010.01.24 15:13:42 ] ElvenLord > yes
[ 2010.01.24 15:13:45 ] T'Amber > TBD with CCP X) and lower than outpost?
[ 2010.01.24 15:13:59 ] Song Li > kk
[ 2010.01.24 15:14:52 ] ElvenLord > Lets vote on this amended proposal for ORE faction tower with amended bonus (refining yeald % should be lower then outpost %), pls vote Y or N
[ 2010.01.24 15:14:54 ] ElvenLord > ===================================
[ 2010.01.24 15:14:56 ] ElvenLord > Y
[ 2010.01.24 15:14:58 ] Helen Highwater > Y
[ 2010.01.24 15:14:58 ] TeaDaze > Y
[ 2010.01.24 15:14:58 ] Song Li > y
[ 2010.01.24 15:15:05 ] Alekseyev Karrde > Y
[ 2010.01.24 15:15:16 ] T'Amber > Y
[ 2010.01.24 15:15:45 ] ElvenLord > Korvin?
[ 2010.01.24 15:16:22 ] TeaDaze > Currently 6 for - need 7 votes for it to count
[ 2010.01.24 15:16:33 ] Helen Highwater > afk a sec
[ 2010.01.24 15:16:43 ] ElvenLord > /emote slaps Korvin
[ 2010.01.24 15:16:44 ] Alekseyev Karrde > korrrrrvin
[ 2010.01.24 15:16:54 ] TeaDaze > Kaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahn
[ 2010.01.24 15:17:50 ] Helen Highwater > back
[ 2010.01.24 15:18:12 ] Korvin > sorry
[ 2010.01.24 15:18:14 ] Korvin > n
[ 2010.01.24 15:18:20 ] TeaDaze > Passed 6 for, 1 against
[ 2010.01.24 15:18:20 ] ElvenLord > \o/
[ 2010.01.24 15:18:30 ] ElvenLord > =================================
[ 2010.01.24 15:18:43 ] ElvenLord > Next: 5. Tradable and Subscribable BlockLists (Version #2]
[ 2010.01.24 15:18:44 ] TeaDaze > http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Blocklist_libraries_and_tradable_block_lists_%28CSM%29
[ 2010.01.24 15:18:48 ] T'Amber > !
[ 2010.01.24 15:18:54 ] ElvenLord > T'Amber go
[ 2010.01.24 15:18:55 ] T'Amber > \o/[/end]
[ 2010.01.24 15:19:40 ] TeaDaze > !
[ 2010.01.24 15:19:56 ] ElvenLord > TeaDaze go
[ 2010.01.24 15:20:01 ] TeaDaze > This seems to address the concerns from last time
[ 2010.01.24 15:20:05 ] TeaDaze > [end]
[ 2010.01.24 15:20:58 ] T'Amber > !
[ 2010.01.24 15:21:02 ] ElvenLord > T'Amber go
[ 2010.01.24 15:21:09 ] Alekseyev Karrde > !
[ 2010.01.24 15:21:14 ] T'Amber > Appologies for me not making much sense its very late for me.
[ 2010.01.24 15:21:17 ] Helen Highwater > !
[ 2010.01.24 15:21:21 ] T'Amber > Let me just cover some things quickly.
[ 2010.01.24 15:21:39 ] T'Amber > shite.
[ 2010.01.24 15:21:44 ] T'Amber > brb [end]
[ 2010.01.24 15:21:54 ] ElvenLord > Alekseyev Karrde go
[ 2010.01.24 15:21:56 ] Alekseyev Karrde > Restate my ojection that massive blocklist trading will be bad for the community side of eve [end]
[ 2010.01.24 15:22:05 ] ElvenLord > Helen Highwater go
[ 2010.01.24 15:22:46 ] Helen Highwater > If this is a syndicated service,  how would that affect performance? Wouldn't it be simpler and better to simply have them as exportable files that could be applied to a client and distributed in the normal way (forums, file hosts etc)?
[ 2010.01.24 15:23:09 ] T'Amber > !
