There's a typo in the third bullet point: "Winter 2012 Wxpansion". Unless a winter expansion is a wxpansion, but that would mean the summer expansion is a sxpansion?

There's a typo in the third bullet point: "Winter 2012 Wxpansion". Unless a winter expansion is a wxpansion, but that would mean the summer expansion is a sxpansion?

Clarification: Fluffy means in the DevBlog; the chapter title in the PDF is correct.

MDD

Seleene noted that anonymity does allow people to go the extra mile and be total dicks

Great, the mythical meeting minutes! Now I'm off to reading them.

CCP Arrow indicated that they would be very careful to make sure that the players highly involved with the current industry system aren't disrupted by the new UI and functionality.

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?

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?

I am deeply disappointed that at no point during the entirety of this document was the name "Xenuria" mentioned explicitly.

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?

I didn't like the transcript format. It's too verbose and cluttered with irrelevant details. I find the 'regular' format much easier to read.

Can you give an example of the the direct quotes you mention? Other than the straight up transcripts I didn't notice much difference from previous minutes.

Guys! Make this into a PODCAST!

In every session but the first one, the style is very different than for past minutes. We tried to include direct quotes, for exmaple, in looking at page 59 (chosen at random), there are a couple of quotes from me and Seleene. I think we also included a lot more detail than in the past, where we would often skip over some of the intermediate discussion and just mention the final conclusions.

Seleene [...] pointed out that moons and their resources is a great conflict driver

UAxDEATH said that [changing T2 requirements creates fights] was not a correct assessment; resources are not as big of a reason for fighting as personal vendetta (or hate).

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?

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.

Next up was the station services UI, CCP Arrow explained that one of the things he'd been hearing was that the ship hangar was pretty important to players, and that they had essentially hid it by inserting it into the new unified inventory tabs. There needed to be a better way to display ships in station. Since the station services tab was essentially a list of things available in the station, CCP Arrow explained that it made sense to integrate the ship hanger into that instead. The limitation of course is the amount of real estate on the window, so in order to create more room the station logo and station service items would be reduced substantially in size, condensing them into small, easy to understand icons. This frees up the Guests, Agents, and Offices tabs to be transformed into moveable windows, so that they could be displayed all at once, or one at a time, depending on user preference. As for the ship hangar, it would contain a list of ships as well as a more visual indicator as to when new ships were added, such as a blink.

woa woa woa, what the F*CK is this



I AM PLEADING with you, don't do this. This will absolutely murder lowsec. Not liking LOWSEC gate camps is one thing (nullsec is apparently fine to camp) , but enabling fast tackle on any gate in lowsec is going to put a absolute stop to the traffic that exists there now.

And this wont even stop camps (as i assume this is the intention of the change). All it will promote is the time honored tradition of bouncing.

How does this work with cycling between targets?

Where are the summaries???! I don't have time to read 5 million pages of geek chat.

Where are the summaries???! I don't have time to read 5 million pages of geek chat.

Seleene commented, at this time in the discussion, that he was still waiting for the GÇÿmoney-shotGÇÖ, what about Technetium, POSes, sovereignty? CCP SoundwaveGÇÖs reply was that these topics were not on the schedule for the Winter 2012 release, but they would be covered in more detail in the next session about EVE Future, i.e. the release/s beyond Winter 2012.

CCP Ytterbium continued on the Frigate path and stated that he believed AF, Interceptors, Covert Ops, and Bombers were all well balanced, to which there were no disagreements.

Summarizing the meeting, CCP Xhagen asked the CSM what they thought of the general plan that CCP Ytterbium laid out, and asked CCP Ytterbium and CCP Soundwave what their timeframe for implementing these changes was.

also you really trolled us on incarna, not saying anything about what csm saw

Yeah, I'm not too happy about that but we'll see what can be said in the near future.

CCP Arrow also noted that they had been watching video footage of planes that were in the process
of crashing, and gaining inspiration from actual cockpit indicators that assisted pilots during an
emergency and seeing how they transitioned into a state where essentially all they were doing was
telling you that you were about to die.

