CSM meeting minutes 2.006
Contents
Council of Stellar Management
Meeting Minutes
Sunday 9th February 2009
Present
Ankhesentepemkah, Bunyip, Darius JOHNSON, Extreme, Issler Dainze, LaVista Vista, Meissa Anunthiel, Omber Zombie, Scagga Laebetrovo, Sophie Daigneau, Tusko Hopkins, Vuk Lau
Apologies
Announcements / Elections
none
Popular Issue
none
Discussion
UI S&I Interface Improvements
LaVista introduced the issue.
Bunyip thought that introducing batch jobs would result in an all-or-nothing case of success/failure occurring with invention jobs.
Oz and LaVista pointed out that it was batch jobs in the sense that it installed them all in one go rather than installing them all as one job. The Batch process is a time saving measure not a mechanic change.
Meissa wanted it to go further in not requiring confirmation of ingredients.
Ankhe wanted it noted that the interface is currently very unintuitive and unfriendly to newer players.
Vote: 9-0 pass
Tracking Formula Changes
Ankhe introduced the issue.
Bunyip thought it would help boost long range weapons while still providing a good avoidance mechanic for small ships using transversal.
Ankhe thought Bunyip meant close range weapons.
Bunyip pointed out that no, due to the mechanic change it would mean long range weapons would have less penalty for their minimum range.
Tusko questioned the point of the issue, wondered if it was just another ‘boost my ship’ issue, and then pointed out he’s never had issues hitting a battleship at close range. He went on to wonder whether if it really was an issue or just someone wanting to ‘fix’ EVE physics.
Ankhe answered that it was several things; being able to hit battleships with mid/long range weapons, blasters/autocannons losing damage due to web changes, and the EVE physics – she doesn’t think they are realistic and would be more fun if they were.
Tusko asked why we should be looking at boosting long range weapons as that would reduce the value of blasters even more. He doesn’t see why making long
range guns work at close range would help the game. He followed by asking if anyone had issues tracking battleships with close range guns.
Ankhe answered that she had missed an NPC Machariel with her blasters.
Bunyip commented that blasters still put out more DPS, this change would allow you to hit more often for closer targets, so it boosts blasters too.
Vuk noted that even with his skills he has trouble doing a lot of damage with his blasters since the web changes.
Issler noted she hadn’t had much issue with the current system and thinks the issue is just a balance issue in disguise.
Ankhe conceded that since it did change weapons stats that it was a balance thing.
Tusko asked if these changes meant that the way sig radius was calculated that the larger the ship the easier they would be to hit?
Ankhe answered that yes, it should make them easier to hit the larger they are.
Oz wondered if the changes meant that if a battleship was close to any ship smaller than it, pretty much every shot against it would hit meaning higher chances of wrecking shots.
Ankhe wasn’t sure how wrecking shots were calculated, Tusko thought it was chance based, and that they shouldn’t be wrecking all the time.
Oz thinks that the Tracking Formula doesn’t need changing and that the proposed change would break PvP. This proposal changes the fundamental way that tracking works and if there is a tracking issue it should be raised as that as this fix will not accomplish the proposed goal.
Ankhe did not think it would have anywhere near the impact Oz thought.
Tusko pointed out that the threads had 2 proposed solutions, the one that changed signature radius had no real merits as it was not causing the stated issue. He was still not sure if the change was needed at all as those that know the mechanics work around the ‘issue’ without mechanic changes.
Vote: 3-6 Fail (yes votes were Vuk, Ankhe and Bunyip)
Alliance Mechanic Change
CCP asked CSM to discuss them due to recent events.
CSM generally agreed that the mechanics needed fixing and the following solutions were proposed
Vuk: Thinks that actions should be voted upon by Executor CEO and Shareholders.
Tusko: Partially agrees with Vuk, actions should be voted on, however without a strict 24hour timer. If the vote achieves a 50% majority it should immediately go into effect.
Issler: a full director vote should be required.
Darius: is happy for all mechanics to be moved to CEO of Executor corp only, no directors.
Oz: Alliance should come in 2 flavours, Dictatorial or Democratic/Communist (call it whatever you like)
Dictatorial CEO of Executor corp
- can add/remove member corps - 24 hours from button being pressed to take effect, can be cancelled at any time within that 24hours
- can disband alliance - 24 hours from button being pressed to take effect, can be cancelled at any time within that 24hours
- can set standings of Alliance Directors of Executor Corp
- same abilities as CEO, but also requires at least 1 other director to approve the button click or the CEO to do so too. If more than 2 directors, the yes/no situation comes into effect that if you have more no's than yes's, the action doesn't go into effect. Yes/no votes can occur anytime in the 24hour period after the action is started. CEO has overriding vote on any action.
Democratic/Communist/Whatever it's called:
- All actions bar standings require greater than 50% agreement from all CEO's in the alliance corps.