Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 .. 11 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 9 post(s) |
Talana Mershie
Wolfsbrigade Lost Obsession
3
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 00:06:00 -
[121] - Quote
Capitol One wrote:Quote:CCP Greyscale moves on to explain his work on sentry guns. Sentry guns will now shoot anyone with a criminal flag, suspect or otherwise. Sentry guns will also start with smaller amounts of damage, and ramp up with time. Ideal tuning will be to where triage carriers will die at around 4 1/2 minutes. This way, if you want to use triage carriers in lowsec on gates you can, but you must commit to the cycle for a length of time before starting your reps, if you want to deactivate triage before the sentry guns kill you and jump out. CCP Greyscale also points out that another goal is to make it so that the first couple of hits won't kill an interceptor immediately, enabling a quick tackle, and then a warp out. Stressing that this is a BAD IDEA. Like another poster mentioned, all this will do is make for even less fights in lowsec. A major part of lowsec dwellers are pirates/outlaws and engage under sentry fire a lot. You're looking at 10-20 man gangs with maybe 1 Triage for reps as a very common theme in lowsec. With these changes these groups (a major part of lowsec pvp) would simply not engage on a gate, hotdrop/trap a neutral roaming gang because the incoming dps for even a 5-10 minute engagement would be too much. I mean, what are the chances of 20 man bc gang agreeing to fight the Shadow Cartel Faction BS gang with Triage on a planet because SC can't engage them on a gate? This would DESTROY lowsec. Seriously, what the ****.
While I do like the idea of frigates and smaller ships to be able to absorb a few gate gun hits I must agree that this idea is terribly destructive to the entirety of low sec. In order to kill a triage carrier the guns would need to be doing 20K+ DPS. Say goodbye to small gang and solo roaming as subcaps won't stand a chance at tanking gate guns for more than a couple minutes. |
Kaycerra
Black Lotus Heavy Industries Ethereal Dawn
22
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 00:16:00 -
[122] - Quote
Capitol One wrote:Fon Revedhort wrote:Typherian wrote:Completely agree with this. Thank you CCP for buffing the blob again. As it stands a triage carry is one of the only ways for a small group to fight a far larger group. Making gate guns a threat to the triage is simply ********. If this goes through its going to turn lowsec into the stupid blob fest that is 0.0 (or just make it even more empty) What prevents a far larger group from using a triage carrier as well? I can't even be sure whether the latter one wasn't more common. It's lame, you can replace a carrier with whatever else and it still would make as much sense - that is, none. Falcons allow to fight outnumbered, Anciliary shield boosters allow to fight outnumbered, nano allows to fight outnumbered etc. We've heard all of this. What really promotes small groups is emphasis on skill-demandant things, like current positioning/MWDing. Let's say you have a 10 man Pirate BS gang fighting on a gate. They can't in a Triage because "LOL GATEGUNS U DEAD", They bring in 10 pantheon carriers. Actually the battleships would probably die still, so they would just bring 30 pantheon carriers. As cool as carriers are, that would completely invalidate any other pirate engagement on a gate. I'm so sad panda
Your previous post made a lot of sense. This one?
"Lets say you have a 10 man gang. They cant do X, so they bring 30 ships"
I knew right there, that no thought was put into this. |
Rengerel en Distel
Amarr Science and Industry
262
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 00:23:00 -
[123] - Quote
I thought the inside jokes, banter and such were a bit much for minutes. Perhaps it humanizes the people, but if i wanted that, i'd listen to the podcasts.
Overall, instead of commenting on individual parts here, shouldn't each section have its own thread again in jita park, so that the appropriate people can keep the comments appropriate?
|
Dersen Lowery
Knavery Inc. StructureDamage
54
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 00:24:00 -
[124] - Quote
Read to the end. Good stuff. Thanks for all the hard work, guys. I liked the long read. I also liked the presentation of the first meeting as dialog so that we can "hear" the various conferees, followed by summary + key quotes for the rest of the report.
When you got toe Gallente battleships I was looking forward to seeing what you were thinking about the Dominix. Nothing, apparently. Ah, well.
I laughed at the huge redaction of all specific Incarna content. CCP are obviously terrified of raising expectations about that again.