[ 2010.01.24 15:23:10 ] Helen Highwater > That way you can still apply a blocklist easily across mutliple accounts/clients and share it with others[end]
[ 2010.01.24 15:23:18 ] ElvenLord > T'Amber go
[ 2010.01.24 15:23:27 ] T'Amber > There are two parts to this proposal
[ 2010.01.24 15:23:44 ] T'Amber > One is the function to import and export block lists with a conflict function
[ 2010.01.24 15:24:00 ] T'Amber > the other is as tradable items in game
[ 2010.01.24 15:24:27 ] T'Amber > [end]
[ 2010.01.24 15:24:42 ] T'Amber > !
[ 2010.01.24 15:24:55 ] ElvenLord > go
[ 2010.01.24 15:25:03 ] T'Amber > Regarding Aleks objection, you could make the blocklist libraries have a maximum amount. [/end]
[ 2010.01.24 15:25:23 ] T'Amber > (of entries)
[ 2010.01.24 15:25:57 ] ElvenLord > can we vote on this then/
[ 2010.01.24 15:25:58 ] ElvenLord > ?
[ 2010.01.24 15:26:07 ] T'Amber > Regarding performance, i believe blocks as they are: its all client side, but i could be wrong
[ 2010.01.24 15:26:08 ] Song Li > y
[ 2010.01.24 15:26:16 ] Helen Highwater > !
[ 2010.01.24 15:26:21 ] ElvenLord > Helen Highwater go
[ 2010.01.24 15:26:50 ] Helen Highwater > it's not whether it's client or server side that's the issue it's if the system is syndicated then it necessarily needs to check for updates which adds to the overheads
[ 2010.01.24 15:27:08 ] Song Li > !
[ 2010.01.24 15:27:11 ] T'Amber > !
[ 2010.01.24 15:27:23 ] Helen Highwater > that's why I was wondering if it absolutely had to be centrally distributed like an version control system[end]
[ 2010.01.24 15:27:35 ] ElvenLord > Song Li go
[ 2010.01.24 15:28:06 ] Song Li > For performance issues should we let CCP comment on those specifics. They can give go / no goes on something like that [end]
[ 2010.01.24 15:28:17 ] ElvenLord > T'Amber go
[ 2010.01.24 15:28:20 ] T'Amber > If the items were tradable then you could buy the updated blocklist library item, or just import a new list from file if they werent able to be traded. [/end]
[ 2010.01.24 15:28:33 ] T'Amber > !
[ 2010.01.24 15:28:50 ] T'Amber > Just to note. If you read it closely, there is a difference from Blocklist Library and personal Block List
[ 2010.01.24 15:29:00 ] T'Amber > Your block list you cannot see anyone at all
[ 2010.01.24 15:29:21 ] T'Amber > Blocklist library people are less visable, but they would still be on your screen.
[ 2010.01.24 15:29:21 ] Helen Highwater > !
[ 2010.01.24 15:29:24 ] T'Amber > [end]
[ 2010.01.24 15:29:33 ] ElvenLord > Helen Highwater go
[ 2010.01.24 15:29:37 ] Helen Highwater > It's this part that makes me concerned -  * When a blocklist library is edited by the original maker the blocklist is updated to all subscribers
[ 2010.01.24 15:30:00 ] T'Amber > !
[ 2010.01.24 15:30:07 ] Helen Highwater > I don't think that will fly. As tradeable items fine, but not as automatic updates pushed from a central version[end]
[ 2010.01.24 15:30:33 ] T'Amber > Yes i see your point and agree. [end]
[ 2010.01.24 15:31:22 ] T'Amber > !
[ 2010.01.24 15:31:27 ] Song Li > !
[ 2010.01.24 15:31:27 ] ElvenLord > go on
[ 2010.01.24 15:31:30 ] T'Amber > Sorry i pressed enter too fast.
