CSM meeting minutes 3.002

Meeting Minutes: 2009/06/07

Present

Dierdra Vaal, Vuk Lau, Avalloc, Erik Finnegan, Larkonis Trassler, Meissa Anunthiel, Zastrow J, Omber Zombie, Issler Dainze, Serenity Steele, Shatana Fulfairas

Apologies

Mazzilliu

Discussion

Dierdra reminded everyone to sign their NDA and to wikify their issues when submitting them to the agenda before the deadline. For clarity, he also repeated the guidelines on how meetings are conducted.

---

Remote Repping and Agression

Dierdra introduced the issue.
Larkonis said he was favorable to the proposal, as it would assist against remote repping neutrals who flee during engagements. He requested that the dock/jump timer be tied to the recipient of the remote rep.
Oz agreed with Larkonis, and requested that energy transfer be added to the list and that it starts a regular aggression timer instead of a "blanket" 1 minute timer.
Dierdra agreed to modify the proposal.
Erik liked the concept and the extension to all forms of assistance. Erik also requested that this issue be discussed at the same time as issue number 5.
Dierdra stated that, as the issues aren't directly related, they would stay separate.
Avalloc agreed with the proposal. He however requested that Outpost owner shouldn't get an aggression flag in this instance, as people repping station services would be prevented from docking again should hostiles decide to shoot at the service.
Dierdra objected that being shot doesn't incurr a dock/jump timer, only shooting back does.
Avalloc clarified his statement.
Dierdra considered it a good point that he would add.
Meissa requested clarification on Larkonis' request that the repper's timer be tied to that of the repped, objecting to either interpretation anyway.
Meissa also opposed Avalloc's suggestion on the ground that it would give the outpost owner free repping; something that isn't fair for the attacker.
Larkonis clarified that the aggro timer would only apply if the repped is agressed at that point, and as such does not give a disadvantage to outpost owners unless they have an aggression timer through other means. Dierdra agreed.
Dierdra mentionned that that is what he had in mind, but that he didn't want to do any nitpicking over details, prefering to mention the problem to CCP and let them come up with their own solution.
Vuk agreed with Meissa, stating that repping a station should incur aggro as well, clarifying as "remote modules should have the same status as offensive modules when it comes to aggro mechanics".
Serenity said that it will also affect the repping of POSes and asked how we wanted to rule if the only solution was of the form of "one size fits all".
Avalloc replied to Meissa that he didn't know wether CCP could code a very specific aggression system in, thereby requesting that 0.0 be exempt and stated again that people repping an outpost would be at the mercy of quick hostiles.
Meissa tried to clarify the issue by reformulating it as redefining an aggression act, as far as jumping/docking is concerned, to include "assisting someone with an aggression timer", with the same penalities.
Dierdra and Erik agreed with the redefinition.
Meissa replied to Avalloc that if there was [code for] an aggression timer for shooting Outpost modules, code to handle penalties for repping those modules should be of the same difficulty.
Dierdra clarified that the vote was on "on the remote boosting and aggression mechanic revision. (changes made due to the meeting: all forms of boosting are included). To clarify, this vote issue does not include an exception for 0.0 outposts".
Issue passed unanimously (9 for, 0 against)