CCP Ytterbium: GÇ¥Something I really don't like in Factional Warfare, is just the capital hot drop. To me it has nothing to do with what Factional Warfare is supposed to do.GÇ¥
Elise: GÇ£Well I don't know, triages are pretty cool small gang PvP thing.GÇ¥

I lol'ed. Hope you guys don't believe small-gang PvP can utilize carrier, otherwise it would be really ridiculous. At the very least it takes like 10 damage-dealers alone to counter a single triage carrier and defining a gang of 15 as small will show just how blobtarded eve has become.

You are definitely missing a true small-scale view on PvP, something between 1-5 man, where logistics are not used but constant communication is compulsory.

There are plenty of people out there that consider 10-15 people small gang PVP. Just because it doesn't fit into your master plan for how EVE PVP should work doesn't mean it is wrong. Perhaps you might spend a little more time outside of your bunker and see how the rest of us inferior people play the game.

Would have liked some more information on what all these CCP employees are actually working on...

POS revamp in early 2013, ring mining being pushed back to winter 2013, destructible outposts completely off the map, no timeline for a sov rework, nothing on bringing PI closer in line with its original design goals, nothing about the corp management UI, ...

the only positive surprise was that there seems to be some progress on an improved S&I UI.

I still have the feeling that the "iterations" concept is bad for the game - features are released in a bare-bones state that does not meet the expectations set when they were drafted, followed up by a series of small iterations that mostly fix bugs and improve usability, until focus turns elsewhere while essential parts of the original vision (that was underlying the design of the feature) never get realized.

At the same time I find it impossible to believe the "no more Jesus features" commitment when I read discussion such as the one on the revamped POSes - I can tell you today that 2/3 of the "awesome" ideas discussed in that session will never make it into actual planning while the remaining third will be postponed for future iterations and then forgotten because some more pressing issue comes along.

DUST seems to go the way of WiS - its core feature, the interaction between EVE and DUST players, that has been emphasized over and over again over the past year simply won't be available at launch.

Want me to dig up all the interviews in which CCP employees promised "EVE and DUST players will be in the same chat channels, corporations and alliances", "EVE and DUST will share the same economy", "0.0 alliances will very much want to hire DUST mercenaries for their wars", ... all these key selling points seem to be hazy at best and got postponed into the indefinite future.

I see a lot of :18months: and I don't really see where all these resources go to.

Would have liked some more information on what all these CCP employees are actually working on...

POS revamp in early 2013, ring mining being pushed back to winter 2013, destructible outposts completely off the map, no timeline for a sov rework, nothing on bringing PI closer in line with its original design goals, nothing about the corp management UI, ...

the only positive surprise was that there seems to be some progress on an improved S&I UI.

I still have the feeling that the "iterations" concept is bad for the game - features are released in a bare-bones state that does not meet the expectations set when they were drafted, followed up by a series of small iterations that mostly fix bugs and improve usability, until focus turns elsewhere while essential parts of the original vision (that was underlying the design of the feature) never get realized.

At the same time I find it impossible to believe the "no more Jesus features" commitment when I read discussion such as the one on the revamped POSes - I can tell you today that 2/3 of the "awesome" ideas discussed in that session will never make it into actual planning while the remaining third will be postponed for future iterations and then forgotten because some more pressing issue comes along.

DUST seems to go the way of WiS - its core feature, the interaction between EVE and DUST players, that has been emphasized over and over again over the past year simply won't be available at launch.

Want me to dig up all the interviews in which CCP employees promised "EVE and DUST players will be in the same chat channels, corporations and alliances", "EVE and DUST will share the same economy", "0.0 alliances will very much want to hire DUST mercenaries for their wars", ... all these key selling points seem to be hazy at best and got postponed into the indefinite future.

I see a lot of :18months: and I don't really see where all these resources go to.

At some point CCP has to deliver the features they love to talk about at FanFest and player meetings so much, and all your current organization allows you to deliver are hollow structures of what could have been (and were hyped as) awesome features (see mercenary marketplace for the most recent example, compare the original vision with the actual product, tell me this is satisfying state of affairs).

Things can change alot in 2 months when the patch goes out on the 8th we will start to hear more about the winter stuff

I doubt it - from my PoV the general issue is that the backlog of items that both players and developers can agree need significant attention is just far bigger than the willingness of CCP to assign resources to EVE.