[ 2010.01.24 15:31:43 ] T'Amber > Can we vote as it is and leave the rest up to CCP if it is passed? [end]
[ 2010.01.24 15:31:56 ] ElvenLord > yes
[ 2010.01.24 15:31:59 ] ElvenLord > Song Li go
[ 2010.01.24 15:32:15 ] Song Li > You could have a manual update option to click if need be for data issues. Agree to move to vote [ebnd]
[ 2010.01.24 15:32:42 ] ElvenLord > ok lets vote on this proposal, Y & N pls
[ 2010.01.24 15:32:50 ] ElvenLord > ===================
[ 2010.01.24 15:32:54 ] Song Li > y
[ 2010.01.24 15:32:57 ] Alekseyev Karrde > N
[ 2010.01.24 15:33:02 ] ElvenLord > N
[ 2010.01.24 15:33:08 ] Helen Highwater > N
[ 2010.01.24 15:33:09 ] Korvin > n
[ 2010.01.24 15:33:17 ] T'Amber > Y
[ 2010.01.24 15:33:18 ] TeaDaze > y
[ 2010.01.24 15:33:38 ] TeaDaze > failed, 4 against, 3 for
[ 2010.01.24 15:33:44 ] T'Amber > !
[ 2010.01.24 15:33:44 ] ElvenLord > =================
[ 2010.01.24 15:33:49 ] ElvenLord > T'Amber GO
[ 2010.01.24 15:33:51 ] T'Amber > damnit X)
[ 2010.01.24 15:33:54 ] T'Amber > [end]
[ 2010.01.24 15:34:00 ] Korvin > lol
[ 2010.01.24 15:34:09 ] ElvenLord > btw, we passed t3 and ore right?
[ 2010.01.24 15:34:13 ] TeaDaze > Yes
[ 2010.01.24 15:34:14 ] Song Li > yes
[ 2010.01.24 15:34:16 ] T'Amber > yup
[ 2010.01.24 15:34:23 ] ElvenLord > cool added them to list
[ 2010.01.24 15:34:37 ] ElvenLord > NEXT: Scan probes of all types - an addable option to overview profiles
[ 2010.01.24 15:34:43 ] TeaDaze > http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Scan_probes_of_all_types_-_an_addable_option_to_overview_profiles_%28CSM%29
[ 2010.01.24 15:35:15 ] T'Amber > !
[ 2010.01.24 15:35:22 ] T'Amber > sorry how many more items? [end]
[ 2010.01.24 15:35:30 ] Song Li > last one
[ 2010.01.24 15:35:39 ] Alekseyev Karrde > !
[ 2010.01.24 15:37:09 ] ElvenLord > Alekseyev Karrde go
[ 2010.01.24 15:37:30 ] Alekseyev Karrde > Simple. Vote. [e]
[ 2010.01.24 15:37:33 ] T'Amber > !
[ 2010.01.24 15:37:37 ] ElvenLord > T'Amber go
[ 2010.01.24 15:37:46 ] T'Amber > Vote!" [/end]
[ 2010.01.24 15:38:05 ] TeaDaze > !
[ 2010.01.24 15:38:59 ] ElvenLord > TeaDaze go
[ 2010.01.24 15:39:08 ] TeaDaze > I would prefer for different scan "profiles" to be included on the directional scanner, but this will fix the stated issue for probes [end]
[ 2010.01.24 15:39:26 ] ElvenLord > OK lets vote on this, Y and N pls
[ 2010.01.24 15:39:28 ] ElvenLord > ====================
[ 2010.01.24 15:39:30 ] Song Li > y
[ 2010.01.24 15:39:31 ] Alekseyev Karrde > Y
[ 2010.01.24 15:39:31 ] Korvin > =
[ 2010.01.24 15:39:32 ] Korvin > y
[ 2010.01.24 15:39:34 ] TeaDaze > y
[ 2010.01.24 15:39:39 ] ElvenLord > y
[ 2010.01.24 15:39:39 ] T'Amber > Y
[ 2010.01.24 15:39:43 ] Helen Highwater > Y
[ 2010.01.24 15:39:47 ] TeaDaze > Passed 7 for
[ 2010.01.24 15:40:13 ] ElvenLord > =============================
[ 2010.01.24 15:40:21 ] ElvenLord > ok give me a sec to update list
[ 2010.01.24 15:40:48 ] ElvenLord > NEXT is CCP/CSM meeting issues list (alphabetic)
[ 2010.01.24 15:40:58 ] ElvenLord > General discussion:"    Dominion discussion"    Unfinished expansions"    Customer support"    CSM
[ 2010.01.24 15:41:07 ] ElvenLord > Major issues:2.    Account Security Enhancements3.    Battle recorder4.    Balance self-destruction5.    Black Ops Improvements Part 26.    Boost warfare links and revisit information warfare
[ 2010.01.24 15:41:14 ] ElvenLord > 7.    Destroyer Improvements8.    Docking games fix9.    Forum Censorship10.    Factional Warfare - CCP Inaction Towards Bugs/Exploits11.    Factional Warfare - Lack of Development Part 212.    Modular Starbase