---

Factional Warfare, Lack of Development

Erik introduced the issue.
Vuk asked if using Eva's document was something we can do [Note: the original proposal was changed to include a link to a word document that former CSM member <link>REPLACE_ME</link> had redacted and privately sent to CCP]
Ankhe stated that CCP had already aknowledged the issues presented in the proposal in CSM meeting 2.3 and that the proposal misrepresented CCP's stance on alliances in FW, as they had already accepted to make it possible for alliances to join FW.
Meissa said that FW was just one of many things needing atttention, of no higher priority than others, adding that CCP is already aware of the points made and that escalation was unnecessary.
Issler had no issue asking "wtf is going on with FW" [sic] but was not sure that stating that they had broken a promise was correct, as they had already said they would do most of the things listed but hadn't given a timeline to their implementation.
Omber Zombie conceded that he might want to work on the phrasing, as it still carried "Erik's anger". Ankhe added he wants CCP to commit to something.
Erik stated that the document included in the proposal would have to be removed, as it had not been presented publicly in the correct timeframe.
Vuk requested the proposal to be modified to be less whiney and presented in a less childish manner.
Meissa stated he was not familiar with the proceedings and apologized for the mistake. Erik further asked wether Eva's document had been presented as part of a prior FW issue and as such was already public.
Erik answered he had never seen the document before, that it was sent directly to CCP and that, had he seen it before, he would have "ripped it to pieces".
Omber Zombie agreed with Dierdra, adding that it was fair to ask CCP about their plans for FW, and siding with Omber Zombie in stating that FW wasn't more important than other issues presented.
Issler said that if issues are raised for which there is no specific communication, their relative priority in the product backlog should be requested.
Serenity expressed her sadness that Issler sent the document without CSM review, further noting that the wording was unacceptable.
Ankhe conceded that we could not design the game for CCP and as a consequence he would skip Eva's document. He added that considering lag wasn't solved, this is a general issue. He also agreed with Erik's suggestion, and what Serenity said.
Meissa stated that prioritization is done prior to the meeting with CCP, and that the discussion was on wether we wanted this particular topic adressed as presented.
Meissa suggested changing the issue to request explanations as to where development of FW was, and when said developments would reach the game.
Omber Zombie requested that Dierdra clarifies what the CSM will vote on.
Erik asked if we can ask CCP to commit to anything.
Erik answered that we can ask, but they can deny the request.
Dierdra added that a request for information couldn't be avoided.
Omber Zombie restated the issue as "a request to give FW a higher priority"
The issue failed to pass (8 votes against, 1 for)

---

Industry Expansion

Erik introduced the issue.
Omber Zombie stated that despite the issue listing a few specifics, it was essentially an open question for CCP to answer.
Omber Zombie, Shatana said they would love to see some effort in that direction, as the Industry Patch was overdue.
Meissa added that mining really needs some love and as such, getting CCP to comment on the revamp is needed.
Issler agreed with everyone, since it is simply asking CCP for information, he has no problem supporting the motion.
Issue passed (8 for, Dierdra against [voted late])

---

Logistic drones (Hull repair drones)

Zastrow introduced the issue.
No questions from anyone.
Issue passed (9 for, 0 against).
Vuk Lau added that real men hull tank, after all.

---

Change to Agro Mechanics Rep Outlaws

Dierdra introduced the issue.
Larkonis agreed with Shatana's issue.
Lark asked if one would get a GCC (Global Criminal Countdown) if the person one is repping incurs a GCC while being repped. Omber Zombie confirmed.
Larkonis suggested the auto-cycle should end in that case.
Erik pointed out that you normally get a little pop-up if you try to rep someone with a GCC.
Larkonis suggested the repper should have a way of avoiding acquiring a GCC in that situation.
Erik answered that it is currently already the case.
Vote passed (9 for, 0 against)