CCP developers and the CSM agree on many existing issues, discuss possible solutions - and know there is no way that this feature will actually be implemented within the next year,.
The comment about destroyable outposts being discussed at every single CSM summit was spot on:

What point is there to rehash the same discussions on topics such as "farms and fields", "sov revamp", "mining", ... on every single summit (and FanFest) when it is obvious that CCP won't commit the resources to actually implement any of these in the foreseeable future.

And meanwhile CCP is pushing out a half-finished (yet delayed) DUST 514 and looking to resume work on WoD (see their hiring advert after 38 studios shut down).

I guess the joke is on me for having believed that things would actually change after last year's debacle.

By the way, DUST is far more than "half-finished", and WOD was never taken off of the table. Perhaps you shouldn't presume quite so much.

CCP talked a fair amount about their DUST plans at FF. You might want to go back and watch some of the video. It will start out with integration into FW, and nullsec will come later, once the dust (har har) settles from launch

concerning the POS ideas : I do like a lot what was said, but as also said, removing forcefield will be a big issue for fleet on 0.0.

for people who don't know, we can wait 20-40-60mn on the staging POS, waiting for jump bridge or for call to go manually.
it would obviously not be possible without a protection, as given the time we'll often be afk.

and it can't be done docked, as we can't see the situation while docked.
we need to know if it's safe to undock... or simply if the fleet is still here !

an anchorable shield as proposed would be okay, but there must be something. you may ask for sov3-4-5 and/or a bill for it if you don't want it everywhere.

but I see it again ; except for FF (where I wonder what the good solution is) I loved what I read here.

currently it takes ages to mount a POS, which look like a pile of junk without any soul, so having a modular system, with only one unique object which looks great and where we can dock would be really great for immersion.
we don't feel "at home currently" on a POS.

Trebor mentioned that not having a force field would be a big change to the way fleets often operate, and Greyscale mentioned that he would be looking into that.

I understand that you guys want more accountability and transparency.

However, this report is 165 pages of jibberjabber.

Is there a bulletpoint version for those of us that don't care about your needs to be accountable and proper and transparent and all that is "good"?

If not, I guess I'll take a over the next few weeks but right now there is a lot of stuff I don't need to know/care for and it will take time to filter out all that stuff.

Thanks!

I understand that you guys want more accountability and transparency.

However, this report is 165 pages of jibberjabber.

Is there a bulletpoint version for those of us that don't care about your needs to be accountable and proper and transparent and all that is "good"?

If not, I guess I'll take a over the next few weeks but right now there is a lot of stuff I don't need to know/care for and it will take time to filter out all that stuff.

Thanks!

woa woa woa, what the F*CK is this



I AM PLEADING with you, don't do this. This will absolutely murder lowsec. Not liking LOWSEC gate camps is one thing (nullsec is apparently fine to camp) , but enabling fast tackle on any gate in lowsec is going to put a absolute stop to the traffic that exists there now.

And this wont even stop camps (as i assume this is the intention of the change). All it will promote is the time honored tradition of bouncing.

How does this work with cycling between targets?

I'd like to strongly echo these concerns, albeit for slightly different reasons. To drop a triage carrier in under 5 minutes, you're looking at 3-4k+ dps. If that's applied in the same way that current sentry damage is (i.e. perfect tracking, full damage anywhere within 150 km of the gate), it basically makes it impossible to have any kind of extended small-scale gang engagement on a lowsec gate outside of FW since such fights generally require one side or the other to take GCC, and that's far too much extra dps to cope with on that scale when you can't mitigate it through range/tracking. As Karl notes, it would have basically no effect on gatecampers since they'll just chill at off-grid safes between ganks, but it'd cripple small-scale roaming pvp.

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.

At the same time I find it impossible to believe the "no more Jesus features" commitment when I read discussion such as the one on the revamped POSes - I can tell you today that 2/3 of the "awesome" ideas discussed in that session will never make it into actual planning while the remaining third will be postponed for future iterations and then forgotten because some more pressing issue comes along.

Question 2 while I wait on the answer to my question 1 (page 3 of this thread):

Pages 93-95 Crimewatch

Was there no discussion about the change in sec status hits that was discussed at fanfest (essentially meaning lowsec piracy would no longer lock a pirate out of high sec)? I would love to know if that idea (a great idea!) was scrapped or if it's still going to happen - and if so, when?

concerning the POS ideas : I do like a lot what was said, but as also said, removing forcefield will be a big issue for fleet on 0.0.