Also, please do the cloaky POS with a jump drive. That is way too cool. |
Sven Viko VIkolander
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
16
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 00:27:00 -
[125] - Quote
Here's a fact: gate camping is boring and cyno is too easy. The heart of low sec pvp is small gang (as in 2-5 people) and solo, and fostering gate camps, if anything, are a way to discourage low sec small/solo pvp and a way to encourage blobs. If sentry gun changes would make is easier for people to get into low sec, then this might improve pvp there--since more people coming in means more targets, esp. for soloers that will scan them down and do the hard work of killing them.
|
Capitol One
Wolfsbrigade Lost Obsession
57
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 00:27:00 -
[126] - Quote
Kaycerra wrote:Capitol One wrote:Fon Revedhort wrote:Typherian wrote:Completely agree with this. Thank you CCP for buffing the blob again. As it stands a triage carry is one of the only ways for a small group to fight a far larger group. Making gate guns a threat to the triage is simply ********. If this goes through its going to turn lowsec into the stupid blob fest that is 0.0 (or just make it even more empty) What prevents a far larger group from using a triage carrier as well? I can't even be sure whether the latter one wasn't more common. It's lame, you can replace a carrier with whatever else and it still would make as much sense - that is, none. Falcons allow to fight outnumbered, Anciliary shield boosters allow to fight outnumbered, nano allows to fight outnumbered etc. We've heard all of this. What really promotes small groups is emphasis on skill-demandant things, like current positioning/MWDing. Let's say you have a 10 man Pirate BS gang fighting on a gate. They can't in a Triage because "LOL GATEGUNS U DEAD", They bring in 10 pantheon carriers. Actually the battleships would probably die still, so they would just bring 30 pantheon carriers. As cool as carriers are, that would completely invalidate any other pirate engagement on a gate. I'm so sad panda Your previous post made a lot of sense. This one? "Lets say you have a 10 man gang. They cant do X, so they bring 30 ships" I knew right there, that no thought was put into this.
Oversimplified scenario making. My point was that a 10 man BS gang with Triage would die to gateguns in a fire. So I made the point of instead of dropping a single Triage, a group like that would be forced to deploy several Pantheon carriers.
In other words, more blob instead of smaller sized fleets to counter the overwhelming dps of gateguns. |
Issler Dainze
Tadakastu-Obata Corporation The Honda Accord
2108
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 00:31:00 -
[127] - Quote
So I am very happy these are out. I wanted to offer the observation that I think the player base would be very happy with the folks they elected to the CSM 7 if you could see the session videos. The sessions were very well run and I think very productive.
I know the minutes are pretty long but it was what we all promised this election. You now know who thinks what and I believe that will be very useful should some of the CSM 7 choose to run again.
For me all of the CSM 7 members were new to me and I didn't know at first what to expect, but after working with them and especially seeing the quality of their interaction with CCP at the summit I think the CSM 7 is the best to date. I hope you see that in these minutes.
Now if we can just get all the cool stuff talked about into the game!
Issler |
Kaycerra
Black Lotus Heavy Industries Ethereal Dawn
22
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 00:32:00 -
[128] - Quote
Capitol One wrote:Kaycerra wrote:Capitol One wrote:Fon Revedhort wrote:Typherian wrote:Completely agree with this. Thank you CCP for buffing the blob again. As it stands a triage carry is one of the only ways for a small group to fight a far larger group. Making gate guns a threat to the triage is simply ********. If this goes through its going to turn lowsec into the stupid blob fest that is 0.0 (or just make it even more empty) What prevents a far larger group from using a triage carrier as well? I can't even be sure whether the latter one wasn't more common. It's lame, you can replace a carrier with whatever else and it still would make as much sense - that is, none. Falcons allow to fight outnumbered, Anciliary shield boosters allow to fight outnumbered, nano allows to fight outnumbered etc. We've heard all of this. What really promotes small groups is emphasis on skill-demandant things, like current positioning/MWDing. Let's say you have a 10 man Pirate BS gang fighting on a gate. They can't in a Triage because "LOL GATEGUNS U DEAD", They bring in 10 pantheon carriers. Actually the battleships would probably die still, so they would just bring 30 pantheon carriers. As cool as carriers are, that would completely invalidate any other pirate engagement on a gate. I'm so sad panda Your previous post made a lot of sense. This one? "Lets say you have a 10 man gang. They cant do X, so they bring 30 ships" I knew right there, that no thought was put into this. Oversimplified scenario making. My point was that a 10 man BS gang with Triage would die to gateguns in a fire. So I made the point of instead of dropping a single Triage, a group like that would be forced to deploy several Pantheon carriers. In other words, more blob instead of smaller sized fleets to counter the overwhelming dps of gateguns.