[ 2010.01.24 15:41:21 ] ElvenLord > 13.    Overhaul of roles and grantable roles system14.    Suicide ganking discussion15.    Shared Corporation Bookmarks
[ 2010.01.24 15:41:28 ] ElvenLord > Minor issues:1.    Alliance Logos, CSM Intervention Requested2.    Alliance action confirmation windows3.    Bring Logistics Warp Speed In-Line with T2 Ships4.    Broadcast "In position" improvement5.    Directscan improvement
[ 2010.01.24 15:41:36 ] ElvenLord > 6.    FW Complex NPCs and Standings7.    Factional Warfare - Complex Spawning Part 28.    Fix kill mails9.    Ingame Events Menu10.    Mining crystals change color of mining laser beam11.    ORE Faction Control Tower
[ 2010.01.24 15:41:49 ] ElvenLord > 12.    Put more faction items on market13.    Scan-able wrecks&containers for the salvager profession(1.2)14.    Scan probes of all types - an addable option to overview profiles15.    Titan bridge range16.    Tracking for fighters l...
[ 2010.01.24 15:41:55 ] ElvenLord > 16.    Tracking for fighters lost in combat17.    T3 refitting subsystems at pos / carrier18.    Visible Aggression Indicator in 0.0 Space19.    Watch list and broadcasts
[ 2010.01.24 15:42:03 ] ElvenLord > aaaaand thats it
[ 2010.01.24 15:42:15 ] ElvenLord > will send it on eve mail too
[ 2010.01.24 15:42:22 ] Alekseyev Karrde > you did
[ 2010.01.24 15:42:29 ] T'Amber > ncie work
[ 2010.01.24 15:42:34 ] ElvenLord > yea I added last 3 passed issues
[ 2010.01.24 15:43:03 ] Song Li > Did you notive there's no Issue #1 under major? ;-)
[ 2010.01.24 15:43:03 ] Alekseyev Karrde > nice long list.  We got a lot done in time for the meeting, nj folks
[ 2010.01.24 15:43:24 ] TeaDaze > Now to get CCP to agree ;)
[ 2010.01.24 15:43:30 ] ElvenLord > yes yes @Song
[ 2010.01.24 15:43:39 ] Helen Highwater > Or at least to explain why they disagree
[ 2010.01.24 15:43:40 ] ElvenLord > but they need to solve that problem
[ 2010.01.24 15:43:54 ] ElvenLord > not to solve it every now and then
[ 2010.01.24 15:44:07 ] T'Amber > Battlerecorder is a major issue?
[ 2010.01.24 15:44:14 ] T'Amber > Did you vote on the order of these?
[ 2010.01.24 15:44:21 ] ElvenLord > its up for discussion
[ 2010.01.24 15:44:29 ] ElvenLord > this is alphabetical order
[ 2010.01.24 15:44:35 ] ElvenLord > if you pay attention
[ 2010.01.24 15:44:41 ] T'Amber > i did
[ 2010.01.24 15:44:44 ] Korvin > battlerecorder is a minor issue imo
[ 2010.01.24 15:44:55 ] Song Li > +1
[ 2010.01.24 15:44:55 ] T'Amber > ^^^
[ 2010.01.24 15:44:56 ] Helen Highwater > agree
[ 2010.01.24 15:44:58 ] T'Amber > +1
[ 2010.01.24 15:44:58 ] Korvin > and low priority one
[ 2010.01.24 15:45:02 ] ElvenLord > it cant be a minor thing if there is some discussion involved
[ 2010.01.24 15:45:14 ] T'Amber > that is what i was pointing out sorry elvenlord. I r sleepy
[ 2010.01.24 15:45:31 ] ElvenLord > I will add low priority as a markup on some Major issues
[ 2010.01.24 15:45:41 ] Alekseyev Karrde > there was some heavy discussion when it came up in council, though i personally think it is mostly techinical stuff and not a lot to really discuss
[ 2010.01.24 15:45:50 ] ElvenLord > and some will be deemed high importance
[ 2010.01.24 15:46:11 ] Alekseyev Karrde > like "will xxx cause lag?" is kind of a yes no question when CCP is sitting accross from you
[ 2010.01.24 15:46:25 ] T'Amber > is the meeting over btw?