Seleene's link is good, but you are the "Managing Editor" of an EVE fan site. Don't you want to read all the details to report on them to your site visitors?

Question 2 while I wait on the answer to my question 1 (page 3 of this thread):

Pages 93-95 Crimewatch

Was there no discussion about the change in sec status hits that was discussed at fanfest (essentially meaning lowsec piracy would no longer lock a pirate out of high sec)? I would love to know if that idea (a great idea!) was scrapped or if it's still going to happen - and if so, when?

CCP decided that industry should be goal based making it more fun and quicker to do.

However, this report is 165 pages of jibberjabber.

Is there a bulletpoint version for those of us that don't care about your needs to be accountable and proper and transparent and all that is "good"?

If not, I guess I'll take a over the next few weeks but right now there is a lot of stuff I don't need to know/care for and it will take time to filter out all that stuff.

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.

I love this idea as well, and will definitely be talking more about it to CCP as we head into Winter Expansion planning. I wasn't crazy about the gate gun proposal either in its specific form, but it all sounded like mechanics that were still being conceptualized and we've definitely been following up on lot of the stuff touched upon at the summit in our internal forum posts.

And here I thought being the managing editor of EVE Stratics meant that was your job.

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 ****.

Arenas - Instanced PVP in EvE?
I hope you are joking.

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 ****.

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)

Arenas - Instanced PVP in EvE?
I hope you are joking.

*snip*

>> 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.

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

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 ****.

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.

Posted - 2011.05.12 16:01:00

So?..

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.

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,

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.

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.

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.

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.

@ CCP


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.

I'm sorry but personally I don't se how adding more tools for player created content tkes away from the sandbox. Your acting like they suggested arena that are set up by NPCs and have like daily times to enter and all of it's run by the game. It's not, it would be tools for players to set up arena. Treat the arena like a captial ship. Protect the ships inside it from attack, but make it so an attacking fleet could wreck the arena.

Think of the moment both teams lose half of thier ships and see that someone outside just hotdroped in a dread fleet. if you fly out of the arena your dead, so all you can do is sit and wait for the walls to crumble. And when they do you know you can't get away. Both teams stop fighting each other and team up.

In fact adding more points of conflict outside gates and stations is an amazing way to grow the sandbox of eve.

imo

Specifically made clear it wouldnt be instanced. Think less WoW, more Alliance Tournament Lite

CCP Soundwave also admitted that closer attention needed to be paid to the SiSi forums leading up to releases, and that he learned that lesson from this experience.

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?

CCP Unifex wanted to explore the topic of conflict drivers a little bit further and asked, if moon
minerals are taken off the table, what is it that drives conflicts in EVE?

Seleene responded by saying that these days the major players in each alliance all hang out in the
same jabber channels and conversations after fights are more akin to chat after a friendly match
(even though titans and super caps were destroyed) rather than GÇÿhatredGÇÖ GÇô everyone is so filthy rich
that losses really donGÇÖt matter. The GÇÿromanceGÇÖ of old times, where hate and animosity where driving
factors are largely gone. The sense of loss has turned from GÇÿdamn, now I have to go and mine to
afford all this stuff againGÇÖ to GÇÿman, now I have to go to the market and spend money.GÇÖ

Two step clarified this by saying that there would be conflict drivers if it meant something to lose, in
order to get mad at someone they have to do something to hurt you. Even if alliances lose their
space, all their stuff is sitting in invulnerable stations. He took an example from Wormhole space,
where if attackers destroy you and all your things and brag about how much they are going to get
from selling it, that hurts and makes people angry.

Seleene added to this that personal animosity is the best conflict driver in EVE, not resources or
space. Currently things are like a bunch of fat people fighting over how gets to eat first at the GÇÿall
you can eatGÇÖ buffet, no one will starve, it is just the question of who is first in the line.

CCP Soundwave then commented that it sounded like if everyone lived in complete misery in EVE, it
would be a better game?

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 dying Incursion communities...
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

Reading this really surprized me, Comments as follows. Some were well on the ball, but the live events topic got to me, as I keep my experience from the sansha events as the highpoint of my time in eve.