---

Factional Warfare Lag needs fixing now

Larkonis introduced the issue.
Erik stated that CCP knows lag needs fixing and that she doesn't see how bringin up lag related to FW makes any sense at all.
Issler quoted CCP Wrangler and CCP RyanD's forum posts saying [paraphrased for the minutes] "we know, please don't bump, we'll let you know"
Meissa asked how, other than whipping the coders, Omber Zombie expected CCP to fix this faster.
Erik replied that they had successfully adressed the lag in 0.0 on a much bigger scale.
Erik answered that this what a global system upgrade. To which Omber Zombie replied that it didn't work for FW systems.
Erik asked if the lag was specific to certain FW situations or if it was "regular lag" due to many people in the same place.
Dierdra stated that big 0.0 fights are easier to predict.
Larkonis answered that it hasn't been solved for 0.0 and that CCP is definately trying to improve it again.
Issler answered that the 0.0 lag was adressed by reinforcing nodes and that he imagined in FW systems are randomly lagged as blobs moved about.
Avalloc aknowledged CCP's aknowledgement of difficulties, but wants them to be more precise. He conceded to Erik and Lark that it may be a predictability issue.
Avalloc noted that as lag was not predictable, it was hard to manage perfectly.
Shatana said CCP has been posting "we are looking into it" for months and requested they be more specific.
Erik asked if Dierdra would like to adjust his issue to ask CCP where they are in terms of FW lag investigation as opposed to asking them to boost their effort in that area.
Erik said he would like CCP to be more specific. He mentioned that the emotions are high because CCP does explain why there's no fix, after months of trying.
Erik mentionned that he can support the reworded issue.
Dierdra wondered what Issler was expecting, as any further info would get seriously technical.
Omber said that CCP already stated they're working on it. Erik also wondered how would the CSM asking cause a different answer than the one they're already giving.
Oz replied that CCP has been more precise in other areas, that there's no reason they can't here.
Erik asked wether Omber Zombie had considered the possibility CCP might not have figured the problem yet.
Erik answered that the CSM asking would be a nice hint to CCP to increase their effort, although he was not litterally asking for that.
Erik provided exemples of technical answers that wouldn't help at all and restated his point that the devs have already said on multiple occasions that they're aware of the problem and expressed his opinion that harassing them won't provide a faster solution.
Meissa agrees that FW needs some love, but agrees with Vuk that this issue is pointless. He would however be happy to vote on a general FW issue as Oz did for the industry expansion.
Oz said that requests have resulted in more elaborate explanations in the past and that he sees supports asking CCP for more information. Dierdra further explained that the frustration comes from the lack of communication as it is just a matter of people not liking being ignored.
Dierdra thinks it's valid for the CSM to ask if the forum didn't bring the desired responses.
Erik expressed his opinion that saying people are ignored is stupid as the numerous devs replies on the forum attest to the contrary.
Meissa noted that any answer CCP might give right now wouldn't make any sense to someone who's not a software engineer with knowledge of how eve is implemented, and as such would be of little value.
Issler explained that it was more a matter of CSM sending a signal that something in FW isn't right more than a technical explanation.
Erik didn't think the CSM needed to signal CCP about FW.
Issue failed ( 5 against, 4 for: Issler, Erik, Dierdra, Meissa).
Oz voted yes since it's just a request for information.
Dierdra voted "Yes" on the proviso that this is just a request for information.
Omber Zombie voted yes because by the time the CSM gets to talk about it, in 2 months, it will either be a real problem or will already be solved.

---

Reroll Default Overview Settings to Pre Apoc 1.2

Meissa introduced the issue.
Larkonis agreed with the proposal but was unsure about the blinky part as it now clearly states someone who will shoot you (blinky) vs someone you can shoot at (red, blinky or not).
Meissa answered that the blinky part was a question of pride for the outlaws.
Larkonis agreed with some changes to the default on the basis that it is harder for newbies to identify threats now, and that he loves his newbies and wants to keep them safe..ish.
Dierdra and Meissa argued a tiny bit more on the blinky part without exactly adding new elements.
Issue passed unanimously.

---

Give Assault Frigates a 4th Bonus

Larkonis introduced the issue.
Erik agreed they definately need to be looked at, but is unsure the examples given are required.
Omber Zombie asked how many needed rebalancing. He pointed out that the ishkur was already pretty good and that the AFs should be boosted because they're not good enough, not because all the other T2 ships have 4 bonuses. Dierdra agreed.
Shatana agreed that he was uneasy about that argument and that we should focus on putting them in the right line of power with other T2 ships.
Erik agreed that most of the AFs need a little buff and that a 4th bonus shouldn't be added for the sake of adding one.
Larkonis added that beside missing a 4th bonus, AFs are suffering from a crapy slot layout that make tanking them passively or actively a difficult thing, concluding that a role bonus of -50% cap reduction on reppers would be a viable bonus for AFs.
Vuk answered that he didn't think we need to point out exactly the details on how to boost the AFs. Erik agreed.
Vuk expressed his support for the issue since AFs seem a bit underpowered and that they need to be brought in line with other T2 ships, but not necessarily focusing on a 4th bonus.
Dierdra said a general look at the AFs was a good idea.
Shatana agreed with Meissa, and replied to Dierdra that speed tanking the AFs was also somewhat of an option.
Vuk agreed with Oz
Motion passed unanimously.