[ 2010.01.24 15:46:40 ] ElvenLord > well if you all agree on the list it is
[ 2010.01.24 15:46:41 ] ElvenLord > :D
[ 2010.01.24 15:46:53 ] ElvenLord > just to schedual next meeting
[ 2010.01.24 15:47:06 ] Korvin > i would like to discuss gun balance somewhere in the meeting with ccp
[ 2010.01.24 15:47:23 ] ElvenLord > ARE YOU ALL OK WITH THE LIST, Y or N
[ 2010.01.24 15:47:25 ] ElvenLord > =============================
[ 2010.01.24 15:47:27 ] Alekseyev Karrde > Y
[ 2010.01.24 15:47:28 ] TeaDaze > There isn't an agenda item for that though Korvin
[ 2010.01.24 15:47:33 ] TeaDaze > Y
[ 2010.01.24 15:47:37 ] Song Li > y
[ 2010.01.24 15:47:38 ] Korvin > y
[ 2010.01.24 15:47:41 ] ElvenLord > y
[ 2010.01.24 15:47:48 ] T'Amber > Yes for the items on it but not the order X)
[ 2010.01.24 15:48:04 ] ElvenLord > order will be done by CCP anyways
[ 2010.01.24 15:48:05 ] Alekseyev Karrde > @ Kor: bring it up informally if it really means that much.
[ 2010.01.24 15:48:06 ] Helen Highwater > Y
[ 2010.01.24 15:48:20 ] ElvenLord > depending on availability of employees
[ 2010.01.24 15:48:26 ] ElvenLord > so it does not matter
[ 2010.01.24 15:48:27 ] TeaDaze > passed 7 for
[ 2010.01.24 15:48:41 ] Alekseyev Karrde > i'm out, nn
[ 2010.01.24 15:48:46 ] T'Amber > Did you write up the list Elven?
[ 2010.01.24 15:48:53 ] ElvenLord > and now, should we have a meeting in 2 weeks?
[ 2010.01.24 15:49:07 ] T'Amber > i would have got Tea to do some work <cough> ;)
[ 2010.01.24 15:49:11 ] TeaDaze > I object to informal issues being put on the table because we have plenty of issues that have been vetted and passed and why should things sidestep the process?
[ 2010.01.24 15:49:23 ] T'Amber > +1
[ 2010.01.24 15:49:53 ] ElvenLord > How does February 7th at 15:00 sound?
[ 2010.01.24 15:50:09 ] ElvenLord > or 14th
[ 2010.01.24 15:50:16 ] ElvenLord > thou thats 3 weeks from now
[ 2010.01.24 15:50:25 ] TeaDaze > 7th yes, 14th no
[ 2010.01.24 15:50:30 ] Song Li > 14th would be the day before I leave for Iceland
[ 2010.01.24 15:50:37 ] T'Amber > 7th
[ 2010.01.24 15:50:41 ] Helen Highwater > 7th
[ 2010.01.24 15:50:47 ] Korvin > 7th is ok
[ 2010.01.24 15:50:57 ] Song Li > Why not have it on the 16th and I'll manhandle CCP into it ;-)
[ 2010.01.24 15:51:06 ] ElvenLord > ok NEXT MEETING IS ON SUNDAY 7th FEBRUARY 2010
[ 2010.01.24 15:51:13 ] ElvenLord > @15:00
[ 2010.01.24 15:51:20 ] ElvenLord > THIS MEETING IS OFFICIALLY OVER
[ 2010.01.24 15:51:21 ] Song Li > Can we do 14:00?
[ 2010.01.24 15:51:23 ] ElvenLord > ================================================
[ 2010.01.24 15:51:26 ] Song Li > blah