Indeed, it does force a trade off, but then, they have a greater risk involved too, but I see what you mean, and do tend to agree, that it steers, or forces combat, into a more niche set of scenarios, rather than allowing as much diversity. |
Yeep
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
182
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 00:39:00 -
[129] - Quote
Fon Revedhort wrote:Quote:>> Hot-drops are too easy - I think we're reaching a place where there's a broad consensus on this being not a cool outcome for everyone except the guy jumping in.
Posted - 2011.05.12 16:01:00 So?..
As someone who was on both sides of a capital hot drop back when the capacitor penalty from jumping in actually meant something I'd be sad to see the element of suprise disappear. However I would agree that the pentalties for the aggressor need to be adjusted given the availability of T2 and the size of capital fleets. |
Klarion Sythis
Bite Me inc Elysian Empire
28
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 00:47:00 -
[130] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Klarion Sythis wrote:On POS changes, I wish that were a much higher priority for CCP, but the transcript allowed me to see that the CSM agreed and voiced that opinion. The POS changes sound very exciting overall, but still several concerns to sort such as small POSes being used to create fortess systems with 2 week timers in W-Space. That would make invasions excruciatingly boring and time consuming. Docking in POSes would represent a significant loss in intel for W-Space if there weren't still some way to count pilots or ships. Cloaking POSes would be...interesting. If the minutes are somehow giving you the impression that starbases aren't a high priority, then there's some miscommunication going on. They're a big damn job to do and they need a lot of runway to get them right, but we're working on it as fast as we can. I don't doubt it's still a high priority, but many had hoped that this was underway rather than in the idea stages after reading about POS revamps in Seleene's blog. Anyone who uses POSes frequently or has seen one go Skynet should also understand the amount of work that creating a new system represents, so if it's just in the idea stages, so be it and we'll appreciate the time and effort taken to do it right.
The impression of priority came from seeing the feature list of the Winter Expansion and again, many had hoped for a 'money shot' feature as Seleene put it. If Tech or Sov had been on the list then that would seem like something to base an expansion on. Afterall, it was stated that the team that would work on the POSes is currently working on Crimewatch instead.
The Inferno release was aimed at high sec, FW, and mercenaries so it seemed like the expansion could be a big win for some groups whose needs could easily be overlooked. I can dig that. If the crimewatch and contract systems need some work because they're old and need revamping, I'll at least understand, but I just can't get excited about that unless it were paired with a higher profile feature.
The features of the Winter Expansion just seemed "meh" and bigger and more excited things are being put on the back burner for it. Maybe these features are a lot more exciting to other people, but that's where my impression came from. |
|
Alx Warlord
SUPERNOVA SOCIETY Tribal Conclave
135
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 00:48:00 -
[131] - Quote
I read all the pages and I got to say that it was a good meeting and things are going to the right direction!!!
I can't wait to see the future!!!!
Keep the good work CCP and CSM!!!! |
Omega Tron
Amarr Mining Inc Technical Exploration Conglomerate of Hemera
10
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 00:49:00 -
[132] - Quote
I just picked up the CSM7 meeting minutes on download after I got off work today. I have just gotten up to page 9 and already this is the best CSM/CCP document of a summit meeting that has been produced in the last five years. Please don't take another 5 years now to do this again. In these 9 pages I've laugh about 5 times and had a dozen serious thoughts about the ideas of the exposure of the real person or the EVE Avatar. So I sure hope this continues. The wait has been worth it for this product -- good work everyone.
