Assembly Hall

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
2 Pages12Next page
 

CSM 11 Summit 1 Minutes

First post First post
Author
C C P Alliance
#1 - 2016-09-30 15:20:35 UTC
The minutes for CSM 11 Summit 1 are now released, and can be found here: http://cdn1.eveonline.com/community/csm/Meetings/summit/CSM11-S1.pdf

Please keep any discussion regarding the minutes to this thread.

CCP Logibro // EVE Universe Community Team // Distributor of Nanites // Patron Saint of Logistics

@CCP_Logibro

#2 - 2016-09-30 15:31:11 UTC
I aprove this service and / or product
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#3 - 2016-09-30 15:47:39 UTC
I tried to click on the first link for the store - got Rick-Rolled - laughed - Boss noticed and I had to go back to work.

Thanks CCP, now I have to work instead of reading the minutes lol.

(on lunch break now so that is why I posted here).
Gallente Federation
#4 - 2016-09-30 16:14:01 UTC
Two quick things:

- Is the rookie ship ganking just cynos getting popped?

- Is CCP still blissfully ignorant that some starter schools (Hello CAS!) have actually built real communities despite the 10% tax and lack of support. (re: "There was then some discussion on the retention statistics based on the race and school they choose, with certain schools having higher retention rates.")

Nyjil's corollary to Malcanis' Law:   "Any attempt by CCP to smooth the learning curve of EVE Online will be carried out via the addition of extra factors and 'features' such that there is a net increase in complexity."

Hard Knocks Citizens
#5 - 2016-09-30 16:38:09 UTC
I killed at the WH meeting. Just saying...

Operations Director of Hard K(n)ocks Inc.

#6 - 2016-09-30 16:55:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Lugh Crow-Slave
Quote:

This might come alongside a possible change to allow you to tax
compression


for the love of god please




on the part about adding more duel statics idk if that is a good thing when C4s got it WHs were almost killed for us as any seance of isolation was lost. The most intense times i can remember having in eve was in our C4 with a null static and sometimes going weeks w/o any connections to WH or empire. at one point we only manage to get fuel into our tower with 12hrs left to go
DARKNESS.
#7 - 2016-09-30 17:44:53 UTC
I mean, I guess we finally got some sort of confirmation from CCP that jump fatigue isn't working entirely right but at the same time its been nearly 3 years without any major changes regardless of "frequent" passes being promised.
Initiative Mercenaries
#8 - 2016-09-30 18:08:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Listrentite
NoobMan wrote:
I killed at the WH meeting. Just saying...


You represented WH space very well! Despite that, I'm dissatisfied with the (lack of) responses to the issues/suggestions that were raised. Unless they are hidden behind an NDA wall...
Gallente Federation
#9 - 2016-09-30 18:12:12 UTC
MrHyde: "nerf nullification, buff gatecamps, so people do more camping" ... lol.

I'm my own NPC alt.

Minmatar Republic
#10 - 2016-09-30 18:17:02 UTC
Quote:
Jin'taan brought up the issue of time zone locking, and how it makes it painful to use the system. Innominate stated that this was one thing that Starbase reinforcement got right.

This is so true.
POS vulnerability and timing was (and still is) working perfectly fine. I have no idea why they took it away. Everyone set citadel timers to the weakest TZ for possible attackers. Weaponized boredome at its finest. Furthermore, killing a POS requires 2 engagements - time of the first one is chosen by attacker, time of the second - by defender, which is fair. Now it is - how many? 3? I never even bothered to find out. All of those timers are defined by the defender. Seriously, I can understand forming 1 alarm-clock CTA, but 3 of those to kill even the smallest undefended citadel? And if we're only 15 minutes late - all is in vane. That is hilariously broken.
Minmatar Republic
#11 - 2016-09-30 18:24:01 UTC
My suggestion for citadel engagement rules:
- keepstar is fine as it is
- fortizar should be always vulnerable and have 2 timers - shield and armor
- astrahus should be always vulnarable and have 1 timer for shield, just like ye olde POS
A Band Apart.
#12 - 2016-09-30 18:37:08 UTC
You appear to of forgotten to add minutes from the Lowsec round table.....
#13 - 2016-09-30 21:05:05 UTC
Skia Aumer wrote:
My suggestion for citadel engagement rules:
- keepstar is fine as it is
- fortizar should be always vulnerable and have 2 timers - shield and armor
- astrahus should be always vulnarable and have 1 timer for shield, just like ye olde POS
We're judging an incomplete system; citadels are not what we are "supposed to" be fighting over, they are just... the only piece in place, atm. They are meant to be tough, and this minutes has confirmed that you will get closer to what you want with the isk-making structures.
Page 35 wrote:
CCP further explained that Engineering Complexes would be weaker than citadels, have longer vulnerability windows
The Devil's Warrior Alliance
#14 - 2016-09-30 21:15:28 UTC
Skia Aumer wrote:
My suggestion for citadel engagement rules:
- keepstar is fine as it is
- fortizar should be always vulnerable and have 2 timers - shield and armor
- astrahus should be always vulnarable and have 1 timer for shield, just like ye olde POS