Most importantly, I think can get into where they were talking about live events and just sat talking about the caravans. The most success for live events were the sansha incursions and barely touched on with more people showing up for them than any fleet battle ever to occur in null security. Largest fleet fight was a bit over 2000, but largest live event was when kuvakei attacked yulai and the response to it was alot larger and was pretty much open to all players.

I like Greyscales enthusiasm. Put a jump drive on a POS. Now that's crazy. Though I really like the vision. It reminds me of the Borg Unicomplex.

CCP and CSM, I think it would be a good idea to fire away these "problems" at the player community. I would not be surprised there is actually a stenographer among the EVE player base. Or someone that can find/already has a solution for it by other technical means. Or in general, is an expert in this field.

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.

Impressed and annoyed at the real world politicians syndrome that has snuck into the CSM .. 40+ pages, almost exactly 25% of the entire document, devoted to their own place in the world. Like watching the opening sessions of :insert name of parliament: where they are discussing pay-rises, fringe benefits and hustling to get the juiciest 'appointments'.

- Glad that the idea of making live events into RP vehicles resonated so well. Eve is RP starved due to all official support for the last three letters of the game type acronym MMORPG having been withdrawn and there is only so much players can do .. none of which will go down in "history" as it were.

- Basic mining mechanic could do with some augmentation/iteration, kind of boring for the most part. Add a layer where team-work increases overall yield or something to make drunken mining ops make a come-back and push out the bots.
- Moon mining is and has always been broken, latest changes merely made that simple truth evident for all to see. To solve it you need look no further than PI, POS'es and alchemy.
Introduce new colony structures for use on moons (uninhabitable, so automated) which are tied to a POCO as normal or a POCO-module installed on a tower in orbit. If said POCO is destroyed, all materials on the surface enters a SD cycle which gives owner X hours (tie to sov. level perhaps) to re-establish control. For extra fun, disallow any shipments from the surface if POS shields are active and make the cycling of said shields time intensive.
Economic warfare without the silly reinforcement timers (guard/patrol your damn space instead you lazy bastards!) is what null needs to make more stuff go boom and bring back the anger and hatred which has been at the core of all Eve altering wars (ref: BoB vs. Goons) .. props to Seleene for recognizing this simple truth of human nature . We need more ANGER!

- POS .. are there plans to re-introduce them into sovereignty at large? If not, then wouldn't be proper to first figure out what role they are meant to fill .. you could turn them into that which will be left when/if stations become destructible and the locusts super blobs purge all permanent structures within a fortnight. Since they were taken out of the sov system and stations have been dropped everywhere they are really 'in between jobs' at the moment .. bit of focusing would do wonders.

FW = Pet Peeve, so italized!

CCP Soundwave wrote:

Factional Warfare. This is, for me, probably the feature I am the happiest about. I
think we really hit the nail on the head...

CCP Soundwave (elsewhere, not in minutes) wrote:

FW is a test bed for null sovereignty..

Please, please please .. for the love of all that is (un)holy start work on sovereignty ASAP based on current FW. The forums have grown so stale since December and would be revitalized by 30-40k characters crying, gnashing teeth, cursing and making threats!

Alternatively, demote CCP Soundwave back to grunt again as he .. well, I'll keep it civil. To replace him, may I suggest CCP Ytterbium who has proven on more than one occasion that he understands mechanics involved and that Eve is not an alphabet where every letter exists on its own but rather a Magnum Opus with most interconnected at some level.

Won't comment on the specific items brought up as it has been done to death in relevant threads over the last several years, will just say it is a shame CCP does not have a culture of collecting information other than 'metrics' when planning/evaluating the work ..

Sad that I allowed you (CCP) to waste four years of my time hoping against hope that you'd make them matter in the end. RIP FW.

- Art. No comment, not of interest .. would fly a mottled turd (no offence intended Gall's) as long as I got to ram it down peoples throat from time to time.

- Ship balancing .. if I was not celibate I'd ask for Ytterbiums hand in marriage. Guy is awesome. Want to see more chat-logs with him and Greyscale bouncing stuff around between them .. out-of-box thinkers, pragmatists and down right sagely in matters related to Eve.
"/me Salutes" those two.