Finally just to add my 2 ISKs in -- I vote for the person and what they say they will represent from the players to CCP. I don't vote for an EVE Avatar. My view of EVE and I don't-álike it.-á ========================================================= EVE residents: 5% Wormholes; 8% Lowsec; 20% Nullsec; 67% Highsec. CSM 6: 100% Nullsec residents. EVE demographics vs CSM demographics, nothing to worry about... |
DarthNefarius
Minmatar Heavy Industries
265
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 01:21:00 -
[133] - Quote
CSM_minutes wrote: CSM & CCP Meeting minutes, May 30th GÇô 1st June 2012 Page 87 of 165 Soundwave sheepishly mentioned CCP broke incursions and showed the CSM a graph depicting the drop off in incursions activity. There were many GÇ£Ohhh snapsGÇ¥ around the table. Ripard TegGÇÖs analysis of incursion activity pre/post patch was mentioned by the CSM. The massive drop off of Vanguard sites was praised since they were relatively risk-free ISK. Two step compared Incursion sites to WH sites and how quickly players de-risked both types of content. GÇ£That one with the frigatesGǪyouGÇÖd have to work to die in that." Soundwave pointed out that people do die in incursions at rates higher than some other kinds of PvE content. He felt the main driver of incursions was social in nature, and the group PvE that the incursion sites provided was a good thing. The loss of it made him GÇ£a little bit sadGÇ¥ so fixes to de-nerf incursions would come out in June.
Soundwave also wants to take a look at the LP store to make them more of an ISK sink, possibly giving people a way to cut around tags in offers by spending more ISK. UAxDEATH would like to know how any of that related to null sec,
If CSM was supposed to be about damage control it failed the Incursion community without any comments helpfull here. The June 'rollback' was a farce and I tend to think the outcry about the OTAs in CCP Affinity's DEV blog was the only & real usefull feedback which will result in any help to the Incursion community... I like to reiteriate the last sentence I quoted I think that appropriately shows the CSM7's view of HI SEC: " UAxDEATH would like to know how any of that related to null sec,"
Thanks very much CCP Affinity for the Incursion changes of Inferno 1.2 thank you for nothing CSM7
=========================================================EVE residents: 5% Wormholes; 8% Lowsec; 20% Nullsec; 67% Highsec.CSM 6: 100% Nullsec residents.EVE demographics vs CSM demographics, nothing to worry about... |
Ztnef
Tri-gun Lost Obsession
2
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 01:34:00 -
[134] - Quote
Quote:CCP Greyscale moves on to explain his work on sentry guns. Sentry guns will now shoot anyone with a criminal flag, suspect or otherwise. Sentry guns will also start with smaller amounts of damage, and ramp up with time. Ideal tuning will be to where triage carriers will die at around 4 1/2 minutes. This way, if you want to use triage carriers in lowsec on gates you can, but you must commit to the cycle for a length of time before starting your reps, if you want to deactivate triage before the sentry guns kill you and jump out. CCP Greyscale also points out that another goal is to make it so that the first couple of hits won't kill an interceptor immediately, enabling a quick tackle, and then a warp out.
Since a typical triage carrier can tank roughly 20k dps and gate guns can kill it in "4 and a half minutes" this would mean that gate guns would be able to one shot ships which are non capitals in 3 mins? This would be due to perfect tracking and would cause low sec fights to rarely occur. Instead of buffing the damage on gate guns or making the damage increase over time why not make gate guns have tracking and factor in sig radius. This would allow frig pvp to occur without the full dps of gate guns. |
Warde Guildencrantz
TunDraGon
20
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 01:38:00 -
[135] - Quote
It would be nice if some talk about lowsec piracy could be had at future meetings.
Where is our pod-scanner that can tell us what implants a ransom target has so we can toll them accordingly?