---

Factional Warfare Wardec Mechanic

Dierdra mentioned that this proposal could be exploitable thusly: 1. i make an alt corp, 2. I join militia with alt corp. 3 my main corp wardecs alt corp, 4. militia gets a free wardec back on my corp. 5. i just got to wardec most of a militia for the cost of wardeccing a single corp.
Oz answered that the offer was only for corps who wanted to and not automated.
Larkonis didn't see why they should have a common front, further stating that one corp wardeccing a FW corp would end up facing 10 or 15 with no associated cost to the other FW corps, and that nobody else gets free wardecs when their friends get one.
Meissa answered that if the attacker doesn't expect more counter-dec, it only means the attacker should have done a more thorough homework, and that there is no guarantee a corp will receive help. He also added that the agressor can always retreat.
Larkonis requested clarification. He also believes a free war not to be right, although a reduction of the cost may be acceptable, regardless of the fact that the base fees are too low, in his opinion.
Dierdra explained that the proposal can be summarized as: "Corp A wardecs Militia corp (corp M), all other militia corps get a counter dec, either for free or at base cost. Corp M decs corp A, this option is not available to corps within corp M's militia".
Larkonis pointed out that any reduction in cost increases the odds of counter decs, and that the attacker decided to dec one corp, not one + some.
Meissa didn't think FW members should get free wardecs.
Shatana asked if the "free dec" part would be removed from the proposal.
Dierdra agreed and pointed out that this is merely a way to allow militia corps an easier means to render aid to their fellow militia mates.
Larkonis replied that the normal wardec fees were surely not too much to ask in order to help such good militia mates.
Meissa stated once more that the costs quickly add up for all parties involved.
Larkonis suggested the focus be put more on the spirit of the proposal rather than a specific implementation. He was also inclined to agree with Dierdra, saying that the increased fee is minimal, with the exception of an alliance wardeccing a FW corp.
Meissa answered that the costs rises by 2 mil for each beligerent involved, and that if 20 corps were to counter dec, the bill would be 40 mil, with was significant albeit not a huge amount.
Motion failed (7 against, 2 for: Larkonis and Larkonis)

---

The new L4 Agents - Wrong Approach

Erik Finnegan introduced the issue.
Erik asked wether the proposal was a request to change/revert the current agent additions. Dierdra answered negatively, that it was more to add agents, but to the right side.
Erik said that according to the forum post, Avalloc wanted 23 new L4 agents for each non-caldari faction, something he was not to keen on.
Ankhe reminded that the CSM is voting on the wiki issue, not the forum thread.
Dierdra said that the details would be left to CCP, but that the other factions were kinda forgotten.
Erik believed the agent change was because caldari agents hubs are overcrowded, a problem less significant for other factions. He added that more L4 agents for the other factions would be nice.
Meissa commented that the issue seemed to lump together a number of issues that all have a common root cause (the nature of which was not explained in his message). He suggested it be explained better in the issue description.
Dierdra explained that the change was to spread the system load, and that it worked. Adding that while more agents for all factions would be nice, the agent system as a whole needs revision.
Omber Zombie agreed that the bundling of these issues might not be good. He asked wether he could withdraw the issue to split and rephrase and bring back later for a vote.
Chairman agreed, the issue was therefore withdrawn by Erik.

---

Sentry gun aggression and Drones

Erik introduced the issue.
Larkonis didn't think leaving people to fight at the gates longer was the way to go, adding that gate guns need to be buffed as being able to permanently tank sentry guns was never intended.
Issler replied that 90% of the fights occur at the gates, and that players tanking sentry guns was not the issue, except insofar as sentries not shooting drones would actually increased DPS on players.
Larkonis asked how this would prevent him from tanking a sentry in highsec and using his drones to kill someone before concord arrives.
Omber Zombie explained that sentries work on a 30 seconds cycle and that the agressing ship will always take the first cycle and since concord shows up well within 30 seconds even in 0.5, drones are never primarily agressed by sentries in highsec.
Larkonis agreed with Meissa that fight occur at gates and that he didn't want gate guns to be boosted. Sentries not shooting drones would add more variety and he therefore supported the proposal of making drones immune on the condition that ships are available in range to be shot at.
Larkonis disagreed with Dierdra, also stating that fight occur at gates. He expressed his concern that this technique could be exploited, particularly in highsec with drone suicide ganks.
Issler answered that concord disables the drones as well as the aggressor ship.
Larkonis continued on her point that gate guns are, in her opinion, a joke, leading to perma-camped gates.
Issler replied that operating under sentries will be unchanged and that anyone knowing what he's doing can get any ship through a lowsec camp.
Larkonis liked that the proposal fosters diversity in lowsec fights, an aspect on which he agreed with Erik. He added that Gate camps are a seprate issue.
Motion passed (5 for, 4 against: Meissa, Issler, Zastrow, Vuk)

Other Business

General chatter ensued about the time of the next meeting (which was agreed to be on June 21st), reporting on issue passing/failing during the meeting and the NDA coverage status of discussion with former CSM members.