Believe me when I say this,the only reason Astra's are Surviving in highsec at all is that they're a massive pain in the arse for a 2bil km
Most of the time having a crappy timer is quite literally their only defense because no one will bother defending them.
Minmatar Republic
#15 - 2016-09-30 23:49:30 UTC
Listrentite wrote:
NoobMan wrote:
I killed at the WH meeting. Just saying...


You represented WH space very well! Despite that, I'm dissatisfied with the (lack of) responses to the issues/suggestions that were raised. Unless they are hidden behind an NDA wall...


THIS ! Did CCP just say nothing ? WH space is getting very empty (especially in non EU TZs). Alot of that is because of risk and time vs reward. (this applies equally to pvp and pve)

WH Merc Services in AU TZ. Citadel defense / offense. More details see forum post - Link

#16 - 2016-10-01 00:50:14 UTC
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:
Skia Aumer wrote:
My suggestion for citadel engagement rules:
- keepstar is fine as it is
- fortizar should be always vulnerable and have 2 timers - shield and armor
- astrahus should be always vulnarable and have 1 timer for shield, just like ye olde POS

Believe me when I say this,the only reason Astra's are Surviving in highsec at all is that they're a massive pain in the arse for a 2bil km
Most of the time having a crappy timer is quite literally their only defense because no one will bother defending them.


The main reason is that there's no profit to be made in aggressing them.

Hit a POS with 30b of stuff in it, you get an average of 15b in drops.

Hit a freighter with 30b of stuff - get an average 15b in drops.

Hit a Citadel with 30b of stuff - you get a tiny amount of loot from the salvage.

I don't agree with the original suggestion - I'm fine with them being fairly safe but there needs to be an incentive to attack them. Asset safety unwrap fees should go to the aggressors, at the least.

I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com

Sabriz's Rule: "Any time someone argues for a game change claiming it is a quality of life change, the change is actually a game balance change".

#17 - 2016-10-01 01:01:54 UTC
The Team Phenomenon stuff was quite interesting.

If it's done in a way where spawns of NPC mining fleets are quite rare, but somewhat lucrative, this would create some interesting gameplay in the quietest areas of space.

It would be a huge shot in the arm for lowsec, the region where belts are the quietest and these NPCs could stack up the most - if you go through all the belts in a system and find two of these spawns, blow them up and loot their ore, that might actually be enough to make lowsec mining (with a combat escort fleet) viable in comparison to highsec.

I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com

Sabriz's Rule: "Any time someone argues for a game change claiming it is a quality of life change, the change is actually a game balance change".

#18 - 2016-10-01 02:21:30 UTC
not sure if it is a good idea to recommend FW in the 'new' NPE while having no time to fix FW. (both mentioned in the minutes)

how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value

#19 - 2016-10-01 02:39:12 UTC
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:
Skia Aumer wrote:
My suggestion for citadel engagement rules:
- keepstar is fine as it is
- fortizar should be always vulnerable and have 2 timers - shield and armor
- astrahus should be always vulnarable and have 1 timer for shield, just like ye olde POS

Believe me when I say this,the only reason Astra's are Surviving in highsec at all is that they're a massive pain in the arse for a 2bil km
Most of the time having a crappy timer is quite literally their only defense because no one will bother defending them.



that's because anyone with the ability to defend a citadel gets a fort
#20 - 2016-10-01 02:40:26 UTC
Bienator II wrote:
not sure if it is a good idea to recommend FW in the 'new' NPE while having no time to fix FW. (both mentioned in the minutes)



it would be really nice if they went with the idea from a year or two ago where corps/alliance can support a militia and then members can join or not. I know it would be great for corps like mine that make a point to help all types of new players
2 Pages12Next page
Forum Jump