- PtP Contracts sounds like they may be the remedy for a number of ailments currently handicapping Eve. Add a team to help them out and give them all the coffee, beer and cake (or pie) they ask for .. holy hell, the prospects in a system like that *drool*.

- Mandatory podding of newbs by means of tutorial itself .. hahahahahaha. Glorious! Other than that, 'meh' .. loot discussions are as lame in Eve as in any other game with loot .. if it doesn't go boom, then why bother.

- Evil, evil RMT'ers. If CCP Tallest and his crew doesn't want the free beverages and snack give them to Screegs .. he is doing an unthankful but vital job.

All in all: Sounds like the course correction after the Jita debacle has made the Devs passionate about their baby once again and given them the stones to show it in public. Good move for Eve and those behind the scenes both .. Win/Win, hope the spirit that prompted the introspection that allowed for the change is nurtured so that we won't have to go through that most foul human urge to protest by shooting/blowing up stuff

@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.

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.

You'll hopefully be happy to hear that we were discussing this exact issue this afternoon, with the goal of ensuring that we're still giving players the tools to safely stage their fleets.

Seleene said, "I want to cloak my secret pirate starbase." Greyscale said that might be a possibility, then shocked the entire room by mentioning offhand, "I really, really, really want to let you put a jump drive on them." The whole room erupted into smiles. He then continued, "Not just right click cyno jump, but you put a beacon down and it takes something like 48 hours before you jump." He wanted to do this to allow small gangs to have a roaming base.

There are a lot of good idea's there, cant wait till they are on the server, but I think some of the Ideas could benefit from the the following:

Ring Mining

This should happen in high sec too, with the following distribution.

• Empire = R8, R16 and Gases
• Low sec = the above + R32
• 0.0 = everything

This distribution would allow smaller corps and alliances to compete with the big guys who have access to the moons, but it also means that the lower priority material get harvested as well, and we wont end up in the situation where Nanotransistors cost less than Titanium Carbide because no one is mining the stuff to make them.

POS's

I think the plans for the new POS's are going to make the thankless task of even using one better . As part of this change the following could be useful:

• Corporate Hanger: If there is anything that makes doing anything on a POS tedious if shifting round all the stuff to build stuff or finding things, how about a quick fix or future feature, have a single corp hanger (by deploying a corporate hanger array) then for every factory or lab the hanger array gets a % boost to capacity then everything can then be feed through the corp hanger array and when building or inventing stuff you only need to worry about is which factory you want to use. This would work well with the proposed new industry system (which looks like it will be amazingly useful) .
• Reactors: Allowing the use of reactors in high sec even if they are less efficient, maybe producing 1/3 of what you can in 0.0, this would allow smaller groups to maybe make use of the ring mining mechanic.
• Refineries: These can be more efficient possibly not taking 2hours to refine 20km3 of ore, like the current ones, if you are in high sec you can use a station, but for those of us who have grinded the missions to get sec status to deploy towers it would be good to have an advantage.
• WiS: If there was anything that could include a WiS element, controlling a POS's defence grid/guns could be one of them.

Ship Balancing

• Logistics Frigates: Yes please!
• Drakes: Dont break the Drake, how about a different way of looking at it if the Drake is so good make the other ships as good as it, instead of making a good ship unusable
• Blackops Battleships: At this point the best change that could be made to them is let them use covert ops cloaks.

Final point, please give us alliance logos on ships.

Please, please please .. for the love of all that is (un)holy start work on sovereignty ASAP based on current FW. The forums have grown so stale since December and would be revitalized by 30-40k characters crying, gnashing teeth, cursing and making threats!

DO IT





DOOOOOO IIIIIITTTTT




Seriously, the entire brainstorm about starbases is effing awesometastic. Cities? Building them anywhere? customization? Scalability?


GIVE ME NOW.

Blackops Battleships: At this point the best change that could be made to them is let them use covert ops cloaks.

I see extremely little to no talk about power projection in the minutes. Was this brought up at all during the talks about sovereignty or anything? No one is concerned about a coalition transversing the entire galaxy in a matter of a few minutes? Nothing said about effort free intel gathering? Or was this stuff NDA?

Active local tanks aren't exactly FOTM.