About the new gate gun setup:
What about the pirates who enjoy low sec fleet ops? Do we get screwed if we shoot ANYONE on a gate since gate guns will just continue to increase their damage until they volley each of our fleets ships one by one? Do you really need to put such a constraint on pirate warfare? Is being -10 that bad? The gate guns should start off weak, and end up as they currently are. Otherwise, you will just steal all potential for non-camping ops from pirates. We will be forced to ONLY camp and not stay on gates for long because anything we shoot will get us the carrier-popping gate guns and we would have to leave gate after a minute or two (which is normal of a camp, but on an OP we just can't do anything?) |
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
445
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 01:58:00 -
[136] - Quote
The good: * Transparency on who said what, particularly CSM positions on issues. (Didn't need to include banter and jokes though) * That CCP thinks off grid boosting shouldn't exist. * POS ideas show promise
The bad:
I could write a lot here, but really it comes down to CCP not really demonstrating a vision for EVE that I can be even remotely excited about. Selene made some suggestions regarding RP and events that sounded good, but CCP Sisyphus immediately jumps in saying they don't want to inconvenience players that don't want to be involved in events. This just reaffirms my belief that much of CCP consciously or unconsciously are primarily trying to make EVE appealing to Themepark/WoW type MMO gamers, and in the course of doing that they will lose players like me. |
Tanaka Aiko
ICE is Coming to EVE Goonswarm Federation
98
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 01:58:00 -
[137] - Quote
finished !
what was the more strange while reading this was that there's good jokes inside :P |
Granix Uvelian
Epsilon Inc Tribal Band
5
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 02:01:00 -
[138] - Quote
Posting in WIN thread to verify that I indeed made it to the end of EPIC pdf.
Thank you CSM and CCP for agreeing to post the minutes 'as stated' instead of condensed. It gives a better understanding of the flow of the conversations and context of various points than prior minutes did.
Super excited for the new POS proposals and 2013 in general. I would echo that Winter 2012 is looking a little weak for FiS, and appears (on the surface) more key to DUST development than anything else. I can understand that considering the desire to push DUST out the door in 2012. Just saying that EVE winter 2012 is looking a little 'light'.
But hey, gotta leave 'em wantin' more.
Agree that 3rd party developers could help you a lot more with corp management if you push CREST out the door sooner. The EVE community has some of the best web developers I've seen when they get their minds focused on a particular game feature. From marketing tools to intel or asset management we have a wide variety of options as players. The only thing they lack... the ability to actually accomplish specific in-game tasks.
I can fiddle with a 3rd party market program designed for EVE, but if I still have to manually click through hundreds of orders.... boring... just sayin'.
Thanks again for a great read.
True warrior signing out.
G |
Tuscor
Insidious Design
0
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 02:19:00 -
[139] - Quote
Not a big fan of the 'Arena PVP' idea!
Doesn't it fly in the face of the sandbox concept, and wont it deduct from the real hunting and tackling type pvp out in 'real space'. World PVP in WoW suffered hugely when Arenas and battlegrounds were implemented, it would suck for something similar to happen here.
We have RvB, we have 1v1s on offer. Nothing stops people from arranging more of this type of thing.
Arena pvp always feels kind of set up and cheap compared to the real thing. |
Gilbaron
Free-Space-Ranger Ev0ke
307
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 02:35:00 -
[140] - Quote
i am more than a bit worried about the dust514 part, this does not sound like the game should be launched anytime soon :( |
|
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
494
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 02:55:00 -
[141] - Quote
not sure why the incarna prototype is nda i watched a video about it a few months ago... Ok, so you've corrected my spelling,do you care to make a valid point? -áThere are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
494
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 02:56:00 -
[142] - Quote
Tuscor wrote:Not a big fan of the 'Arena PVP' idea!
Doesn't it fly in the face of the sandbox concept, and wont it deduct from the real hunting and tackling type pvp out in 'real space'. World PVP in WoW suffered hugely when Arenas and battlegrounds were implemented, it would suck for something similar to happen here.
We have RvB, we have 1v1s on offer. Nothing stops people from arranging more of this type of thing.
Arena pvp always feels kind of set up and cheap compared to the real thing.
i think arena is a dirty word... but saying concord sanctioned player vrs player contracts sounds move eveish...
Ok, so you've corrected my spelling,do you care to make a valid point? -áThere are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... |
Bloodpetal
Mimidae Risk Solutions Alliance of Abandoned Cybernetic Rejects
759
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 03:02:00 -
[143] - Quote
@ CCP
LIKES ::
New POS'! New Crimewatch (90% of it) Balancing Efforts! Technetium Balance! NPE Content!
Unhappy Discussion ISSUES :: Escalating Sentry Gun DPS POS Force Fields Arenas with Betting
Escalating Sentry Gun DPS :: I really don't have a clue why you want to do this. At first I thought it was to make Gate camping more viable in Low Sec with the lower DPS at the start. But when I thought about it, I just don't understand the GOAL of this? Please explain.
POS Force Fields :: Please remove them. Make them an anchorable item like you suggested please. This makes them more viable in a large scale. The creation of Jumpable POS' that can be combat fit + anchorable force fields would radically change 0.0 warfare for the better IMHO. The dynamic will be less focused on MOONS, MOONS, MOONS, and become a more intricate weave of positioning and logistics based on already created tactics, but now decouple from the arbitrary limitations of a moon.
Arenas With Betting :: Eh, this really is trouncing onto the Sandbox hard core. Let players take up the challenges of these kinds of things. You're just taking player content away. Find ways to enable players, not just feed some PVP addiction.
Mimidae Risk Solutions Recruiting |
Kropotkin
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 03:21:00 -
[144] - Quote
Full Minutes PDF, page 4:Quote:There was a brief discussion about the effects of The Mittani's resignation. Elise Randolph (Elise) inquired as to whether there had been any fallout at CCP, and CCP Xhagen replied that there had not been any; the 30-day ban was directed at the player, and did not affect the CSM as an institution. Trebor praised The Mittani for handling things in a mature way -- by burning Jita -- and CCP Xhagen noted that this resulted in CCP discovering some bugs in Time Dilation.
|
zxsteel
13
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 03:37:00 -
[145] - Quote
No love to null sec - |
Dersen Lowery
Knavery Inc. StructureDamage
55
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 03:44:00 -
[146] - Quote
Takeaway from the initial conversation: Jon Lander is a boss. I can see why CSM is impressed with him.
I'll add an enthusiastic +1 to the idea of dev-led storyline content that the players can influence. Don't be afraid of interrupting my "preferred" playing style: EVE is a PVP game. If someone doesn't interrupt it every once in a while I start wondering if I'm alone on the server. :-)
@zxsteel: I think CCP is prioritizing things in the order of how confident they are that they can fix the problem quickly. Neither POSes nor sov (nor the corp interface nor PI) can be fixed by CCP Punkturis on a rainy Sunday, so they're being postponed until all the little stuff is cleared out of everyone's queues. It's not really a bad way to go about things, although that's easy for me to say from my perch in high sec. |
Verus Noan
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 03:49:00 -
[147] - Quote
Two step: We don't want to make decisions, we want to be able to provide input that helps you make better decisions.
I knew I liked that guy. |
Tanaka Aiko
ICE is Coming to EVE Goonswarm Federation
98
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 03:56:00 -
[148] - Quote
Two step wrote:Some questions for folks that are reading the minutes: 1) The first session was a straight up transcript. Do you like that format? 2) The other sessions have a lot more direct quotes from people. Do you like this better than the past formats? answers are biased as for most players the whitepaper have way less importance than others subjects, so the first pannel which has more text is not that appealing, without being linked to its form.
also i had the impression that the first pages where missing sentences from Trebor (who was doing the editing, so maybe he forgot to include himself)
the biggest issue i saw reading these were a need for more editing : big feeling of the document being made by different people, and way too much things said again at a few lines of interval |
Bloodpetal
Mimidae Risk Solutions Alliance of Abandoned Cybernetic Rejects
759
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 04:03:00 -
[149] - Quote
Tanaka Aiko wrote:Two step wrote:Some questions for folks that are reading the minutes: 1) The first session was a straight up transcript. Do you like that format? 2) The other sessions have a lot more direct quotes from people. Do you like this better than the past formats? answers are biased as for most players the whitepaper have way less importance than others subjects, so the first pannel which has more text is not that appealing, without being linked to its form.
I definitely liked 2 for more direct quotes. Much improved.
The direct transcript was also good and was easy to follow overall, but after reading 150 pages of it, I'm not sure I'd be enjoying it so much. It's a bit of a toss up. But #2 was definitely improved and I liked knowing what people said.
Again, direct transcript would be nice, but as the person above said, it's a bit hard to appreciate with the "whitepaper" which is pretty obtuse subject matter to me.
Mimidae Risk Solutions Recruiting |
Y'nit Gidrine
Gold Horizons Industrial
14
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 04:13:00 -
[150] - Quote
I am a true warrior (Been reading it since I got back from work) |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 .. 11 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |