EVE Search - New CSM Blog: CSM reports: Sense and Sensibilityà and Spaceships

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE Information Portal

New CSM Blog: CSM reports: Sense and Sensibilityà and Spaceships

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 12 post(s)

CCP Fallout	Posted - 2010.10.27 18:53:00 - [1] The Fifth Council of Stellar Management recently visited our offices in Reykjavik for a new round of meetings. This is their report. Fallout Associate Community Manager CCP Hf, EVE Online Contact us

ceaon	Posted - 2010.10.27 18:55:00 - [2] 0/ Originally by: CCP Adida The male thread was locked because the discussion turned into transsexuals and man boobs.
Trebor Daehdoow	Posted - 2010.10.27 18:57:00 - [3] Normally, I wouldn't IBC, but in this case... Confessions of a Noob Starship Politician The most expensive free trip to Iceland you'll ever win!
Virtuozzo Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2010.10.27 19:03:00 - [4] And people say I'm always causing walls of text .... But serious again, thank you. Time to dig in, but this is really some sweet hard labour visible right there. Appreciated. ≡v≡ once was about internet spaceships. Then those became serious business. Now all that's left, serious business, and spaceships are docked for two years till after the Dust of Incarna.

GM Grave	Posted - 2010.10.27 19:05:00 - [5] 5th!

Douchie McNitpick Money Liberation Services Corp	Posted - 2010.10.27 19:05:00 - [6] Finally. puts on his reading glasses

Chribba Otherworld Enterprises Otherworld Empire	Posted - 2010.10.27 19:07:00 - [7] and stuff. and ice. Secure 3rd party service \| my in-game channel 'Holy Veldspar'

ceaon	Posted - 2010.10.27 19:07:00 - [8] http://blog.ccpgames.com/alli/files/2010/08/Ottarsson_GlobalAgileGameDevelopmentNoPassportRequired.pdf on page 27 what software is there Originally by: CCP Adida The male thread was locked because the discussion turned into transsexuals and man boobs.
Trebor Daehdoow	Posted - 2010.10.27 19:26:00 - [9] Originally by: ceaon http://blog.ccpgames.com/alli/files/2010/08/Ottarsson_GlobalAgileGameDevelopmentNoPassportRequired.pdf on page 27 what software is there That's Hansoft. Confessions of a Noob Starship Politician The most expensive free trip to Iceland you'll ever win!
MotherMoon Huang Yinglong	Posted - 2010.10.27 19:34:00 - [10] this makes me think I'm barking up the wrong tree... hey CSM, how about a live CSM dev blog ? Give the player base a chance to ask you guys live questions over a podcast or something. Maybe one after each summit meeting so we can ask all the juicy questions we have?

Malcanis Caldari Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2010.10.27 19:34:00 - [11] I was intensely interested to see that CCP believe there is too much ISK in EVE. Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players.
Trebor Daehdoow	Posted - 2010.10.27 19:36:00 - [12] Originally by: MotherMoon hey CSM, how about a live CSM dev blog ? Give the player base a chance to ask you guys live questions over a podcast or something. Maybe one after each summit meeting so we can ask all the juicy questions we have? As it happens, we are currently discussing the logistics of doing exactly this. Confessions of a Noob Starship Politician The most expensive free trip to Iceland you'll ever win!
Myxx Gallente Risen Angels	Posted - 2010.10.27 19:48:00 - [13] I read all of it, including the actual pdf file. That said, I agree with the emphasis the CSM is putting into fighting micro transactions. Perhaps they cannot ever put enough into it, but every bit of mentioning just how much we collectively don't like the idea can only help. Dont do it. -- My opinion is my own and nothing but my own. Before putting words in my mouth, it might help to ask for clarification if you are confused.
Malcanis Caldari Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2010.10.27 19:53:00 - [14] I can see at least 4 things that an evil, maliciously inclined person could create a huge ~threadnaught~ about, but since I am good and lovely, those nasty people will have to find those and threadnaught about it themselves. I will say that the very apparent difference in tone and emphasis shows a more constructive and engaged CSM <-> CCP relationship, and I am extremely relieved to see this. I had been worried that CCP would clam up after the aftermath of the last meeting, but instead they have HTFU, and answered our concerns. There are some difficult questions being openly answered there. And if Hilmar is being slightly disingenuous about "liking" having the playerbase call bull***, it's apparent that he recognises that occasionally CCP need* it. Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players.
Daedalus II	Posted - 2010.10.27 19:56:00 - [15] A suggestion as to how to make experienced players more willing to participate in mass tests: Instead of giving 2 000 000 skill points that may or may not be wasted at the next synchronization, instead give a limited time all lvl 5 skills. Say it's lasting 2-3 days after the event. After that it's changed back to the normal skill levels again. If the player wants to keep it, he has to participate in a new test. If you want more reports from the tests, make it so you get the 2 000 000 SP if you just participate AND the 2-3 days all lvl 5 skills if you also submit a report.
Don Pellegrino Pod Liberation Authority HYDRA RELOADED	Posted - 2010.10.27 19:57:00 - [16] Will comment shortly.
Hentes Zsemle	Posted - 2010.10.27 19:59:00 - [17] Edited by: Hentes Zsemle on 27/10/2010 20:01:16 It looks to me that ccp has hired a PR team a while ago, which have / had a really bad influence on the relationship between the company and the players, and its as if they were starting to realize that your shouldn't listen to ppl who use too much hair products.
Jason Edwards Internet Tough Guy Spreadsheets Online	Posted - 2010.10.27 20:08:00 - [18] Dog and Pony shows are best part of the circus. ------------------------ To make a megathron from scratch, you must first invent the eve universe.
Sturmwolke	Posted - 2010.10.27 20:11:00 - [19] Plenty of good stuffs to read in the pdf, thumbs up to CSM. Looks like CCP's finally doing some transparent course correction after that last media debacle that killed a large amount of goodwill from the Eve community. A few thumbs up to CCP, but there's still a lot of ground to cover.
Mynxee	Posted - 2010.10.27 20:17:00 - [20] I am glad to see folks recognizing that the CSM <--> CCP relationship has evolved in a very positive and productive direction since the June Summit. It is light years ahead of where it was then. Many thanks to Trebor, who did a wonderful and amazingly speedy job prepping the draft and responding to feedback to produce the devblog and Minutes. Life In Low Sec

wizard87	Posted - 2010.10.27 20:23:00 - [21] Interesting, but why do you repeatedly "speak" for the CSM's feelings?

CCP Xhagen	Posted - 2010.10.27 20:30:00 - [22] Originally by: Malcanis I can see at least 4 things that an evil, maliciously inclined person could create a huge ~threadnaught~ about, but since I am good and lovely, those nasty people will have to find those and threadnaught about it themselves. EVE Community, best community! Originally by: Malcanis I will say that the very apparent difference in tone and emphasis shows a more constructive and engaged CSM <-> CCP relationship, and I am extremely relieved to see this. I had been worried that CCP would clam up after the aftermath of the last meeting, but instead they have HTFU, and answered our concerns. There are some difficult questions being openly answered there. And if Hilmar is being slightly disingenuous about "liking" having the playerbase call bull***, it's apparent that he recognises that occasionally CCP need* it. I have said it before (perhaps I haven't said it on the EVE forums) and I will say it again to anyone who wants to listen - the CSM was doing its job in June. This is what they are supposed to do. And I believe I'm not exaggerating in any way when I state that Hilmar was not being disingenuous in any form or fashion. This is what makes him a great CCP CEO. ____________________________ CSM Project Manager EVE Online CCP Games

Trebor Daehdoow	Posted - 2010.10.27 20:34:00 - [23] Originally by: wizard87 Interesting, but why do you repeatedly "speak" for the CSM's feelings? "The CSM feels" is basically shorthand for "the general consensus of the CSM". Confessions of a Noob Starship Politician The most expensive free trip to Iceland you'll ever win!
Spurty Caldari D00M. Northern Coalition.	Posted - 2010.10.27 20:42:00 - [24] CCP Oveur gets my vote on the 'Comedy Timing' routine there. Fly CSM over to Iceland for a meeting, then escape to the roof top jet over to Shanghai! NINJA! Yelp!
Mashie Saldana Minmatar Veto Corp	Posted - 2010.10.27 20:57:00 - [25] Still reading but I'm really surprised that CCP hasn't considered doing attribute remaps for pure ISK like a good old NPC sold item instead of PLEX. I mean it is a lot of talk of too much ISK in the universe, so this if anything would drain the coffers.
Virtuozzo Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2010.10.27 20:58:00 - [26] Originally by: CCP Xhagen Originally by: Malcanis I can see at least 4 things that an evil, maliciously inclined person could create a huge ~threadnaught~ about, but since I am good and lovely, those nasty people will have to find those and threadnaught about it themselves. EVE Community, best community! Originally by: Malcanis I will say that the very apparent difference in tone and emphasis shows a more constructive and engaged CSM <-> CCP relationship, and I am extremely relieved to see this. I had been worried that CCP would clam up after the aftermath of the last meeting, but instead they have HTFU, and answered our concerns. There are some difficult questions being openly answered there. And if Hilmar is being slightly disingenuous about "liking" having the playerbase call bull***, it's apparent that he recognises that occasionally CCP need* it. I have said it before (perhaps I haven't said it on the EVE forums) and I will say it again to anyone who wants to listen - the CSM was doing its job in June. This is what they are supposed to do. And I believe I'm not exaggerating in any way when I state that Hilmar was not being disingenuous in any form or fashion. This is what makes him a great CCP CEO. There are quite a few points of almost brutal honest on the side of CCP in these minutes, I have to admit. while some may see it as emberassing, I thnk it is healthy. This does however raise some interesting questions for CCP itself, and its organisation. The next 6 months are going to be both vital and of interest. And a lot of it, will involve thinking outside the sandbox. ≡v≡ once was about internet spaceships. Then those became serious business. Now all that's left, serious business, and spaceships are docked for two years till after the Dust of Incarna.
ceaon	Posted - 2010.10.27 21:03:00 - [27] Originally by: Trebor Daehdoow Originally by: ceaon http://blog.ccpgames.com/alli/files/2010/08/Ottarsson_GlobalAgileGameDevelopmentNoPassportRequired.pdf on page 27 what software is there That's Hansoft. tvm Originally by: CCP Adida The male thread was locked because the discussion turned into transsexuals and man boobs.

CCP Xhagen	Posted - 2010.10.27 21:10:00 - [28] Originally by: Spurty CCP Oveur gets my vote on the 'Comedy Timing' routine there. Fly CSM over to Iceland for a meeting, then escape to the roof top jet over to Shanghai! NINJA! To be fair the CSM visit was decided after he had been scheduled to be in Shanghai. But CCP Oveur has an uncanny knack of seeing the future... so maybe this is a case of a future-ninja? ____________________________ CSM Project Manager EVE Online CCP Games

Zarnak Wulf	Posted - 2010.10.27 21:19:00 - [29] Sansha cyno-jamming systems will cause comedy all around. Micro-transactions are becoming an industry wide occurrence and not exactly OMG material. I was hoping to see more about the CSM list and progress being made on it. (Assault Frigates, Destroyers, Faction Warfare, ect.) It was a good read though.
Exordium8 Minmatar The Deep Space Armada Rising Phoenix Alliance	Posted - 2010.10.27 21:23:00 - [30] Edited by: Exordium8 on 27/10/2010 21:24:14 Looks good --------------------------------- Pillage, then burn. Everything is air-droppable at least once. There is no 'overkill.' There is only 'open fire' and 'time to reload.

TeaDaze	Posted - 2010.10.27 21:24:00 - [31] Edited by: TeaDaze on 27/10/2010 21:25:52 Thanks to CCP for getting the minutes up quickly. Keep the comments coming, we have another summit meeting in December TeaDaze.net Blog \| CSM Database
Nex apparatu5	Posted - 2010.10.27 21:24:00 - [32] Edited by: Nex apparatu5 on 27/10/2010 21:25:24 Fail
Exordium8 Minmatar The Deep Space Armada Rising Phoenix Alliance	Posted - 2010.10.27 21:25:00 - [33] Originally by: TeaDaze Originally by: Exordium8 Edited by: Exordium8 on 27/10/2010 21:24:14 Looks good Orly? Don't know what you're talking about --------------------------------- Pillage, then burn. Everything is air-droppable at least once. There is no 'overkill.' There is only 'open fire' and 'time to reload.
TeaDaze	Posted - 2010.10.27 21:26:00 - [34] Originally by: Exordium8 Don't know what you're talking about We'll fix that in the dub TeaDaze.net Blog \| CSM Database
Lev Aeris b.b.k Saints Amongst Sinners	Posted - 2010.10.27 21:32:00 - [35] I'm glad to see that CCP is finally taking all those thread-naughts a little more seriously. :) Also glad to see that Dominion (aka Failminion, The expansion that broke eve) made it into the discussion. In regards to player retention I personally saw a mass exodus of long time players after the release, and in the weeks and months afterward when the game(product) remained in a crippled state. What only added insult to this was that CCP was openly beta testing the bugs with player assets. For example when the Provi Blob got slaughtered by AAA and friends in DG-, 95% desynced and blackscreened while they were killed. All the time CCP was actively keeping the node alive, data-mining our misfortune. That kind of gameplay experience isn't something many people will pay money for, especially when the chips being gambled take hundred of manhours to produce in game. Old news I know, but that still sticks out in my mind to this day. I'm hoping the admission that PI was been released with 45% of its expectation realized means that more time will be spent producing all that shiny content that the Dev blogs have promised over the years, then never delivered. This game has TONS of great content that just need a little bit of love. Finishing Dominion (treaties, AF buffs, actually balancing SC and Titans as promised) or polishing the WH / T3 would generate some of that player retention CCP needs. Tyranis was a bad joke to me. I went on SiSi as soon as PI was mentioned, played with the pin cushions, and waited for the final release. I was saddened to find the final release was the same pin cushion skeleton of content, only with bluish auto cad icons for my buildings. Wow. I can't comment on the eve gate content, as I have yet to need or use it. Thanks for admiting you fell short CCP. That can only mean for a better product in the future if you really have taken all this to heart.
Mashie Saldana Minmatar Veto Corp	Posted - 2010.10.27 21:38:00 - [36] Quote: When an infestation get stronger or isn‟t cleaned out several negative things will happen on a system wide scale. There will be a bounty tax applied to all bounties acquired in the system, the Sansha fleets will cyno-jam the system, and other annoying things will happen. The idea is to create a strong incentive to clean up the system. The infestation will however not be permanent to the system, it will move after one week restoring the system to normal. There will most likely be one Incursion per region at any given time. Just let them spread like a wild fire, add one more system per week until they are cleared out. Imagine massive swats of macro controlled 0.0 becoming sansha taxed so they get 0 bounties.
Bluefix Gnu Terror Corps	Posted - 2010.10.27 21:38:00 - [37] Edited by: Bluefix on 27/10/2010 21:46:15 Originally by: Don Pellegrino Edited by: Don Pellegrino on 27/10/2010 21:07:05 My thoughts on the minutes: It is absolutly a shame that no serious lag fixing was deployed prior to the player outrage in June. I understand that it takes time, but things as basic as forming a team to fight the lag should have been done the day right after Dominion. About microtransactions: The Eve player base is older and more educated than the average First person shooter or MMO playerbase. As such, I don't think that "vanity-only" items will be worth the massive drawbacks: A change of "atmosphere", of "feeling". Eve won't look/feel the same if microtransactions are introduced. It won't feel like a high class and mature game anymore, it will feel like a cheap browser game that is trying to suck money out of its players by charging them for both a monthly subscription and items that let players distinguish themself from each others. Please... don't ruin the eve experience. Final blow to the players that have been frustrated by CCP's behavior since Dominion (many veterans). Going against the opinion of the player base. Frustrating your entire player base for vanity items IS NOT WORTH THE RISK. I remember some CCP suit saying: "Eve is our baby, we are very careful about it". Quote: CSM: Has it occurred to CCP to simply raise the subscription cost instead of dabbling in micro-transactions? CCP: CCP is not necessarily doing this to make more money, but to offer a greater and broader range of service to players. How is introducing microtransactions better for the average player than not introducing them? If you need more money, raise the subscription cost, do not create a difference between the players that have money and those who don't, even if it's only vanity items. I was going to mention the seemingly approval of vanity items and how stupid I think it is, but you said it perfectly. I hope it will never become part of Eve as I hate being able to see in any way that someone payed $ to be different. Even vanity should be payed with ISK and not real money. Edit: Just for the record: I can afford microtransactions, but would not buy it. Items not achievable ingame is an immersion breaker, which I would not like to be reminded about by having it myself.
Liang Nuren Parsec Flux War.Pigs.	Posted - 2010.10.27 21:43:00 - [38] Questions/Comments: - Concord LP store: Are they going to be in low sec? Will poor sec status players be able to dock and partake? :P - Supercaps being excluded: Good, that would have been exceedingly difficult to balance. - Supercarrier BPC: Man are you **ing kidding me? JUST WHAT EVE NEEDS - faction ing supercarriers. - Not being able to support Sansha: Sigh. - Are the Sansha invaders going to be warping to other anomalies/missions and ing people up with sniper HAC fleets and such? Just how annoying are things going to get? - Are there going to be Sansha invasions into Sansha space? - Are you going to at least upgrade the Sansha LP store to have some goodies to help compensate those of us who can't partake? -Liang -- Eve Forum *** Extraordinaire On Twitter Blog
PC l0adletter	Posted - 2010.10.27 21:47:00 - [39] So, good show and all. I know if I had to sit down for 3 meetings over a day and a half about the exact same topic hearing the same arguments from different people, I'd pull my hair out. I really don't find CCP's claim that microtransactions aren't about the money to be credible. Uh yeah, we're trying to be on the cutting edge of... new ways to get your money? It kind of insults the intelligence. I would consider paying more per month, but honestly, it seems like the problem is that a lot of what's currently being spent is being used to develop DUST and WoD. If subs have only gone down 0.9%, then that strategy is working about as well as anyone could reasonably hope for, and we should expect them to continue to pursue it. Case in point: it sounds like nothing has gotten done on Incarna. How can you say with a straight face that these 70 devs are working on EVE when you don't have answers to basic questions like how will incarna interact with eve, will people have to participate, what will people be able to do, etc., etc.?

CCP Explorer	Posted - 2010.10.27 21:51:00 - [40] Originally by: Don Pellegrino It is absolutly a shame that no serious lag fixing was deployed prior to the player outrage in June. I understand that it takes time, but things as basic as forming a team to fight the lag should have been done the day right after Dominion. While CCP did not have a focus on these issues as a company until late June this year, then CCP Atlas had started to work on those issues in December last year with a team of senior programmers using all available spare time they had. The "Dominion lag" has since then been determined to have multiple causes. The first one were memory leaks that were fixed in December last year. The second was a database session starvation issue that was fixed in January this year. CCP Atlas wrote a dev blog in early Feb about the grid loading issue when the fix to the database session starvation issue had been confirmed. We continued to work on the grid loading issue and deployed a fix in July this year, see CCP GingerDude's dev blog, that we had been working on since February. At that time we had established a team to work on those issues. As you will note from CCP GingerDude's dev blog, the code we were fixing was not from Dominion. It was old code that through some changed behaviour had exposed issues. So this was not the final piece of the puzzle of "Dominion lag". What we hope is the final piece was identified as fighter bombers, see CCP Chronotis' dev blog. Is this all? And is it all related to Dominion? Probably not. As an example, missiles are very expensive weapons and what we have noticed is that about 6 months before Dominion then Drakes started to get more popular in fleet fights. That trend has continued and added to the load. Erlendur S. Thorsteinsson Software Director EVE Online, CCP Games


Don Pellegrino Pod Liberation Authority HYDRA RELOADED	Posted - 2010.10.27 21:53:00 - [41] Quote: I really don't find CCP's claim that microtransactions aren't about the money to be credible. Uh yeah, we're trying to be on the cutting edge of... new ways to get your money? It kind of insults the intelligence. this. You want to be edgy and follow the wave, but WHY? WHY would you want to introduce microtransactions AT ALL if it's not to squeeze more money out of the players? Quote: Hilmar commented that ôWe love when people call bull** on usö. I'm calling bull** on you.
Hawk TT Caldari Bulgarian Experienced Crackers Circle-Of-Two	Posted - 2010.10.27 21:58:00 - [42] Edited by: Hawk TT on 27/10/2010 22:04:05 Edited by: Hawk TT on 27/10/2010 22:03:05 CCP's openenss is just unprecedented in the game industry. The sole CSM existence is a precedent by itself. The job done by all CSMs so far, and especially the built-upon progress of CSM5 is just a fantastic achievement The EVE community is different from any other MMO community, but still there are the usual suspects - "hardcore whiners" who love to criticize in a non-constructive manner, insulting Devs and other players, predicting the Doom's day etc. Those vocal whiners (a.k.a. Drama Queens) pollute the environment with noise, so lots of constructive feedback / criticism is being lost and I am sure, that some of the CCP's staff gets frustrated and disgruntled. Raising RED FLAGS is generally good if the feedback is constructive, which means less emotions, but more objective arguments. So, let's see if could add my 2 cents 1. Microtransactions for game-influencing stuff would kill EVE's magic - that MUST be clear to CCP. 2. Microtransactions for vanity-items could be GREAT if they don't generate ISK inflation. 3. More income generated for CCP through micro-transcations for vanity-items WOULD BE GREAT! I would like CCP to have as much cash as possible, because that would mean LONG TERM STABILITY, INDEPENDANCE and AVAILABILITY OF MORE RESOURCES (QA, Core, Support, Devs, Art etc.). 4. Raising the subscription fee IS NOT AN ALTERNATIVE to micro-transactions or other additional income channels, because raising the monthly subscription fee WILL RAISE THE BARRIER TO ENTER AND/OR PLAY THE GAME FOR THE WHOLE PLAYER BASE! ISK/PLEX inflation will follow as well. This would be the COMMUNIST/SOCIALIST APPROACH. Having micro-transactions for vanity-items, paid API services, App Store for 3rd party apps as income generators for CCP, WOULD BENEFIT THE WHOLE PLAYER BASE @ the expense of the players with deeper RL pockets, WITHOUT UNFAIR IN-GAME COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE. This would be much more MARKET ORIENTED APPROACH! My 2 cents... ___________________________________ Science & Diplomacy Manager @ BECKS Circle-of-Two
MotherMoon Huang Yinglong	Posted - 2010.10.27 21:59:00 - [43] Edited by: MotherMoon on 27/10/2010 22:01:46 Quote: (but stations in New Eden don‟t have windows!), ccp, please don't shoot your self in the foot. what is the serious reason for not having windows in stations? I'm not talking about "real" windows, but windows artistically. From the outside of a station you can see hundreds of thousands of windows. Are you guys ready to retexture every station in eve online to remove these windows? Is that what I'm hearing? Because I don't want want to play a game where when I'm outside a station all I see is a giant brick without little sci-fi lights. Are you really going to model environments without windows? isn't that going against the idea of the ultimate sci-fi simulator? Whats outside the winds can be as basic as NOTHING but a sky box. Come on, no one is going to question why they can't see the ships outside as much as they will question why stations are suddenly submarines. I' just awe stuck, I know a lot of work has already gone into incarna, and such the art is already done. Which means you might already have no windows, and it's impossible to look back. But come on I've never seen a sci-fi show in my life that didn't have an observation deck. And if eve doesn't have windows on the promenade of my bar, i will be very disappointed. Plus it would make it easier to someone put that sort of thing into the game, but really you have to have windows, even if they are fake no? I just want to know the not joking reason for this :( and why isn't fake windows aren't in. And how to explain all the windows on the outside of the stations. What are we jem'a'dar? edit: also I love the openness of CCP, they are a great company and even if I disagree with little things I'm sure the core of the game will always be one of the strongest in the industry.
Don Pellegrino Pod Liberation Authority HYDRA RELOADED	Posted - 2010.10.27 22:01:00 - [44] Originally by: CCP Explorer Originally by: Don Pellegrino It is absolutly a shame that no serious lag fixing was deployed prior to the player outrage in June. I understand that it takes time, but things as basic as forming a team to fight the lag should have been done the day right after Dominion. While CCP did not have a focus on these issues as a company until late June this year I'm not critisizing the quality of your work at all and I have read all the devblogs and dev posts about about lag. What I'm trying to point out is how CCP doesn't seem to be able to adapt itself without massive player outrage and bad PR. If lag fixing would have had the same kind of attention in December - May, the average 0.0 pilot would not be as frustrated right now, Eve would not have been flamed as much outside of these forums and the game would be much more enjoyable right now.
LHA Tarawa	Posted - 2010.10.27 22:06:00 - [45] Micro-transactions BETTER not be: Swap a plex for 1 million SP, or $15 real for a faction cruiser.
Virtuozzo Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2010.10.27 22:15:00 - [46] Originally by: Don Pellegrino Originally by: CCP Explorer Originally by: Don Pellegrino It is absolutly a shame that no serious lag fixing was deployed prior to the player outrage in June. I understand that it takes time, but things as basic as forming a team to fight the lag should have been done the day right after Dominion. While CCP did not have a focus on these issues as a company until late June this year I'm not critisizing the quality of your work at all and I have read all the devblogs and dev posts about about lag. What I'm trying to point out is how CCP doesn't seem to be able to adapt itself without massive player outrage and bad PR. You'd almost think it's an organisational challenge. Something to tackle without falling prey to little kingdom cases or reaching for the obvious in abstract. While only in part relational, CCP may very well have benefit from an internal version of CSM. Without the soap, obviously. ≡v≡ once was about internet spaceships. Then those became serious business. Now all that's left, serious business, and spaceships are docked for two years till after the Dust of Incarna.
ArchenTheGreat Caldari Rapid Pod Transport	Posted - 2010.10.27 22:19:00 - [47] Microtransacions are not necessary. Just put those items in NPC shops and let people buy them with ISK. If someone wants to they can always convert $ to PLEX to ISK. I am not happy to see PLEX in game but I accept it as a way to fight macroers. For microtransactions I can't see a reason at all. Other than more money for CCP of course - byt you stated it's not a reason.
MotherMoon Huang Yinglong	Posted - 2010.10.27 22:29:00 - [48] Edited by: MotherMoon on 27/10/2010 22:31:49 One last post. In regards to micro transactions. CCP says they don't want to fall behind, but... name one mmo that has NON-vanity micro-transactions and sub model that has not failed. APB tried this and it went down hard. Even though it was a great game with what has been the considered the best character creator to date in the industry. Even with excellence and 10,000 man hours of work, can be brought down by Micro-transactions. The fact is, simply, that if eve was 10$ or 5$ a month, and then you could pay more to get more it would be "more" ok. But I really don't see the advantage of micro-transactions when you already get 15 a month. remember were talking non-vanity items. One thing I would like would be if in ircana, what if as a shop owner you could buy a new game (like an arcade machine) or new clothing type. However the idea being that you can place this in your shop, and EVERYONE can use it? so one palyer can pay ccp, or I guess whitewolf maybe in these case to make a new boardgame for eve online. Then one person could buy it for real money, and 1000s of people could play in at that bar/shop. Or for colthing, I could sell a new type of pants (and hopefully put my own textures on it like in APB) but the pattern itself I had to buy with micro-transactions. Now I can sell that item. thus micro-transactions are sell gaining something for yourself, and more, an investment into something that can make YOU a profit. But players that just want a new hat don't have to every reach out their own pockets. I wouldn't mind paying 5$ to get a 2nd floor for my bar for example. As long it meant I could get more people in it. Thus you consolidate your customer from everyone, to business people. I mean sure if you wanted you could buy the new shirt for your shop just to make one of them and then close it down but that would be stupid :P also, remaps are a terrible idea, why not jsut make it for isk? but even then rich people could remap like crazy... so here is an idea. What if.. drum roll remaps cost isk AND SP? you would have to give up SP for your mistake, if you think it's wroth it. and that SP cost could go down as you wait. so one free remap a year, but it would cost say, 1000sp the day before the year is up. sp for remap? it would make it so remaping like crazy would not be good for your character at least :P Quote: Microtransacions are not necessary. Just put those items in NPC shops and let people buy them with ISK. If someone wants to they can always convert $ to PLEX to ISK. actually why not this? isk for vanity items would mean more people want isk. And people know they can buy more isk with plex. and it's not alienating. In fact it's different and CCP you guys seem to like different. Push forward with your own vision not with others
Harsh Craver	Posted - 2010.10.27 22:43:00 - [49] I have to comment on this one regarding microtransactions: "CCP: CCP is not necessarily doing this to make more money, but to offer a greater and broader range of service to players." That's just stupid to be honest. If it wasn't about money they would add it as buy for ISK (which is what should be done)
Kyoko Sakoda Caldari Veto. Veto Corp	Posted - 2010.10.27 22:45:00 - [50] Micro-transactions could certainly become lucrative if enough thought was put into them. I can certainly envision a system similar to Valve's Steam Wallet that can share financial resources between all of CCP's games; along with vanity item crafting with sales on an intra-IP basis. ___ Latest video: Future Proof (720p) 2D Animator

Gerazon Kaern	Posted - 2010.10.27 23:05:00 - [51] I was saddened to see that the CSM didn't really fight the concept of vanity items to any significant degree. It has always been a stepping stone to more than that, for the simple reason that vanity items will not provide any significant income. A lot of games that started out with vanity items ended up with full blown microtransactions. I also hate the fact that you'll be denying features to people who already pay a subscription. I'd rather pay a subscription of 30$ than a subscription of 15+average 5$ on vanity. The reason? I really dont like to see people have different things that are purely based on out of game circumstances ($)
Trebor Daehdoow	Posted - 2010.10.27 23:18:00 - [52] Originally by: Zarnak Wulf I was hoping to see more about the CSM list and progress being made on it. (Assault Frigates, Destroyers, Faction Warfare, ect.) It was a good read though. This was a special meeting, mainly about CSM meta-issues (how both players and CCP can better use CSM -- and improved CSM processes -- to get what they want). The topics listed above are the kinds of things that get discussed both on the internal forums and at regular summits. Originally by: Mashie Saldana Just let them spread like a wild fire, add one more system per week until they are cleared out. Imagine massive swats of macro controlled 0.0 becoming sansha taxed so they get 0 bounties. After the June summit, I suggested they model the dynamics using some equations in that famous paper about Zombie infestations. Confessions of a Noob Starship Politician The most expensive free trip to Iceland you'll ever win!
Artemis Rose Clandestine Vector	Posted - 2010.10.27 23:20:00 - [53] Just say no to micro-transactions. The community won't hold it against you if you aren't "cutting edge" in the MMO market. *** Currently Playing: Trolls from Outer Space Current Equipment: VISAcard chain mail, +2 Amulet of Epic Whine, Self Banstick +2 WTB: +666 E-peen killboard stats
Destination SkillQueue Are We There Yet	Posted - 2010.10.27 23:25:00 - [54] Originally by: Don Pellegrino Quote: I really don't find CCP's claim that microtransactions aren't about the money to be credible. Uh yeah, we're trying to be on the cutting edge of... new ways to get your money? It kind of insults the intelligence. this. You want to be edgy and follow the wave, but WHY? WHY would you want to introduce microtransactions AT ALL if it's not to squeeze more money out of the players? Quote: Hilmar commented that ôWe love when people call bull** on usö. I'm calling bull** on you. Wow, I can't believe they are trying to shovel that and expect people to swallow it. It is exactly to get increased revenue per account. I bet they are seeing the extra revenue other MMOs are gaining from selling vanity items and the popularity of F2P games with hybrid pay models and want to dip their hand in the same honeyjar. It is understandable, but don't try to pretend it isn't about the money. All the content you will create for the new money shop could be just as well be created in a sub model. The difference is, that you(CCP) would have a harder time justifying spending dev and art resources on such projects without getting additional revenue out of the players with it. I'm just interested in knowing, do you plan to hire new people to create the cash shop and content for it or are you diverting current devs from more important projects(important for us) to build your little milking machine?
Arklan1 Dunedain Rangers	Posted - 2010.10.27 23:25:00 - [55] Originally by: ArchenTheGreat Microtransacions are not necessary. Just put those items in NPC shops and let people buy them with ISK. If someone wants to they can always convert $ to PLEX to ISK. this. i can't really figure out why another method of injecting real world cash is needed, when there's plex.
Commissar Kate Revenent Defence Corperation Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive	Posted - 2010.10.27 23:28:00 - [56] CSM: Will there be micro-transactions in the initial Incarna release? CCP: CCP is open to diversifying its business model, and exploring virtual goods is neither evil nor bad. However the idea of only the rich kids being the best does not sit well with CCP and that situation will be prevented through any means necessary. Dang Right, rich kids don't deserve to be better than me or anyone else.
randomToon987	Posted - 2010.10.27 23:40:00 - [57] Originally by: Artemis Rose Just say no to micro-transactions. The community won't hold it against you if you aren't "cutting edge" in the MMO market. I second that! I hope that CSM will continue to act in the best interest of the player base(that is - they will do everything to prevent micro-transactions from becoming part of Eve)
Yldrad The Dandy KillerS	Posted - 2010.10.27 23:45:00 - [58] Originally by: ArchenTheGreat Microtransacions are not necessary. Just put those items in NPC shops and let people buy them with ISK. If someone wants to they can always convert $ to PLEX to ISK. I am not happy to see PLEX in game but I accept it as a way to fight macroers. For microtransactions I can't see a reason at all. Other than more money for CCP of course - byt you stated it's not a reason. This. You already have all the tools. You want to be a leader? Don't copy, innovate! Make indirect micro-transaction with vanity services for a high amount of isk (few hundred millions). You stay only with PLEX. The major risk is inflation but you can play on prices if really needed.
Playing Eve	Posted - 2010.10.27 23:48:00 - [59] Originally by: Don Pellegrino Quote: I really don't find CCP's claim that microtransactions aren't about the money to be credible. Uh yeah, we're trying to be on the cutting edge of... new ways to get your money? It kind of insults the intelligence. this. You want to be edgy and follow the wave, but WHY? WHY would you want to introduce microtransactions AT ALL if it's not to squeeze more money out of the players? I don't think it's necessarily "about the money." If CCP says, "Hey, how can we make money." "Oooh, microtransactions!" then I'd agree it's about the money. If CCP says, "No, we're not paying a developer to make 100 different pairs of shoes for incarna." "But wait if we used microtransactions to pay for them?" "Cool!" then I'd say that's not really about the money. Instead, it's about adding features that wouldn't otherwise be made. It's a fine line and I can see how people would say that the second _is_ about the money, but I don't agree. So it depends on what CCP is thinking of using microtransactions for.
Mynxee	Posted - 2010.10.27 23:53:00 - [60] Originally by: Mashie Saldana Just let them spread like a wild fire, add one more system per week until they are cleared out. Imagine massive swats of macro controlled 0.0 becoming sansha taxed so they get 0 bounties. Based on what was said during the meetings, I don't think the spawn mechanics will support that. But it would be pretty funny. Life In Low Sec

Camios Minmatar Insurgent New Eden Tribe RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2010.10.27 23:54:00 - [61] Edited by: Camios on 28/10/2010 00:09:25 My philosophy: CCP should not call bull**** "evolution". Some points: 1. PLEXes are, in my opinion, THE EVOLUTION of microtransactions. CCP does not need to go backwards I think. Thus, I fully support the CSM against micro transactions. The only problem with plexes is that they cost 17 dollars /14 euros each, and it could be too much for a casual player that wants just a new e-t-shirt. But we have no t-shirts in game. WHEN we'll have t-shirts, microtransactions (or another form of plexes) could do the trick. Now, it does not make any sense. 1.b I think that character progression in EVE is one of the factor of player retention. CCP should be very cautios about playing with it. Skillpoints must only be acquired over time, by skill training. This is EVE, it's an RPG, if you want a pre skilled character buy plexes, sell them for isks and go to the character bazaar. You have these two possibilities (I consider the latter lame, but it's only me), and it's ok. 2. In my opinion the CSM should be more hard with CCP. Remember Kruscev saying "Niet" at the UN? I see that some of the CSM members have done a tremendous amount of work to give directions to CCP, but there are some big things that just need the CSM hammering with their shoes like Kruscev (items are in random order): Fix lag (you yelled at CCP and it worked) Fix nullsec warfare and listed to the community about it Fix missions and PVE: see what they are going to do there (and I hate STO) Make PI a multiplayer game Fix the bounty system Possibly look at mining (when you cannot tell the difference between a macro and a real player then there is something wrong with gameplay) Save time for these things scrapping useless ones. Incursion is good, ok, but we have 10/10s and lvl5 missions (despite the lies "we don't cooperative PVE anymore" in this blog) Keep balancing ships and modules /begin{joke} Listen to my proposals! /end{joke} These are all core systems in the game, seriously. Fixing these will change this game deeply, more than expanding it with new stuff.
Niccolado Starwalker Gallente Shadow Templars	Posted - 2010.10.28 00:14:00 - [62] Originally by: CCP Fallout The Fifth Council of Stellar Management recently visited our offices in Reykjavik for a new round of meetings. This is their report. Good blog as always, but quoting Jane Austen is simply wrong! If you have to quote an author quote at least Leo Tolstoys War and Peace! Originally by: Dianabolic Your tears are absolutely divine, like a fine fine wine, rolling down your cheeks until they flow down the river of LOL.
Noun Verber Gallente	Posted - 2010.10.28 00:14:00 - [63] Without attribution to the CSM (who I assume wrote this), it reads like " You LIKED this, This PLEASED you" type commands
TeaDaze	Posted - 2010.10.28 00:51:00 - [64] Originally by: Gerazon Kaern I was saddened to see that the CSM didn't really fight the concept of vanity items to any significant degree. It has always been a stepping stone to more than that, for the simple reason that vanity items will not provide any significant income. A lot of games that started out with vanity items ended up with full blown microtransactions. We argued in 3 separate meetings with 3 separate groups of people from CCP that micro transactions are a bad idea. I'm on the hard line "no MT" side of the issue because a) I believe that Plex are not micro transactions. They are a mechanism for direct player trading of 30 days of game time. No isk is created or destroyed in the process. b) I dislike the idea that content will be "held back" from normal expansions (as you mentioned) to bulk up any micro transaction store. The position overall from the CSM was that the preferred option would be no micro-transactions at all, but if CCP want to "experiment" (note that I called bull**** on them attempting to call this "exploring") with micro transactions than vanity items only is as far they should go. I expect more discussions on this during the December summit... TeaDaze.net Blog \| CSM Database
T'Amber Macabre Votum Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2010.10.28 00:54:00 - [65] In support of the NO VOTES I have resigned from the CSM as 1st alternate VOTE NO TO MICROTRANSACTIONS, KEEP EVE AWESOME! LAST TALLY: NO 79.03% \| YES 5.02% \| COSMETIC ONLY 11.23% \| OTHER 4.73% THANKS FOR ALL THE FISH!
MotherMoon Huang Yinglong	Posted - 2010.10.28 00:59:00 - [66] Originally by: T'Amber In support of the NO VOTES I have resigned from the CSM as 1st alternate VOTE NO TO MICROTRANSACTIONS, KEEP EVE AWESOME! LAST TALLY: NO 79.03% \| YES 5.02% \| COSMETIC ONLY 11.23% \| OTHER 4.73% you allready left and your character was bought. we know this is bull****, he left the CSM because selling his account would mean someoe else would have a csm character. I'm reporting this post.
Virtuozzo Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2010.10.28 01:35:00 - [67] Edited by: Virtuozzo on 28/10/2010 01:42:45 Originally by: Camios 2. In my opinion the CSM should be more hard with CCP. Remember Kruscev saying "Niet" at the UN? So, aside of detail points and general issues, it's pretty clear that this CSM did not yell at CCP. On the contrary. There is a difference between yelling (omg broken go fix) and and making the effort to take it on with proper workflow, to go step by step, to strike a balance between doing things in a combination of informal settings and structured processes (get results). This CSM 5 did so, relentlessly yes. Well, some of them, enough of them to carry the momentum. Sure there's been some cases of people wanting to just revive old social engineering methods which once upon a time chased plenty core CCP out of the game in the aftermath of those events (without it even yielding results during that age of social engineering) but while across the board they have been relentless, have executed the art of pressure management and have demonstrated to be willing to engage CCP very professionally, none of them has been yelling around. Remember what happened to Krushcev after his shoe incident, yeah, he became obsolete and lost even the token support of his own pets. Very productive approach yes. Thing with CCP is, that they are willing to engage and be engaged now. But there is a strong element of necessity to not just engage CCP as a whole (professionally, in collaboration, and goal AND process focused) but also to be willing to apply pressure management across a broad audience. Subscribers, their in and out of game communities, media and press alike. With the last really being a very unfortunate case of last resort, and should it be unwarranted CCP can very easily disprove such approaches and turn it into a marketing gain. It is visible that there are results, both in CCP's approach as well as attitude and openness. That is very commendable, very much so. And yes, internally they have a lot of work to do in order to adjust the organisation, metrics and methods alike. And yes, CSM s a whole is still pushing for more results that are really visible in game, but it does look like this winter's expansion will start showing those. Well, except for this Incursions thing which is like a big empty closet, the incarna gameplay challengeand the trap of microtransactions and basically just approaching those from an old style format of "hey let's do this, gonna be awesome, we can experiment with it, in a live product, and see how it goes" (seriously, those days ended when CCP grew beyond startup). What is important to realise, is to be wary of the same mistake CCP made. Do not confuse process with outcome. An expansion is just one step along a process, it's an outcome, but part of a larger process. The last few years have seen how segmented and disjointed that has become, creative spark is a questionmark there. But these are things which Hilmar as CEO adddresses in full openness and honesty. Unlike most companies, so this really is something to appreciate. The CSM is in a similar situation where process can very easily be confused for outcome along the way, and vice versa. We want X, Y, Z, and we see that this requires lots of work and change at CCP, but sometimes the outcome depends on the entire big picture process to becompleted. That is frustrating, but these minutes do show insight into how that works and how the pieces become visible. They also provide more transparency, which to Jane & John Doe cpsuleer is often missed from many CSM members. A shame, but understandable, it is a volunteer job, even if it is visible that (pretty much like EVE itself) that to make it work it really is a job. It can be fun, but that is as it should be with the best of jobs, but still hard work. ≡v≡ once was about internet spaceships. Then those became serious business. Now all that's left, serious business, and spaceships are docked for two years till after the Dust of Incarna.
Kaltooth Amarr	Posted - 2010.10.28 01:58:00 - [68] Has there been any discussion made on possibly forming a dedicated 3rd team just to work with balance? They can work on one item per expansion or however, but could also combine with team gridlock for larger tasks (such as rewriting missile behavior code). A good bit of discussion with some of the systems not being iterated on is things like hybrids, AF losing their way, rockets (getting fixed), etc. A dedicated team will also mean a group that has a better understanding of the core mechanics so you don't face blunders such as the infamous target painting a pos/supercap situation. They can also help with input from team gridlock on new features to prevent situations such as the current problem of super carriers able to fighter bomb their counter (according to devblog - hics) and fighter missiles spamming up the cpu cycles. I ask because currently balance is more of a sledgehammer approach more than anything. It swings, it connects, and things move in ways unintended. Six months later, attempt (maybe!) is made again and might swing too far once more. A dedicated team that can work on finessing the numbers would help as well.
Virtuozzo Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2010.10.28 02:25:00 - [69] Originally by: Kaltooth Has there been any discussion made on possibly forming a dedicated 3rd team just to work with balance? They can work on one item per expansion or however, but could also combine with team gridlock for larger tasks (such as rewriting missile behavior code). A good bit of discussion with some of the systems not being iterated on is things like hybrids, AF losing their way, rockets (getting fixed), etc. A dedicated team will also mean a group that has a better understanding of the core mechanics so you don't face blunders such as the infamous target painting a pos/supercap situation. They can also help with input from team gridlock on new features to prevent situations such as the current problem of super carriers able to fighter bomb their counter (according to devblog - hics) and fighter missiles spamming up the cpu cycles. I ask because currently balance is more of a sledgehammer approach more than anything. It swings, it connects, and things move in ways unintended. Six months later, attempt (maybe!) is made again and might swing too far once more. A dedicated team that can work on finessing the numbers would help as well. Inclined to agree with the opening for that. maybe even necessity. Especially since everything is always so fragmented in approach. But this comes down to an interesting question. What is EVE. Is it a game about life in another universe, or is it a game about spaceships. You could say even if EVE started out with the intention of being the first, it has been so long for anything further to materialise to really fill that up, the perception reigns that EVE is about spaceships. Personally I think EVE can be a complete universe in every aspect and possible niche suitable to translate from this place to that virtual place. But not the way it has been doen thusfar. In the current state, core gameplay has been compromised on. You could say cheap shouts like "never change a winning team", or similar shouts, you could always say don't try to turn your cashcow into another beast before you've succesfully figured out a way to keep getting the awesomesauce. ≡v≡ once was about internet spaceships. Then those became serious business. Now all that's left, serious business, and spaceships are docked for two years till after the Dust of Incarna.
Mynxee	Posted - 2010.10.28 02:25:00 - [70] Edited by: Mynxee on 28/10/2010 02:32:27 Edited by: Mynxee on 28/10/2010 02:30:16 Originally by: Camios [*]Fix lag (you yelled at CCP and it worked) Well, Virt pretty much nailed it but the tl;dr version is this: No, we did not yell. Nine people yelling won't make a blip on CCP's radar. We DID discuss the lag issue with CCP, provide irrefutable evidence of its existence, engage in civilized discussion, then report dutifully to the community in many venues about that conversation (and others). The community then did the yelling. In numbers and in ways that had a huge impact on getting CCP to sit up and take notice. Sure, it's often necessary to hold a hard line on key issues and be emphatic when making points. But yelling in business meetings is not usually the most effective approach to encouraging change. It's much more productive to apply process and engage in discourse like intelligent adults, using the right tools to ensure that the message isn't lost or abandoned..and that the momentum of key messages is maintained. As one example, CSM5 adopted a policy early on to conduct most of its discussions in our internal forums for ease of access and keeping up with various topics. This has more than doubled the number of pages in that forum since we took office. Those many threads we have going on enjoy a lot of participation by CCP dev team members. That is the result of politely and persistently insisting that CCP engage there and conducting ourselves in a way that encourages them to stay, with mutually respectful treatment that can still tolerate debate and differences of opinion while getting points across quite clearly. Some people say process in a volunteer council is overkill...but hey, as stakeholders, CSM does influence to some extent how CCP invests its resources. Given that, we are obligated to do our work in the most responsible way possible...which leaves no choice (in my view, anyway) but to apply at least some process. Life In Low Sec

Haseo Arashi	Posted - 2010.10.28 03:47:00 - [71] Originally by: Mynxee Edited by: Mynxee on 28/10/2010 02:38:08 Originally by: Camios [*]Fix lag (you yelled at CCP and it worked) Well, Virt pretty much nailed it but the tl;dr version is this: No, we did not yell. Nine people yelling won't make a blip on CCP's radar. We DID discuss the lag issue with CCP, provide irrefutable evidence of its existence, engage in civilized discussion, then report dutifully to the community in many venues about that conversation (and others). The community then did the yelling. In numbers and in ways that had a huge impact on getting CCP to sit up and take notice. Sure, it's often necessary to hold a hard line on key issues and be emphatic when making points. But yelling in business meetings is not usually the most effective approach to encouraging change. It's much more productive to apply process and engage in discourse like intelligent adults, using the right tools to ensure that the message isn't lost or abandoned..and that the momentum of key messages is maintained. As one example, CSM5 adopted a policy early on to conduct most of its discussions in our internal forums for ease of access and keeping up with various topics. This has more than doubled the number of pages in that forum since we took office. Those many threads we have going on enjoy a lot of participation by CCP dev team members. That is the result of politely and persistently requesting that CCP engage there and conducting ourselves in a way that encourages them to stay, with mutually respectful treatment that can still tolerate debate and differences of opinion while getting points across quite clearly. Some people say process in a volunteer council is overkill...but hey, as stakeholders, CSM does influence to some extent how CCP invests its resources. Given that, we are obligated to do our work in the most responsible way possible...which leaves no choice (in my view, anyway) but to apply at least some process. Sorry, but that is tl;dr I support the CSM in their views on Micro-transactions I originally opened the PDF to look for anything new/informative about incarna or incursion. and there was really nothing new or impressive spilled. I am dissapoint.
SwissChris1	Posted - 2010.10.28 06:17:00 - [72] I love how the devs don't have bad-word filter Quote: "We love when people call bull**** on us". +1
Vuk Lau	Posted - 2010.10.28 06:50:00 - [73] Originally by: Mynxee Edited by: Mynxee on 28/10/2010 02:38:08 Originally by: Camios [*]Fix lag (you yelled at CCP and it worked) No, we did not yell. I did yell, on more then several occasions :(
Dierdra Vaal	Posted - 2010.10.28 10:02:00 - [74] Originally by: Vuk Lau Originally by: Mynxee Edited by: Mynxee on 28/10/2010 02:38:08 Originally by: Camios []Fix lag (you yelled at CCP and it worked) No, we did not yell. I did yell, on more then several occasions :( I thought those were pleasure moans sorry vuk * * Director of Education :: EVE University * * * CSM1 delegate, CSM3 chairman and CSM5 vice-chairman
Camios Minmatar Insurgent New Eden Tribe RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2010.10.28 10:35:00 - [75] Ok ok, I know that the CSM did a very professional work with CCP. This is an amazing effort, and I think that the playerbase will recognize it as CCP did. Of course yelling at CCP from day one would not have achieved such a goal. But while the whole CSM tries to discuss constructively with CCP with a lot of commitment, I don't see the same level of commitment on CCP side. I mean, after several CSMs and polite and constructive discussion sessions, CCP is going to build another expansion on Incursions with the false excuse that "there is no group PVE" in EVE. Another shiny thing. And the CSM has some good proposal about revamping the old mission system. There is something wrong and everybody know it. CCP should listed to the CSM not only about "low hanging fruits", but about the vision on the good old things. A revamp to the bounty system (in the terms discussed by the CSM) will make much more to EVE than Incursions.
Trebor Daehdoow	Posted - 2010.10.28 11:09:00 - [76] Originally by: Camios I mean, after several CSMs and polite and constructive discussion sessions, CCP is going to build another expansion on Incursions with the false excuse that "there is no group PVE" in EVE. Another shiny thing. And the CSM has some good proposal about revamping the old mission system. While I can appreciate your sentiments, I think it's important to keep in mind that a company of CCP's size cannot turn like an Interceptor. For example, AFAIK quite a bit of prep work for Incursion was done before the June summit. Yeah, we all wish CCP would align to our bookmark faster, but at least it seems to be turning in the right direction. Let's hope that continues. Confessions of a Noob Starship Politician The most expensive free trip to Iceland you'll ever win!
Mynxee	Posted - 2010.10.28 11:10:00 - [77] Originally by: Dierdra Vaal Originally by: Vuk Lau Originally by: Mynxee Originally by: Camios [*]Fix lag (you yelled at CCP and it worked) No, we did not yell. I did yell, on more then several occasions :( That was yelling? Oh. By yelling I meant...high volume raging tirades. I thought you were just being stern. Life In Low Sec
Nareg Maxence Gallente	Posted - 2010.10.28 11:30:00 - [78] Boy, I'm really starting to dislike the Drake..
Malcanis Caldari Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2010.10.28 11:33:00 - [79] I'm still struggling to understand how, after over 4 years since the project started, CCP still haven't decided what we're going to be able to actually do in Incarna. For the love of God, tell us you're sandbagging us. Please tell us that. I mean guys, come on - you're supposed to be releasing this thing in the next 8 months, you've had 70 devs working on it for god knows how long, and at least some working on it for much longer than that, you had a semi-working Demo in 2008, and you *STILL* haven't even got to the point where you've decided what's going to happen? What? The? Hell? Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players.
Bomberlocks Minmatar CTRL-Q	Posted - 2010.10.28 11:46:00 - [80] On page 16, in response to a question about what Incarna will be: Quote: CCP could not offer any concrete answer to these concerns as nothing has been decided in regards to the gameplay and availability of Incarna If I remember correctly, it has been 4 (four) years since CCP first came up with the concept of Incarna, and yet there is currently neither a plan for gameplay, nor is there any concept? WTF? I would love to know some answers to the following? What was CCP doing in those 4 years? Why was there such a strong push towards getting Incarna out by mid 2011 if you don't even know what you're going to do with it??? Why was lag ignored until the player rage in June when subscription numbers started to drop,and why did CCP go so heavily into denial about it? How did CCP come up with such a strong motivation for the original 18 months eve development delay in order to get Incarna and Dust out when they had no idea what they were actually going to do with it? I appreciate the open minutes and the fact that CCP seems to be finally taking the CSM and the player base seriously, but the recent disaster with the optional optional optional patching mess up doesn't make CCP look as if they have learned much from their mistakes and these summit notes make me wonder if CCP isn't so overwhelmingly overestimating their own abilities in having so many big plans which they are obviously not coping with that they're well on the way to ruining their company?

Yldrad The Dandy KillerS	Posted - 2010.10.28 11:46:00 - [81] Edited by: Yldrad on 28/10/2010 11:49:17 Edited by: Yldrad on 28/10/2010 11:48:28 Originally by: Bomberlocks What was CCP doing in those 4 years? Making the graphics engine.
Baneken Gallente School of the Unseen	Posted - 2010.10.28 11:54:00 - [82] Micro-transactions per se aren't bad as long as you provide something that: a) Isn't necessary to "get well" in the game such as extra inventory space, extra XP, removing lvl cap etc. In EVE this equals extra-SP and extra-remapping for plex. b) Don't provide same things that are already in the game these are items like players made inventory "bags" which need hours of grinding in EVE this would mean any item that that equal faction/officer/hard to get loot as that would be an immediate biatch slap those who can't afford RL money for such things. What can be provided with micro-transactions are for example: a) a room with a view for incarna (a room with a windows instead of regular c-lass near the engine room). This room won't allow you to actually 'see' outside the station merely a cosmetic thing. b) allow ownership of a kiosk, bar, gambling hall etc. for incarna (monthly fee perhaps, I'm hovering on edge about this my self). c) Faction stickers and a black paint job for your navy mega. :P so in short micro transactions are all and good as long as we're all still on same and equal footing when it comes to game mechanics. http://desusig.crumplecorn.com/sigs.html
Catari Taga Centre Of Attention Middle of Nowhere	Posted - 2010.10.28 12:01:00 - [83] Originally by: Bomberlocks I would love to know some answers to the following? What was CCP doing in those 4 years? Why was there such a strong push towards getting Incarna out by mid 2011 if you don't even know what you're going to do with it??? Incarna is just a spin-off of their other games which will have the actual gameplay. We basically just get the engine as far as I see it so far. --
Louis deGuerre Gallente Amicus Morte Dead Muppets	Posted - 2010.10.28 12:02:00 - [84] Looks interesting, admit I skimmed trough the notes this time but : 1. Why is the Catalyst in-game model messed up for, what, 5 months now ? On the live server ? That's just sad. 2. If you're going to add difference in icons between AB and MWD why not do it for BPO and BPC right away also ? People have only been asking for that for what ? 7 years ? 3. More game-fixing, less micro-transacting 4. The Tyrannis 1.1 release is a dismal failure. You really, really need to get better at Q&A. The player base is getting tired of being (ab)used for testing. 5. Programmers going emo because playerbase rages on forums: HTFU Seriously, we all think CCP devs are superhot sexy Now fix our game Sol: A microwarp drive? In a battleship? Are you insane? They arenÆt built for this! Clear Skies - The Movie
Bomberlocks Minmatar CTRL-Q	Posted - 2010.10.28 12:05:00 - [85] Originally by: CCP Explorer ...While CCP did not have a focus on these issues as a company until late June this year,.... You don't know how angry this makes me. You yourself were claiming back in June how hard CCP had been working on lag. I actually saved the whole thread in a PDF. Would you like me to show this to you? Honestly, this, especially since your own boss has finally admitted how little you cared and how it only changed when the player outrage grew to huge volumes and players started deserting your company en masse, is simply pathetic. Stop making excuses already. That train left the station back in June.
Bomberlocks Minmatar CTRL-Q	Posted - 2010.10.28 12:17:00 - [86] Edited by: Bomberlocks on 28/10/2010 12:20:46 Originally by: Virtuozzo ... Remember what happened to Krushchev after his shoe incident, yeah, he became obsolete and lost even the token support of his own pets. Very productive approach yes. Kruschev didn't lose support from his own side for banging his shoe at the UN. He lost support for chickening out over Cuba. P.S. Wall-of-text < concise statement.
Bomberlocks Minmatar CTRL-Q	Posted - 2010.10.28 12:36:00 - [87] Originally by: Mashie Saldana Quote: When an infestation get stronger or isn‟t cleaned out several negative things will happen on a system wide scale. There will be a bounty tax applied to all bounties acquired in the system, the Sansha fleets will cyno-jam the system, and other annoying things will happen. The idea is to create a strong incentive to clean up the system. The infestation will however not be permanent to the system, it will move after one week restoring the system to normal. There will most likely be one Incursion per region at any given time. Just let them spread like a wild fire, add one more system per week until they are cleared out. Imagine massive swats of macro controlled 0.0 becoming sansha taxed so they get 0 bounties. I'm surprised that no one has brought up the possibility of use/abuse of this mechanism by players yet. If an infestation reduces armour hitpoints, for instance, then it's a good idea to fly shield tankers, or, if the infestation reduces tracking, then you go for missiles or speed/sig tanking etc. There's quite a lot of opportunity for meta-gaming with this stuff if they have a big effect.
Eskalin Minmatar Evolution IT Alliance	Posted - 2010.10.28 13:03:00 - [88] Edited by: Eskalin on 28/10/2010 13:09:33 I say YES to micro tranys. please put the final nail in eve's coffin (for me at least). the fact that ccp even brought this up demonstrates how out of touch they are with the player base. so vote yes and encourage me and other bitervets to stop paying that $30 a month that has just become a knee-jerk reaction, a futile hope that if i pay enough and train enough that the magic dev fairy will sprinkle fairy coke on the code and fix the lag/bad game design. yeah i mad. i mad at iceland game company who forgets who pays for their trips to ibeza and hookers while their not fixing their game. bitter bitter bitter rabble >=( edit: word filter doesn't like the word for Bolivian nose candy If babies weren't to be eaten they wouldn't be hibachi sized
Jowen Datloran Caldari Science and Trade Institute	Posted - 2010.10.28 13:09:00 - [89] So Incursion on the 16th of November? I will note that down. -- Mr. Science & Trade Institute - EVE Lorebook - Mysteries of W-space
Trebor Daehdoow	Posted - 2010.10.28 13:30:00 - [90] Originally by: Vuk Lau I did yell, on more then several occasions :( I have uncovered exclusive video footage of Vuk yelling at CCP during the June Summit. Many Bothans died so you could see this. Confessions of a Noob Starship Politician The most expensive free trip to Iceland you'll ever win!

Hemmo Paskiainen Gallente Silver Snake Enterprise	Posted - 2010.10.28 14:07:00 - [91] Perfect example of how usefull the CSM is and what CCP does with their input Fix Black Ops: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1204416
Dee Tearant	Posted - 2010.10.28 14:23:00 - [92] Originally by: Hemmo Paskiainen Perfect example of how usefull the CSM is and what CCP does with their input well done for picking one issue that hasn't been addressed yet out of the hundreds of raised proposals. what an utterly useless group of players the csm are for putting lag and ui fixes ahead of boosting blackops again.
Mashie Saldana Minmatar Veto Corp	Posted - 2010.10.28 14:34:00 - [93] Neural Remaps for ISK, yes please. Stop the microtransaction silliness.
Durnin Stormbrow	Posted - 2010.10.28 15:57:00 - [94] Edited by: Durnin Stormbrow on 28/10/2010 16:00:22 Originally by: Malcanis I'm still struggling to understand how, after over 4 years since the project started, CCP still haven't decided what we're going to be able to actually do in Incarna. For the love of God, tell us you're sandbagging us. Please tell us that. I mean guys, come on - you're supposed to be releasing this thing in the next 8 months, you've had 70 devs working on it for god knows how long, and at least some working on it for much longer than that, you had a semi-working Demo in 2008, and you *STILL* haven't even got to the point where you've decided what's going to happen? What? The? Hell? Once again, I have to agree with Malcanis. We've been told many times what we will not be able to do in Incarna for the foreseeable future, but we've never been told what we will be able to do, let alone when we'll be able to do it. If Incarna is just going to be E&B with better graphics, that's a load of developer hours tossed into re-making the wheel, and adding a feature that I really didn't miss to begin with. Back in the day, I described EvE to my friends as 'E&B, all grown up.' Being able to access station services without needing to run around the station to the various terminals was a feature to us. I will never miss trying to find the RE terminal through mobs of players. Running around looking for the dark shady NPCs scattered around the station got old real quick, and getting there to find 30 people talking to him didn't do anything for immersion. People in EvE today ***** that they have to fly back to station to turn in their missions. Needing to run through the station to stand in his office (along with the other 200 mission runners working for that agent) isn't going to make it any better. There's been a ton of talk among the players about what Incarna could become; but much of it is not very practical, involving as much or more game design than EvE itself. I really fear that CCP's silence on the future of Incarna is allowing players to create their own expectations, most of which will never be met. There has been talk of Incarna being the dark underworld of EvE. So it might replace parts of the contract system? While it's actually viable, what do those developer hours add to the game that wouldn't be better spent elsewhere? There has been talk of Incarna introducing player owned shops. So it'll replace parts of the market system? That worked great in SWG, where each craftsman, resource gatherer, and merchant had stock of products that could be unique to them (people passed by other shops to get my PvP grade Vibro Knucks & Power Hammers. "You can find lower prices. You might even find better weapons, but you'll never find better value!"). In EvE, as long as Trit is Trit and all Mega Beam IIs are created equal, then the price is decided by the open market. That's one of EvE's headline selling points. Is station missions? We've been told that there is no combat engine for the foreseeable future, so missions are either gofer missions, logic puzzles, or snipe hunts. In station PvP? Without a combat engine, were pretty much limited to harsh language. Decorating our quartersà With what? Is CCP gonna allow players to create items for use in game ala 2nd Life, or is CCP actually going to create a model for everything so that we can drop it our living room? (I'm gonna have a 75mm Gatling rail in my living room for use as a mechanical bull.) I really believe that CCP needs to go public with some of their expectations for what Incarna will be, or set some limitations on what it could be and start asking what we want within those limits. If they don't, I suspect that the PR mess that'll follow will make this last summer look like a day at the park.
Vidar Kentoran Minmatar Eighty Joule Brewery	Posted - 2010.10.28 16:30:00 - [95] Edited by: Vidar Kentoran on 28/10/2010 16:31:29 It annoys me that so much time and effort was wasted on micro-transaction paranoia. CCP is a business, they are not going to make major changes that drive players away, if they do, they'll be notified pretty damn quickly by dropping revenue and then they'll alter their stance. Spending tons of time complaining about PLEX for remaps is just really stupid and a complete waste of time. It would be an excellent feature.
Gerazon Kaern	Posted - 2010.10.28 17:20:00 - [96] Originally by: TeaDaze Originally by: Gerazon Kaern I was saddened to see that the CSM didn't really fight the concept of vanity items to any significant degree. It has always been a stepping stone to more than that, for the simple reason that vanity items will not provide any significant income. A lot of games that started out with vanity items ended up with full blown microtransactions. We argued in 3 separate meetings with 3 separate groups of people from CCP that micro transactions are a bad idea. I'm on the hard line "no MT" side of the issue because a) I believe that Plex are not micro transactions. They are a mechanism for direct player trading of 30 days of game time. No isk is created or destroyed in the process. b) I dislike the idea that content will be "held back" from normal expansions (as you mentioned) to bulk up any micro transaction store. The position overall from the CSM was that the preferred option would be no micro-transactions at all, but if CCP want to "experiment" (note that I called bull**** on them attempting to call this "exploring") with micro transactions than vanity items only is as far they should go. I expect more discussions on this during the December summit... Yeah I noticed that and appreciated it, but as I had read it all it was more "I suppose we can have vanity" than "we dont want any microtransactions at all". I suppose it gets that way because people are so afraid of 'pay to win' that they will accept a lesser evil and that overshadows the original sentiment that there should be no evil at all. If CCP wasn't hellbent on microtransactions being evolution then they wouldn't consider it so seriously. And while at it: it being evolution is a really poor conclusion. It is for games that are not good enough for subscriptions or simple greed (when you do it with subscription). If it is the latter they should at least be honest about it. If it's the first they should have more faith in their product. In any case I'm happy you're fighting it and hope you will continue to do so. Preferable fight more against vanity. If there's no vanity items for $ then there will also never be pay to win.
Gerazon Kaern	Posted - 2010.10.28 17:23:00 - [97] Originally by: Vidar Kentoran Spending tons of time complaining about PLEX for remaps is just really stupid and a complete waste of time. It would be an excellent feature. Indeed it would. They should just make it cost ISK instead.
El Mauru Amarr Interwebs Cooter Explosion Important Internet Spaceship League	Posted - 2010.10.28 17:47:00 - [98] Just posting to say that the blog was good and that I actually skimmed the pdf. I don't really care about micro-transactions for skill-remaps, as long as they can only be performed in healthy intervals. (like maybe once each 3 months). I would however care if they started influencing actual in-game performance (extra-slots, skill-modifying implants, mining yield, production time ...).
T'Amber Macabre Votum Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2010.10.28 17:53:00 - [99] Originally by: Vidar Kentoran Spending tons of time complaining about PLEX for remaps is just really stupid and a complete waste of time. It would be an excellent feature. Most of the assembly threads and discussion are not about the actual remap, but the way CCP wants to impliment it. This is a significant distinction. -T'amber THANKS FOR ALL THE FISH!
Karthwritte	Posted - 2010.10.28 17:56:00 - [100] Its understandable that CCP wants to try the microtransactions model to start getting feedback, data, etc to know how it can be implemented in another game (DUST OR WOD) but IDK if they dont understand that EVE ONLINE its a game with many years and very mature. You cant start changing the world we know it because of a need of curiosity or data. This game its about Everyone can haVe the same chancEs. Also if they affect the game very widely it could die in this way: -People get the microtransactions model. Dosent affect right away. -Rich people start spending in stuff. Friends of them come to the game (probably) and start making corporations that they offer a lot to new players (and old) in exchange of pure follow. (forgot the word but hope u get the idea) -Passes around 6 months and the RICH corporations start to really dominate the High Sec and Null Sec regions. Players tired of not able to counter the RICH corps in pvp and market start to quit EVE. Friends of the players that quit follow as they loose their friends. -A year and a half pass and even with Incarna around the subscription of eve its around the 25% of whats today. -CCP loose interest in maintaining EVE. World of Darkness its better economically for them that EVE. -EVE dies as SWG, full of newbies that try arround the game and the RICH people that havent quitted. -My prophecy of EVE fall makes me the new nostradamus and I start getting paid to tell about the future. You maybe see this as far fetched but one of my Strengths its being futuristic. Could happen that way except the last thing.

Karthwritte	Posted - 2010.10.28 18:02:00 - [101] Also the nature of this game its being competitive. What move this game its more about kicking asses and making money better that someone else. When you add the money (not isk but real currency) into the ecuation this game stop being a fair competitive game into a stupid way to loose your money monthly. I just getted that idea with just walking to get some water. Its amazing how standing up and walking helps the mind ah?
Raptine Anders	Posted - 2010.10.28 18:03:00 - [102] Originally by: Gerazon Kaern Originally by: Vidar Kentoran Spending tons of time complaining about PLEX for remaps is just really stupid and a complete waste of time. It would be an excellent feature. Indeed it would. They should just make it cost ISK instead. I'm relatively new and maybe I'm missing something but what would that change? If a Remap costs ISK, then is it not still possible to obtain a Plex, sell for ISK and susequently buy a remap. It's more convoluted but the end result is the same - somebody paid real life currency so that someone gets a Remap. Thinking about it, if Remap-for-ISK is implemented, would that potentially open the doors to SP-for-ISK as well? I admit that I pay my subscription in Euros and am consequently not very well informed on this system. To me, Remap for ISK or for PLEX seem to be both micro-transactions. Feel free to correct me - never afraid to learn from more experienced players.
Karthwritte	Posted - 2010.10.28 18:15:00 - [103] Originally by: Raptine Anders Originally by: Gerazon Kaern Originally by: Vidar Kentoran Spending tons of time complaining about PLEX for remaps is just really stupid and a complete waste of time. It would be an excellent feature. Indeed it would. They should just make it cost ISK instead. I'm relatively new and maybe I'm missing something but what would that change? If a Remap costs ISK, then is it not still possible to obtain a Plex, sell for ISK and susequently buy a remap. It's more convoluted but the end result is the same - somebody paid real life currency so that someone gets a Remap. Thinking about it, if Remap-for-ISK is implemented, would that potentially open the doors to SP-for-ISK as well? I admit that I pay my subscription in Euros and am consequently not very well informed on this system. To me, Remap for ISK or for PLEX seem to be both micro-transactions. Feel free to correct me - never afraid to learn from more experienced players. OK well back to the basics. PLEXES are like a proof of purchase to ccp. Isk its something that players make and consume by playing the game. People give to other people some of the playing currency for a proof of purchase, so they only need to play the game to keep playing the game. ISK for remap makes everyone who play the game able to buy their remap. PLEX for remap makes everyone that pay the proof of purchase able to spend that on the remap. It could be as easy to use isk to get plex and then pay the remap. But some people are afraid that a lot of people will start buying plexes and suddenly PLEXES got more expensive and will be almost impossible to pay. For those who are afraid that Rich people are able to get a advantage in the game, ISK for remap and Plex for remap makes the same problem.
Dharh Gallente Ace Adventure Corp	Posted - 2010.10.28 18:40:00 - [104] Originally by: Don Pellegrino How is introducing microtransactions better for the average player than not introducing them? If you need more money, raise the subscription cost, do not create a difference between the players that have money and those who don't, even if it's only vanity items. For starters alot of it has to do with budgeting. For instance, there is probably zero chance we will ever get custom re-skins for ships. With micro-transactions, there is. Before anyone says they think we should get them without micro-transactions, think about the costs and benefits. The costs of giving it away for free far outweigh the happiness increase it would give to the playerbase. The massive drawback of micro-transactions is based on the perception that _not_ buying them causes you to fall behind, it makes the playing field uneven for those who wont or otherwise can't afford to spend extra money. So long as CCP makes sure that micro-transaction items they introduce aren't this way, there should be no problem. Eventually the player base will eventually forgive CCP. However, this means that CCP _must_ be absolutely careful. Typical micro-transaction stores are run by OUTSIDE the normal game developers, which is often why you see actual game play effecting items get introduced into the micro-transaction store. CCP therefore has to ensure a tight reign on what can and cannot be in the store. Whomever controls the game play balance aspect of the game must be ultimately in charge of the group that handles the store. This probably also means that stuff that CCP would really like to the add to the store, like PLEX for Remaps should be modeled after PLEXs themselves. In otherwords, don't _use_ a PLEX to remap, create a new item like the Attribute Remap Coupon (ARC) for remap. That can be bought and sold on the market along with PLEX. Also, for remaps specifically, since it is potentially a game changing effect, double the cost of a remap every subsequent remap until a year has passed. First remap = 1 ARC. Second remap = 2 ARCs. Third remap = 4 ARCs. A year after the first remap, it goes down, a year after the second remap it goes down again. This should have no effect on the FREE remap every year.
Bhattran	Posted - 2010.10.28 19:04:00 - [105] Might I just inquire as to what CCP's goals are with LAG, knocking it out and returned the 'old' ability to have large groups battling it out in a system is great but as CCP has even said players will continue to push for that limit to expand eventually. In time whatever limits they manage to raise or restore so people don't get Black screens while they are killed in game will be pushed again, so WHY ISN'T CCP working on altering mechanics to dissuade blobbing tactics or even encourage strategic battle/territorial moves IF they aren't as part of 'ending lag in our lifetime'? Quote: Eyj=lfur: It is difficult to move dates around; there would be conflicts with holidays and vacation dates, plus it would mean breaking the commitment to new expansions twice a year. Furthermore there are other teams and other projects that are dependent on release dates being held, so the domino effect would have been impossible to contain. The options CCP has with Agile mean that it is possible to make features as good as possible within the timeframe, and then plan and/or commit to iterations. Fine but the end result is still the possibility, probable, for incomplete/broken expansions/features being delivered to us. Allowing more slack time for them seems to me 'we'll expect to accomplish less', which is what happens now, stuff can't be done/fixed in time so it isn't and you say it will be iterated on but when, 6 months a year out or longer? What we've seen is that stuff gets released and there are some updates 'immediately' after to fix the major issues then we might get some more updates/fixes 3-6months out then it is apparently marked 'done' and left as is. Quote: Rick: The initial Incarna message that will be released with the new character creator is that EVE will have the best avatars any MMO game has to offer. Even though you are only flying through space and only seeing your portrait when you log on, it will still add a tangible value to the game experience. From what I've seen this can only said truthfully now that All Points Bulletin has shutdown. Additionally summer 2011 is still a bit off who knows what else might be released or out there by then. Quote: RICK: The reason for adding Incarna is to expand the SF experience CCP started creating 7 years ago with EVE. It has taken years, but CCP is finally getting there. Furthermore, by adding Incarna CCP is opening up possible gameplay for subscribers that would otherwise not have subscribed to EVE, thus making EVE more populated and thus better for everyone. Having the choice of being either in space, in a station, or both is a richer environment than only being able to be in space. FTR, I'm not one of the players bashing Incarna because I don't want it or think CCP shouldn't do it so they can do X, X being anything from LAG to fixing broken things, both of which I expect CCP to do as well. From what Rick said it seems CCP will have to add MASSIVE content to Incarna if you realistically expect to get people to subscribe if they were not drawn in by internet space ships. Either their MMO play will happen station to station or within a single station either way it alludes to what must be stations that are giant cities and have the content to back that up. I mention this because what little has been hinted at in no way gives that impression, at least in my view, your communications are horribly 'organized' and it is entirely possible I missed that information. --Submit your bug reports via mental telepathy this will streamline CCP ignoring them.--
Bhattran	Posted - 2010.10.28 19:12:00 - [106] Continued: I have to mention I welcome such massive content but I worry about it getting properly delivered and created. What we have heard about, to me, doesn't sound all that interesting or driving to make you want to be part of it, things like doing what we do now, speaking to agents, buying stuff, chatting, playing games of chance, drinking, etc if that is what Incarna is primarily then it will fail to retain people who want more of that than internet space ships. Questions about how Incarana is implemented are still open with CCP making note that they might limit 'communal areas' to certain stations which I think at the moment is a bad idea. Either Incarna opens up these station cities or it does not, I can fully understand how limiting the experience to certain stations will help funnel people there otherwise you'd have station cities with 10 players in them which makes the whole development of such a city pointless in several ways. Quote: but stations in New Eden don‟t have windows! A simple solution is to have a couple of 'general' camera views, even if you persist with this fallacy that stations have no windows simple cameras can provide the video feed to show players what is outside, even a simple version of the overview listing the objects outside space up to standard 'grid' range somewhat satisfies this request but in a much more CCP 'we cut that cause we ran out of time way'. In the minutes I saw repeated mentions that plex for remaps was about experimenting/exploring how about you not 'play' with the EVE IP and the players whom you claim to value? Doesn't your flagship product warrant more than you **ing around with it and if not shouldn't you have at least contacted the CSM to see what they thought first, you know making 'use' of them to help you FFS? Quote: CSM: Why are there restrictions on the amount of customization in character faces in Incarna? CCP: It was a conscious decision on CCP‟s behalf to create themed faces for each bloodline instead of allowing players to create äany‟ face. This was done to prevent all faces from becoming washed out and all looking alike. Furthermore it was a decided to not allow players to see their old avatar image when they were making a new one because of simplicity in building the system. Since it isn't possible to recreate all the old faces would have been a more honest answer IMO. Quote: CCP: CCP is open to diversifying its business model, and exploring virtual goods is neither evil nor bad. However the idea of only the rich kids being the best does not sit well with CCP and that situation will be prevented through any means necessary. Regarding the Eurogamer interview with Torfi and micro-transactions, CCP really wants to have the virtual goods, and they should not be game changing. However CCP agrees that neural remapping is game-changing, although their original idea was that it would simply be a way to fix a mistake in attribute allocation. So yes CCP will do micro transactions at some point in some game be it EVE, World of Darkness, or another. This 'original idea' is BS, new players are given 2 remaps, players are permitted to remap again after a year people who made a mistake in attribute allocation have a 2nd remap available right away as new players and after those remaps are gone a player is responsible for their own actions. Numerous guides , tools and posts warn of screwing up your attributes, the game warns of this, someone who 'makes a mistake' like this after all the warning and 'chances' to avoid it deserves their screwed up attributes. Quote: Hilmar: Yet energetically calling CCP out when it makes mistakes is not malicious. Those people want EVE to succeed and continue to do so, otherwise they wouldn‟t care. I appreciate that statement because I do ing care. --Submit your bug reports via mental telepathy this will streamline CCP ignoring them.--**
De'Vadder Minmatar	Posted - 2010.10.28 20:32:00 - [107] I want to mention in this thread once again: Limiting MT to vanity does not really help! The items will be tradable for ISK anyways. Wether they offer some minor advantage or just allow custom paint jobs doesnt matter! They create demand in either way. Demand for something payed by RL cash. That will undoubtably make the ISK/Ç conversion turn in favor of more ISK. And that means that someone who puts RL money in will get more for his money and the more this becomes, the more RL wealth will decide. Today the full demand for money bought things is capped at 15Ç/month. Whatever item you introduce, it removes that cap and ISK/money will easily rise above all heights. 400M ISK per 15Ç might still be fine, 2B would definately destroy the balance. tl:dr: MICROTRANSITIONS ARE BAD vanity or not And why is there still nothing that sets content apart from signature? Is that intentional or technically imposible?

CCP Explorer	Posted - 2010.10.28 21:14:00 - [108] Originally by: Mynxee Originally by: Camios Fix lag (you yelled at CCP and it worked) Well, Virt pretty much nailed it but the tl;dr version is this: No, we did not yell. Nine people yelling won't make a blip on CCP's radar. We DID discuss the lag issue with CCP, provide irrefutable evidence of its existence, engage in civilized discussion, then report dutifully to the community in many venues about that conversation (and others). The community then did the yelling. In numbers and in ways that had a huge impact on getting CCP to sit up and take notice. Sure, it's often necessary to hold a hard line on key issues and be emphatic when making points. But yelling in business meetings is not usually the most effective approach to encouraging change. It's much more productive to apply process and engage in discourse like intelligent adults, using the right tools to ensure that the message isn't lost or abandoned..and that the momentum of key messages is maintained. If you look at the timeline in the full report (mid page 9) then you will note that civilized discussions provided value. Erlendur S. Thorsteinsson Software Director EVE Online, CCP Games


CCP Explorer	Posted - 2010.10.28 21:31:00 - [109] Originally by: Bomberlocks Originally by: CCP Explorer ...While CCP did not have a focus on these issues as a company until late June this year,.... You don't know how angry this makes me. You yourself were claiming back in June how hard CCP had been working on lag. I actually saved the whole thread in a PDF. Would you like me to show this to you? Honestly, this, especially since your own boss has finally admitted how little you cared and how it only changed when the player outrage grew to huge volumes and players started deserting your company en masse, is simply pathetic. Stop making excuses already. That train left the station back in June. You are selectively quoting me and that's bad m'kay! Here's the full quote: While CCP did not have a focus on these issues as a company until late June this year, then CCP Atlas had started to work on those issues in December last year with a team of senior programmers using all available spare time they had. Erlendur S. Thorsteinsson Software Director EVE Online, CCP Games


CCP Explorer	Posted - 2010.10.28 21:48:00 - [110] Originally by: Bhattran Quote: but stations in New Eden don't have windows! A simple solution is to have a couple of 'general' camera views, even if you persist with this fallacy that stations have no windows simple cameras can provide the video feed to show players what is outside, even a simple version of the overview listing the objects outside space up to standard 'grid' range somewhat satisfies this request but in a much more CCP 'we cut that cause we ran out of time way'. The technical reason for not doing this is that the stations and the interior of the stations will not be on the same node as the solarsystem itself (the space). This information would therefore have to be fed from the solarsystem node to the station node and constant cross-node communication is something we avoid. Erlendur S. Thorsteinsson Software Director EVE Online, CCP Games


Camios Minmatar Insurgent New Eden Tribe RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2010.10.28 22:00:00 - [111] Edited by: Camios on 28/10/2010 22:03:25 Originally by: CCP Explorer Originally by: Mynxee Originally by: Camios Fix lag (you yelled at CCP and it worked) Well, Virt pretty much nailed it but the tl;dr version is this: No, we did not yell. Nine people yelling won't make a blip on CCP's radar. We DID discuss the lag issue with CCP, provide irrefutable evidence of its existence, engage in civilized discussion, then report dutifully to the community in many venues about that conversation (and others). The community then did the yelling. In numbers and in ways that had a huge impact on getting CCP to sit up and take notice. Sure, it's often necessary to hold a hard line on key issues and be emphatic when making points. But yelling in business meetings is not usually the most effective approach to encouraging change. It's much more productive to apply process and engage in discourse like intelligent adults, using the right tools to ensure that the message isn't lost or abandoned..and that the momentum of key messages is maintained. If you look at the timeline in the full report (mid page 9) then you will note that civilized discussions provided value. I've read the whole CSM meeting report and I see that the last meeting was quite productive. But I remember also the anti CCP campaign on the web. How much did it weighted on CCP decisions? I personally think that when our game experience is crippled by lag we have the right to yell at CCP. Because we don't just log in and join a fleet battle, we have hours or even days of "work" to prepare it, to get the money to but and fit a ship. Then don't we deserve a smooth gameplay? But don't take it personally, we know that your team works a lot to fix these (old) issues. We had a lot of informations about your work thanks to the interaction with the CSM. Heroes, I would tell. Fixing the lag in fleet battle should be a priority, and we see that CCP has finally understood it. But there is other disfunctional stuff around that is waiting for a fix. I believe that the CSM proved itself to be a polite and mature group of people for CCP to discuss with. And the CSM proved himself to be full of innovative thoughts, and it is clear that the CSM will not prevent EVE to evolve, in any way. Maybe the CSM has a more definite vision for EVE than CCP itself. These elements should persuade CCP to listen to the CSM on more important things and not only on "low hanging fruits".
TornSoul BIG Majesta Empire	Posted - 2010.10.28 22:01:00 - [112] Having read the full pdf, I'm sadly left with the impression that CCP will move forward with micro-transactions. In one form or another. It's been irrevocably decided already. There is not one hint of "Hmm maybe we should not do this afterall" or "Hmm maybe we should reconsider" to be found anywhere. Or even "Hmm maybe we should actually do some investigation and customer survey first" (Dr.G. even states this hasn't been done...) CCP even states that they are surprised by the adverse reaction, and thought of it as "not a big deal" (paraphrased). I've never in my 8+ years of EVE time felt more unsure if I'll actually truly play "until the server closes". BIG Lottery
Camios Minmatar Insurgent New Eden Tribe RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2010.10.28 22:05:00 - [113] Edited by: Camios on 28/10/2010 22:07:11 Originally by: CCP Explorer constant cross-node communication is something we avoid. For what reason?

CCP Explorer	Posted - 2010.10.28 22:48:00 - [114] Originally by: Camios Originally by: CCP Explorer constant cross-node communication is something we avoid. For what reason? Network traffic is slow compared to the internal memory/bus and remote service calls are much more CPU intensive than internal node calls. Erlendur S. Thorsteinsson Software Director EVE Online, CCP Games

Virtuozzo Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2010.10.29 00:19:00 - [115] Originally by: CCP Explorer Originally by: Bhattran Quote: but stations in New Eden don't have windows! A simple solution is to have a couple of 'general' camera views, even if you persist with this fallacy that stations have no windows simple cameras can provide the video feed to show players what is outside, even a simple version of the overview listing the objects outside space up to standard 'grid' range somewhat satisfies this request but in a much more CCP 'we cut that cause we ran out of time way'. The technical reason for not doing this is that the stations and the interior of the stations will not be on the same node as the solarsystem itself (the space). This information would therefore have to be fed from the solarsystem node to the station node and constant cross-node communication is something we avoid. Would it be an angle of approach to consider something smilar to how locator agents work. Could take many forms, but for the sake of argument consider an observation deck, which costs a fee to access, or for which in empire you might need to speak to an agent for. I agree that constant cross node communication is quite probably something to avoid, but as an exerience the ability to look outside would not just be useful in many scenarios, but also very welcome in maintaining that raw emotional connection people make with the product. Alternatively, perhaps it does not have to take the form of cross node formats. Outside view could be provided through other forms of technology, which leaves a gap on how to implement that for in game integration admittedly but that is what the creative spark is for. Consider how players stream the client online to a public or restricted view, recently also done during the alliance tournament. I'm just thinking here, basically. Because the experience value would be very meaningful. And then there are other impact points to consider such as tactical information, metagaming, and so forth. I remember the first trip through space. Sense of wonder, vast imppressions. Hell the UI was really something :-) but it was that sense of wonder which made you stop and look. Even nowadays, where space is filled with people, wht is often missed is points and opportunity to stop and look and breathe. Something perhaps striking in resemblance to other places and people in that other universe, from the in- and outside, both ways :-) ≡v≡ once was about internet spaceships. Then those became serious business. Now all that's left, serious business, and spaceships are docked for two years till after the Dust of Incarna.
Bhattran	Posted - 2010.10.29 00:32:00 - [116] Originally by: Virtuozzo Originally by: CCP Explorer Originally by: Bhattran Quote: but stations in New Eden don't have windows! A simple solution is to have a couple of 'general' camera views, even if you persist with this fallacy that stations have no windows simple cameras can provide the video feed to show players what is outside, even a simple version of the overview listing the objects outside space up to standard 'grid' range somewhat satisfies this request but in a much more CCP 'we cut that cause we ran out of time way'. The technical reason for not doing this is that the stations and the interior of the stations will not be on the same node as the solarsystem itself (the space). This information would therefore have to be fed from the solarsystem node to the station node and constant cross-node communication is something we avoid. Would it be an angle of approach to consider something smilar to how locator agents work. Could take many forms, but for the sake of argument consider an observation deck, which costs a fee to access, or for which in empire you might need to speak to an agent for. I agree that constant cross node communication is quite probably something to avoid, but as an exerience the ability to look outside would not just be useful in many scenarios, but also very welcome in maintaining that raw emotional connection people make with the product. Alternatively, perhaps it does not have to take the form of cross node formats. Outside view could be provided through other forms of technology, which leaves a gap on how to implement that for in game integration admittedly but that is what the creative spark is for. Consider how players stream the client online to a public or restricted view, recently also done during the alliance tournament. I'm just thinking here, basically. Because the experience value would be very meaningful. And then there are other impact points to consider such as tactical information, metagaming, and so forth. I remember the first trip through space. Sense of wonder, vast imppressions. Hell the UI was really something :-) but it was that sense of wonder which made you stop and look. Even nowadays, where space is filled with people, wht is often missed is points and opportunity to stop and look and breathe. Something perhaps striking in resemblance to other places and people in that other universe, from the in- and outside, both ways :-) Well said, 'life' on a space station w/o windows seems pretty lame, so if that is how it is then it just puts another ton of pressure for more content on CCP's head to makeup for staring at walls and bulkheads. --Submit your bug reports via mental telepathy this will streamline CCP ignoring them.--
MotherMoon Huang Yinglong	Posted - 2010.10.29 01:46:00 - [117] Edited by: MotherMoon on 29/10/2010 01:48:51 Originally by: CCP Explorer Originally by: Bhattran Quote: but stations in New Eden don't have windows! A simple solution is to have a couple of 'general' camera views, even if you persist with this fallacy that stations have no windows simple cameras can provide the video feed to show players what is outside, even a simple version of the overview listing the objects outside space up to standard 'grid' range somewhat satisfies this request but in a much more CCP 'we cut that cause we ran out of time way'. The technical reason for not doing this is that the stations and the interior of the stations will not be on the same node as the solarsystem itself (the space). This information would therefore have to be fed from the solarsystem node to the station node and constant cross-node communication is something we avoid. That doesn't at all explain why you don't just have windows that show a skybox. my eve online ships have windows on them but I complain that I can't zoom in and see inside them. Windows have a place in sci-fi, why do you think they have to be functional to be in the game? Then again I have a feeling the lead artist already had this argument with you :P
Taedrin Gallente The Green Cross Sev3rance	Posted - 2010.10.29 03:00:00 - [118] Originally by: Louis deGuerre 2. If you're going to add difference in icons between AB and MWD why not do it for BPO and BPC right away also ? People have only been asking for that for what ? 7 years ? IIRC, BPOs and BPCs have the same item IDs - meaning that the server can't tell the difference between them at a glance. In order to tell the difference, it has to do a more resource intensive call to the database to check to see if that particular item is a BPO or a BPC. So essentially, in order for BPOs and BPCs to have different icons, CCP will have to do some significant rewriting and redesigning of their code. Or in other words, this is not a simple change for CCP to make. ---------- Originally by: Dr Fighter "how do you know when youve had a repro accident" Theres modules missing and morphite in your mineral pile.
Vaal Erit Science and Trade Institute	Posted - 2010.10.29 04:26:00 - [119] Everytime I read the CSM summit meeting I can't believe the CSM members are so clueless, they amaze me every time. Let's whine about Incarna and freak out over a test case of one micro-transaction that will have no impact on the game. Good job, way to get nothing done as usual. I have assembled my favorite quotes so you, the average reader, do not have to go through the massive pdf document. Originally by: CCP Furthermore, the recent subscriber trends, although showing the number of subscribers decreasing minutely or about 0.9% in the last two months Originally by: CCP It is a fact that forums are full of thoughtful discussion which can be useful Originally by: CCP CCP Management approves team formation, on the condition that a better name than "Fluffers" is found; Team Gridlock is born Originally by: CCP When an infestation get stronger or isn‟t cleaned out several negative things will happen on a system wide scale. There will be a bounty tax applied to all bounties acquired in the system, the Sansha fleets will cyno-jam the system, and other annoying things will happen CSM blows, CCP is getting back on track and people are not leaving in droves as the bitter vet rage-quit posts would like us to believe. - It's not "Play through a pre-set story, become stronger, do endgame". Gameplay is open ended, and you make your own story. Unless you're too afraid of 'pvp grief' to do anything relevant
T'Amber www.shipsofeve.com	Posted - 2010.10.29 09:22:00 - [120] Originally by: TornSoul Or even "Hmm maybe we should actually do some investigation and customer survey first" (Dr.G. even states this hasn't been done...) CCP even states that they are surprised by the adverse reaction, and thought of it as "not a big deal" (paraphrased). I've never in my 8+ years of EVE time felt more unsure if I'll actually truly play "until the server closes". There is a crowd source thread for this very purpose, which I hope CCP will consider before they continue down this dark path. During the CSM meetings in Iceland with Dr. G. I did bring up the results that I'd tallied up earlier that the morning, but there was no further discussion on them after they left my lips. -T'amber THANKS FOR ALL THE FISH!

Jowen Datloran Caldari Science and Trade Institute	Posted - 2010.10.29 09:50:00 - [121] Originally by: Malcanis What? The? Hell? I can only echo Malcanis sentiments. It should be obvious to anybody working in the industry that if these questions regarding purpose and content of Incarna not has been decided upon at all until now it will not happen within the next eight months either. At least not to a point where a product can be released. -- Mr. Science & Trade Institute - EVE Lorebook - Mysteries of W-space
Shandir Minmatar Eve University Ivy League	Posted - 2010.10.29 09:57:00 - [122] Originally by: Vaal Erit Everytime I read the CSM summit meeting I can't believe the CSM members are so clueless, they amaze me every time. Let's whine about Incarna and freak out over a test case of one micro-transaction that will have no impact on the game. Good job, way to get nothing done as usual. I have assembled my favorite quotes so you, the average reader, do not have to go through the massive pdf document. Originally by: CCP Furthermore, the recent subscriber trends, although showing the number of subscribers decreasing minutely or about 0.9% in the last two months Originally by: CCP It is a fact that forums are full of thoughtful discussion which can be useful Originally by: CCP CCP Management approves team formation, on the condition that a better name than "Fluffers" is found; Team Gridlock is born Originally by: CCP When an infestation get stronger or isn‟t cleaned out several negative things will happen on a system wide scale. There will be a bounty tax applied to all bounties acquired in the system, the Sansha fleets will cyno-jam the system, and other annoying things will happen CSM blows, CCP is getting back on track and people are not leaving in droves as the bitter vet rage-quit posts would like us to believe. You must have missed the thread that shows clearly that the EVE community as a whole thinks that this one MT does matter. Furthermore, I actually think the CSM was far too flexible on the MT issue - they allowed that "vanity only might not be too bad", but the thread (T'Amber posted above) says that the EVE player base as a whole (look at the results, they are not subtle) thinks that vanity only is not as bad, but still not acceptable. I think CCP will be making a dire mistake if they ignore the landslide victory of 'No' votes and plough blindly ahead - the players have spoken, take notice. Yes, there are probably some thinking that this is a vocal minority, but that alone can't account for the numbers shown. *This I ask to CCP - if CCP goes ahead with MT in spite of player objection, will they be a significant feature in Incarna?
Jowen Datloran Caldari Science and Trade Institute	Posted - 2010.10.29 10:41:00 - [123] If CCP wants to ruin their own success and business for being better knowing of what their customers want than the customers themselves it is their deal. I know well enough when it is time to hit the unsubscribe-button. It is a shame that with the growth of CCP they have also picked up a lot of bad habits from their competitors. The same habits that have meant the closure of more MMOs than I can count. Maybe CCP also wants to try the experience of closing a MMO, which one should it be: WoD, DUST or maybe EVE? -- Mr. Science & Trade Institute - EVE Lorebook - Mysteries of W-space
Mashie Saldana Minmatar Veto Corp	Posted - 2010.10.29 11:46:00 - [124] Originally by: CCP Explorer Originally by: Camios Originally by: CCP Explorer constant cross-node communication is something we avoid. For what reason? Network traffic is slow compared to the internal memory/bus and remote service calls are much more CPU intensive than internal node calls. How about just have "camera ships" stream a video from the outside and project it on screens? Shouldn't be that CPU intensive to compress such a stream in realtime and project it as a texture on the Incarna node? The other option would be to have the incarna node act as a client and as such hook into the sol node or even one of the proxy servers if needed. Considering how little data is transferred between TQ and a normal client I can't imagine this would be a spectacular network overhead. Not to mention, it is a window, you don't need a sub 50ms latency, a delay is just fine as you can't undock that fast anyways. Not to mention trying to FC from within the station with no overview is kind of stupid... Where there is a will there is a way.
T'Amber www.shipsofeve.com	Posted - 2010.10.29 12:40:00 - [125] Originally by: Shandir You must have missed the thread that shows clearly that the EVE community as a whole thinks that this one MT does matter. Furthermore, I actually think the CSM was far too flexible on the MT issue - they allowed that "vanity only might not be too bad", but the thread (T'Amber posted above) says that the EVE player base as a whole (look at the results, they are not subtle) thinks that vanity only is not as bad, but still not acceptable. I think CCP will be making a dire mistake if they ignore the landslide victory of 'No' votes and plough blindly ahead - the players have spoken, take notice. Quote: Let me pull a number out of mazz's hat. 80%. 80% of the CSM were COMPLETELY against MT. 20% (Which is like 2 and a bit csms) were not. While it looks like the 20% that I pulled from my, er.. mazz's hat was infact everyone due to the wording of the minutes, rest assured that this wasn't actually the case. Erm. the cameras are watching me. better go back to watching the poker tables. -T'amber THANKS FOR ALL THE FISH!
Shandir Minmatar Eve University Ivy League	Posted - 2010.10.29 13:29:00 - [126] Originally by: T'Amber Let me pull a number out of mazz's hat. 80%. 80% of the CSM were COMPLETELY against MT. 20% (Which is like 2 and a bit csms) were not. While it looks like the 20% that I pulled from my, er.. mazz's hat was infact everyone due to the wording of the minutes, rest assured that this wasn't actually the case. Erm. the cameras are watching me. better go back to watching the poker tables. -T'amber Can you answer the question - "do you think CCP will at least consider pulling the planned Attribute Reset/MT?" - or is that NDA? Basically, I'm wondering if you got any feeling on whether it was a done deal before we even heard about it?
Ak'athra J'ador Amarr Red Federation	Posted - 2010.10.29 13:37:00 - [127] I cant believe torfi and oveur would say such things how can you be so distant from the gaming community, whilst being in the game making business. Micro transactions are infesting more and more games and people hate them. eve was one of the last refuge places left, that had no micro-transactions. And you want to (taken from the pdf) **ing experiment!? You do realize that most subscriber numbers rise very fast, reach a peak, and then plummet to the death of the game. eve is an exception to this rule, would you like to keep it this way? again, take from the pdf, "CCP must try new things". Well not if they are dumb ass **ing stupid!!! You want to try new things Oveur, you want to experiment? Fine, here are some plexes, now get your fat ass over here and drop those pants, because if you are willing to sell the game, you are willing to sell yourself... what's that you say? lube? I am sorry, lube is 2 plex.
Trebor Daehdoow	Posted - 2010.10.29 14:01:00 - [128] Originally by: T'Amber Let me pull a number out of mazz's hat. 80%. 80% of the CSM were COMPLETELY against MT. 20% (Which is like 2 and a bit csms) were not. Sorry, T, but this is a distortion of the opinions held by the CSM. 100% of the CSM was against MT being used to buy things that provided in-game edges -- which includes PLEX for Remaps. A majority of the CSM felt that if CCP wants to play around with MT for vanity items, then fine (but "meh"). Some others felt it was the "least bad" alternative, and there was concern about diversion of resources (ie: time spent creating faction panties could better be spent on other things of more use to the community). There was also concern about overloading another function on PLEX. Bottom line, CCP has a right to make money of their game. CSM's job is to express concern when we think they are not fully aware of the consequences of a proposed move. Originally by: Shandir Can you answer the question - "do you think CCP will at least consider pulling the planned Attribute Reset/MT?" - or is that NDA? The discussion that began in Iceland is continuing on the CSM internal forum. How's that for a great political answer? Confessions of a Noob Starship Politician The most expensive free trip to Iceland you'll ever win!
Shandir Minmatar Eve University Ivy League	Posted - 2010.10.29 14:43:00 - [129] The job of the CSM is also to represent the opinions and needs of the current players. If there was a majority not against vanity MTs, then that is not being done. Can you elaborate on the majority? Who is following the wishes of the players and strongly opposing MTs in all forms? Who is 'okay' or neutral on vanity MTs?
Dr Lebroi	Posted - 2010.10.29 14:45:00 - [130] Good work CSM and CCP. Giving these discussions real perspective by following the events over the historical timeline, I regard this current round of discussions as representing genuine progress both in the CSM/CCP relationship and the benefit it will bring to the Eve community. Microtransactions need to be viewed with Eve's falling subscriber rate in mind. Eve is a pain in the ass to look after because it's old and clunky and parts of it are probably obsolete. If it becomes a pain in the ass which no longer generates significant income due to falling subcriber rates then its future is bleak. Particulary as new things are waiting in the wings. If falling subscriber rates are due to lack of polish then CCP must take the blame. However this also represents a real good reason for them to retire the game if it becomes unprofitable as well as unworkable. If additional income can be generated by Eve by MTs for VANITY PRODUCTS ONLY, then I don't think it would be wise to stand against it. Obviously, we all oppose MT that effect game mechanics etc. IF CCP WOULD PLEDGE TO SPEND ALL INCOME DERIVED BY Mts FOR VANITY PURCHASES IN EVE ON EVE AND PROMISE THAT THE FUNDS WOULD NOT BE RE-DIRECTED TO OTHER PROJECTS THEN MUCH RANCOUR COULD BE AVOIDED.

Jowen Datloran Caldari Science and Trade Institute	Posted - 2010.10.29 14:56:00 - [131] Originally by: Trebor Daehdoow [ Bottom line, CCP has a right to make money of their game. CSM's job is to express concern when we think they are not fully aware of the consequences of a proposed move. According to CCP as per the pdf presented here this whole situation has nothing to do with making money so what is it you are trying to say? -- Mr. Science & Trade Institute - EVE Lorebook - Mysteries of W-space
Commoner Reclaimers	Posted - 2010.10.29 15:45:00 - [132] I for one see absoutly no issue what so ever with the possibility of a plex for remap. I myself have tons of skills trained back in 03 that i never should have trained. If they did it right such as progressive system 1 first time 2 second AND limiting how many remaps you can do in a year. I honestly can not find 1 single issue. Actually now that i think of it. Eve is the ONLY mmo i've ever played that didn't have some kind of remap ability.
Kile Kitmoore	Posted - 2010.10.29 16:16:00 - [133] Quote: "CSM: why did it take so long to recognize there was a serious problem server performance? CCP: It was a matter of reprioritization within the company and other problems had a higher priority at that time. Dominion was a tipping point, where long-standing issues reached a critical mass. CCP reprioritized after the CSM meeting in June." Could anyone elaborate on this? Before the "reprioritization" how many petitions/bug reports did CCP receive? The above Q&A has me concerned that you needed CSM to tell you your house was burning, if that is true you have a serious problem. Care to elaborate on these "higher priority" issues? I realize that CCP is working hard on fixing lag but it sure did take a LONG time before they reacted. Quote: "The CSM restated their opinion that Incarna should not be forced on players, and it should not give you a flying in space advantage to use Incarna." Strange, last I checked ISK is an advantage hence if I can gamble in a station to earn ISK I have an advantage. My concern with this very broad CSM statement is Incarna should be nothing more then a sideshow. Yet, CCP inquires later on their advice on what Incarna should include. I think in this case CCP might be better served by asking it's players directly. Use a survey, post the question on MMORPG or any high traffic MMO site. Just as important, gather feedback from players who don't play EVE because there are no avatars. Is that not one of the goals behind Incarna, draw those new players into EVE? Quote: "CSM: if CCP is considering including contraband in Incarna, will it be moved from the current contract system into Incarna? If so, CCP will be forcing people to use Incarna, and it will put some pilot at a disadvantage because Incarna will not be available in all stations (for example, if players can only acquire boosters by exiting their ships). CCP could not offer any concrete answer to these concerns as nothing has been decided in regards to the gameplay and availability of Incarna." It amazes me that you committed the amount of developer resources and PR all this time and you don't know what game mechanics your striding toward? That absolutely blows me away. It is not enough to simply walk in a station, there HAS to be meaningful, fun game mechanics as to why someone would want to. Which pretty much means do the opposite of what you did in PI. Credit to CSM for making a similar argument about the need for game mechanics. Quote: "There is a general consensus that micro-transaction games are different from EVE in many aspects, and as such they are perhaps better suited to support micro-transactions than EVE is." Thank you CSM for stating that but it begs the question which MMO's use a MT+Sub model that CCP aspires to incorporate into EVE? LOTR? DDO? PVE games where player advantage through MT is less pronounced. Who are these MMO's which CCP uses to measure whether MT is a worthy pursuit? Regardless, thanks to CSM & CCP for all their efforts communicating and working together to enhance the game we all love.
Bhattran	Posted - 2010.10.29 18:09:00 - [134] Originally by: Jowen Datloran Originally by: Malcanis What? The? Hell? I can only echo Malcanis sentiments. It should be obvious to anybody working in the industry that if these questions regarding purpose and content of Incarna not has been decided upon at all until now it will not happen within the next eight months either. At least not to a point where a product can be released. Yet they, in all likelihood will release a 'product', and much like all the other things they've spoken about in the past will be butchered and whittled down to 'must have' so they can deliver it then tag on bits and pieces to 'flesh' it out before calling 'mission accomplished' or state 'we are iterating it'. My expectations for the content of incarna are low very very low, CCP has said they wanted to do this and that then changed their minds so what was left seems like nothing and they haven't set the record clear on what they will do now that they sc**d fighting for example. I think they are wisely not putting anything out about their lofty goals cause they will more than likely strip it down, at least if they even have a clue as to what content they envision, I wouldn't put it past them to be so focused on building the avatars and or world that they don't make anything compelling or interesting for you to do with those pretty things. --Submit your bug reports via mental telepathy this will streamline CCP ignoring them.--**
PC l0adletter	Posted - 2010.10.29 18:26:00 - [135] Originally by: CCP Explorer Originally by: Bomberlocks Originally by: CCP Explorer ...While CCP did not have a focus on these issues as a company until late June this year,.... You don't know how angry this makes me. You yourself were claiming back in June how hard CCP had been working on lag. I actually saved the whole thread in a PDF. Would you like me to show this to you? Honestly, this, especially since your own boss has finally admitted how little you cared and how it only changed when the player outrage grew to huge volumes and players started deserting your company en masse, is simply pathetic. Stop making excuses already. That train left the station back in June. You are selectively quoting me and that's bad m'kay! Here's the full quote: While CCP did not have a focus on these issues as a company until late June this year, then CCP Atlas had started to work on those issues in December last year with a team of senior programmers using all available spare time they had. Boy, that selective quoting really did you an injustice! There was a team with your senior programmers doing things in their 'spare time.' Okay, then. I know when there are mission critical flaws in my company's product, our standard procedure is to wander around the cubicles where our overworked coders live and ask if anyone has some spare time that they'd care to donate...
Trebor Daehdoow	Posted - 2010.10.29 21:24:00 - [136] Originally by: Shandir The job of the CSM is also to represent the opinions and needs of the current players. If there was a majority not against vanity MTs, then that is not being done. The CSM represents the players, but is not a mindless conduit for player opinion (otherwise, what would be the point, CCP could just poll players). We are supposed to use our best judgment, using all the information available to us (including some NDA info the players don't have) -- and we are responsible to the players for those decisions at election time. Which leads us to... Originally by: Jowen Datloran Originally by: Trebor Daehdoow Bottom line, CCP has a right to make money of their game. CSM's job is to express concern when we think they are not fully aware of the consequences of a proposed move. According to CCP as per the pdf presented here this whole situation has nothing to do with making money so what is it you are trying to say? CCP says, and I take them at their word, that the whole PLEX for Remaps idea is an experiment. But it is clear that they want to experiment with some sort of MT, with the goal of eventually increasing their income. There is nothing inherently wrong with this -- CCP is a business, not a charity. As a CSM, if I want to influence their decision making, just saying "MT are the spawn of the devil, no, no, a billion times no!" isn't going to cut it. I have to make a business case for why MT -- or some particular flavor of MT -- is bad for business (ie: it will reduce their profits). Otherwise they'll just ignore me, and rightfully so. If you re-read the meeting notes, you'll see the CSM trying to point out to CCP the consequences of various MT flavors, and strongly advising them against certain types (PLEX for in-game advantages, like remaps). In that case, a strong business case can be made that it's a bad idea. On items that have no in-game advantage, vanity items such as PLEX for Panties or PLEX for Paintjobs, the situation is more nuanced. One concern there is that if the increased demand for PLEX by panty purchasers is not matched by an increased supply (because rich EVE underwear fetishists turn their ISK into faction panties, but the overall supply of PLEX does not increase as much), then PLEX will cost more ISK, and people who depend on trading ISK for PLEX to play will get squeezed. There is a case to be made that this might be bad, but it's not as strong of one. Now consider if remaps, panties, etc were all available for ISK. Would anyone complain? Is there a significant business case to be made against this? Where along the continuum from "No MT ever" to "All MT, All The Time" is the right place for EVE? Where should the line in the sand be drawn, and what can be done to ensure it doesn't get stepped over? The CSM made a first attempt at answering that question at the meetings. We are continuing the discussion internally, and we'll certainly discuss it with interested players. No doubt our individual opinions will become more nuanced over time. And hopefully, CCP will take these opinions into account when deciding what they want to do. Confessions of a Noob Starship Politician The most expensive free trip to Iceland you'll ever win!
Arganato	Posted - 2010.10.29 21:27:00 - [137] Originally by: Don Pellegrino Quote: I really don't find CCP's claim that microtransactions aren't about the money to be credible. Uh yeah, we're trying to be on the cutting edge of... new ways to get your money? It kind of insults the intelligence. this. You want to be edgy and follow the wave, but WHY? WHY would you want to introduce microtransactions AT ALL if it's not to squeeze more money out of the players? Quote: Hilmar commented that ôWe love when people call bull** on usö. I'm calling bull** on you. Say NO to microtransactions! microtransactions can be a great way to finance a game. Many small games are great with microtransactions, and I've had much fun with it, as it allows a more casual playstyle. But IT DOESNT WORK FOR EVE! Please. I love Eve, and I'd hate it to see it adopt this... -Arg

CCP Explorer	Posted - 2010.10.29 21:33:00 - [138] Originally by: MotherMoon [ Originally by: CCP Explorer Originally by: Bhattran Quote: but stations in New Eden don't have windows! A simple solution is to have a couple of 'general' camera views, even if you persist with this fallacy that stations have no windows simple cameras can provide the video feed to show players what is outside, even a simple version of the overview listing the objects outside space up to standard 'grid' range somewhat satisfies this request but in a much more CCP 'we cut that cause we ran out of time way'. The technical reason for not doing this is that the stations and the interior of the stations will not be on the same node as the solarsystem itself (the space). This information would therefore have to be fed from the solarsystem node to the station node and constant cross-node communication is something we avoid. That doesn't at all explain why you don't just have windows that show a skybox. my eve online ships have windows on them but I complain that I can't zoom in and see inside them. Windows have a place in sci-fi, why do you think they have to be functional to be in the game? Then again I have a feeling the lead artist already had this argument with you :P Windows with a skybox is the slippery slope, next expansion everyone wants to see what's outside. Erlendur S. Thorsteinsson Software Director EVE Online, CCP Games


CCP Explorer	Posted - 2010.10.29 21:39:00 - [139] Originally by: Taedrin Originally by: Louis deGuerre 2. If you're going to add difference in icons between AB and MWD why not do it for BPO and BPC right away also ? People have only been asking for that for what ? 7 years ? IIRC, BPOs and BPCs have the same item IDs - meaning that the server can't tell the difference between them at a glance. In order to tell the difference, it has to do a more resource intensive call to the database to check to see if that particular item is a BPO or a BPC. So essentially, in order for BPOs and BPCs to have different icons, CCP will have to do some significant rewriting and redesigning of their code. Or in other words, this is not a simple change for CCP to make. This is mostly right, except that BPO's and BPC's have the same type ID's and the Inventory System only stores common information such and the item ID, type ID, location ID, etc. It doesn't store the BPO vs BPC bit because that specific information for blueprints and not general information that would apply to all other items such as ships and planets. Erlendur S. Thorsteinsson Software Director EVE Online, CCP Games

Vincent Athena	Posted - 2010.10.29 22:09:00 - [140] Originally by: CCP Explorer The technical reason for not doing this is that the stations and the interior of the stations will not be on the same node as the solarsystem itself (the space). This information would therefore have to be fed from the solarsystem node to the station node and constant cross-node communication is something we avoid. This can be done without cross node comms. Just send info from 2 nodes to the client. You already do that. For example if I'm mining and doing market orders my client is getting info from the space node and from the market node. Another way: have widows normally just show a generic space scene, but if I want to look out, I got to select doing so, and then that is all I'm doing, like a session change.

Ixtelle	Posted - 2010.10.29 22:32:00 - [141] I see lots of people referencing this being an improvement over June, that one being a bad deal, etc., but I can't bring anything up from memory about that. Is there a relevant thread / blog post? I browsed through the archives of the news / announcements forum and dev blog, but didn't see anything, although I did find the archived minutes pdf from the event. What gives?
Shandir Minmatar Eve University Ivy League	Posted - 2010.10.29 22:37:00 - [142] Edited by: Shandir on 29/10/2010 22:45:37 Originally by: Trebor Daehdoow ...stuff... I notice you didn't answer my question about which CSM members are in support of limited microtransactions. As a representative, you have the right to choose which parts of the playerbase you represent, or indeed if you choose to decide you know better than the playerbase and represent your interpretation of our interests. As someone who votes, I have a right to know which members of the CSM think they know better than the people they claim to represent, so I can vote for someone else come the next election. So, I'll ask again - who among the CSM, other than you, is in favour of limited MT? Edit: In response to your question - I firmly believe that EVE on the scale of No MT < - > Lots of MT, should be as far towards 'No MT' as possible. I accept the reasons for PLEX, I partially accept the reasons for character purchases, and I partially accept the real money charges for portrait changes and character transfers. There is no such 'benefit to the players' logic that says we should be happy about more microtransactions being added.
MotherMoon Huang Yinglong	Posted - 2010.10.30 00:57:00 - [143] Edited by: MotherMoon on 30/10/2010 01:00:42 Originally by: CCP Explorer Windows with a skybox is the slippery slope, next expansion everyone wants to see what's outside. Isn't not having windows also a slippery slope? One that ends with the players wanting to see whats outside Because of the lack of windows? like when people are stuck on a submarine for days, they really want to see the outside world? Maybe you could just sell windows, make them art pieces, explain them as digital representations of windows that show what is basically a painting that "looks" like a window. Have windows that face IN. One of the things that really makes eve stations eve stations is the HUGE inside Areas. Like the pleasure hub (you are bring that back right you should be able to look out the windows while your in a pub or corporation station and see what you used to show behind the hosts in eve tv. Or the highways of the pleasure hub, or the Epic arches of the ammar docking areas. or maybe your window looks out at the lower highways you can see. please, as an person that loves doing environment work. you have to have some windows, they don't even have to look outside into space. they an look in at the bar, a two way mirror perhaps? but no windows at all? it'll be the uncanny valley or environment art. Originally by: Vincent Athena Originally by: CCP Explorer The technical reason for not doing this is that the stations and the interior of the stations will not be on the same node as the solarsystem itself (the space). This information would therefore have to be fed from the solarsystem node to the station node and constant cross-node communication is something we avoid. This can be done without cross node comms. Just send info from 2 nodes to the client. You already do that. For example if I'm mining and doing market orders my client is getting info from the space node and from the market node. Another way: have widows normally just show a generic space scene, but if I want to look out, I got to select doing so, and then that is all I'm doing, like a session change. See, not having windows allready bugging people. whats to stop the argument that I should be able to launch an unmanned drone to see outside the station? or I like the idea that the windows are fake, just "digital video" paintings.
Trebor Daehdoow	Posted - 2010.10.30 10:11:00 - [144] Originally by: Shandir I notice you didn't answer my question about which CSM members are in support of limited microtransactions. I would not feel comfortable answering that question with specifics; they can speak for themselves should they be so inclined. However, I did check an internal forum thread about this topic and made a quick count. Of the CSMs who expressed an opinion (including T'Amber and one other alt), MT for vanity items was acceptable (with various caveats) by 2/3 of the group. Originally by: Shandir As a representative, you have the right to choose which parts of the playerbase you represent, or indeed if you choose to decide you know better than the playerbase and represent your interpretation of our interests. As someone who votes, I have a right to know which members of the CSM think they know better than the people they claim to represent, so I can vote for someone else come the next election. I totally agree with this, and I am always happy to explain my positions on matters of interest (where permitted by NDA, of course). And if another CSM has made a public statement that is relevant that I am aware of (or remember), I will point to that statement. But I won't put words in their mouths, it's just rude. Originally by: Shandir Edit: In response to your question - I firmly believe that EVE on the scale of No MT < - > Lots of MT, should be as far towards 'No MT' as possible. In the absence of significant evidence that MT will not be harmful to the current players of EVE, I tend towards your position, and have been urging CCP to take the smallest of baby-steps (ie: reversible, and not going to screw you if it goes horribly wrong for some unexpected reason). It's one thing to drop a pebble in the pond to see where the ripples go, but something like PLEX for Remaps is a pretty big rock, IMHO. Confessions of a Noob Starship Politician The most expensive free trip to Iceland you'll ever win!
Lors Dornick Caldari Untied Dysleckticks	Posted - 2010.10.30 11:40:00 - [145] Originally by: Trebor Daehdoow As a CSM, if I want to influence their decision making, just saying "MT are the spawn of the devil, no, no, a billion times no!" isn't going to cut it. I have to make a business case for why MT -- or some particular flavor of MT -- is bad for business (ie: it will reduce their profits). Otherwise they'll just ignore me, and rightfully so. Thanks for those lines, they reinstated my belief that there are sane and reasonable people in the world. They do sound like spoken by a politician looking for a re-election, but this is a good thing in this case ;) // Lors
T'Amber www.shipsofeve.com	Posted - 2010.10.30 13:39:00 - [146] Originally by: Trebor Daehdoow Originally by: T'Amber Let me pull a number out of mazz's hat. 80%. 80% of the CSM were COMPLETELY against MT. 20% (Which is like 2 and a bit csms) were not. Sorry, T, but this is a distortion of the opinions held by the CSM. 100% of the CSM was against MT being used to buy things that provided in-game edges -- which includes PLEX for Remaps. A majority of the CSM felt that if CCP wants to play around with MT for vanity items, then fine (but "meh"). Some others felt it was the "least bad" alternative, and there was concern about diversion of resources (ie: time spent creating faction panties could better be spent on other things of more use to the community). There was also concern about overloading another function on PLEX. While everyone was against microtransactions in general, from my seat it looked like a few were ok with vanity items which is the 20% I mentioned. This is what I meant with the 80/20. I do not agree that most were ok with vanity items, but you were sitting in another seat and things may have looked different to you. THANKS FOR ALL THE FISH!

CCP Explorer	Posted - 2010.10.30 16:39:00 - [147] Originally by: Vincent Athena Originally by: CCP Explorer The technical reason for not doing this is that the stations and the interior of the stations will not be on the same node as the solarsystem itself (the space). This information would therefore have to be fed from the solarsystem node to the station node and constant cross-node communication is something we avoid. This can be done without cross node comms. Just send info from 2 nodes to the client. You already do that. For example if I'm mining and doing market orders my client is getting info from the space node and from the market node. But then the client is connected to the location node as well and a part of what we are planning is to reduce the load on it. This would not accomplish that. Erlendur S. Thorsteinsson Software Director EVE Online, CCP Games

De'Veldrin Minmatar Green-Core The Obsidian Legion	Posted - 2010.10.30 17:21:00 - [148] Originally by: Malcanis I was intensely interested to see that CCP believe there is too much ISK in EVE. The number of supercaps hot dropping subcaps for lulz seems to support their point. --Vel
MotherMoon Huang Yinglong	Posted - 2010.10.30 18:11:00 - [149] Originally by: CCP Explorer Originally by: Vincent Athena Originally by: CCP Explorer The technical reason for not doing this is that the stations and the interior of the stations will not be on the same node as the solarsystem itself (the space). This information would therefore have to be fed from the solarsystem node to the station node and constant cross-node communication is something we avoid. This can be done without cross node comms. Just send info from 2 nodes to the client. You already do that. For example if I'm mining and doing market orders my client is getting info from the space node and from the market node. But then the client is connected to the location node as well and a part of what we are planning is to reduce the load on it by separating stations from the solar system itself. This would not accomplish that. thanks for answering our questions by the way. : ) (I edited my post, expect paintings soon :P)
Trebor Daehdoow	Posted - 2010.10.30 20:05:00 - [150] Originally by: CCP Explorer But then the client is connected to the location node as well and a part of what we are planning is to reduce the load on it by separating stations from the solar system itself. This would not accomplish that. Hmm... Seems to me that that you could create a lightweight "viewpoint" node (perhaps in the proxy layer?), one per station grid. Clients connect to the viewpoint, it connects to the location node (on demand) to get the info; no matter how many clients want to look out of a window, the overhead on the location node is equivalent to one cloaked ship on the station grid. I can see how this might be considered as a lot of pain for not much gain, but in the long term, this is something you're going to have to address in order to not break the immersion, and similar techniques are surely under consideration as long-term lag-fighting approaches. Confessions of a Noob Starship Politician The most expensive free trip to Iceland you'll ever win!

Bhattran	Posted - 2010.10.30 20:46:00 - [151] I just realized something if there are no windows then we can't space people! No tripping some fool into an airlock, slamming down a lever or button to seal the door then peering through the glass window to watch as they freak out when you cycle the airlock and open the compartment to space! --Submit your bug reports via mental telepathy this will streamline CCP ignoring them.--
Marlenus Ironfleet Towing And Salvage	Posted - 2010.10.30 21:24:00 - [152] Originally by: Malcanis I'm still struggling to understand how, after over 4 years since the project started, CCP still haven't decided what we're going to be able to actually do in Incarna. For the love of God, tell us you're sandbagging us. Please tell us that. I mean guys, come on - you're supposed to be releasing this thing in the next 8 months, you've had 70 devs working on it for god knows how long, and at least some working on it for much longer than that, you had a semi-working Demo in 2008, and you *STILL* haven't even got to the point where you've decided what's going to happen? What? The? Hell? I think you need to get used to the idea that it's not going to have any actual gameplay features. OK, maybe one. Torfi said "It's definitely going to be more than walking around, maybe gambling." So when the agile development gets bloody and they start cutting "user stories" out with a bloody axe, they have to leave at least one thing in. So you'll be able to walk around in stations, and maybe use a roulette wheel. But note the bit about how "The implementation as it is now allows you to exit your ship in every station and go to your captain‟s quarters; it is just the large communal areas that might not be available on all stations." For the first release, "walking around in stations" may not even be in there; all they have now is going to your bedroom. "Large communal areas" might turn out to be one of those "user stories" that doesn't make the cut. And thus did "walking around in stations" get agilely scrummed into "playing roulette with yourself in a bedroom". No, that hasn't happened yet. But the potential is there. They said it over and over again. "Nothing has been decided." They don't have any plans. They haven't built much yet. They don't have any actual vision for how this avatar tech should be used to make a better spaceship game. There isn't any sandbagged coolness. There's a ton of cool stuff they could have been building all these years, but the .pdf makes it brutally clear: they haven't actually been building any of it. They haven't, apparently, even drawn up much of a wish list. And on the schedule they're on, it's too bloody late now. You can hold your breath for later iterations if you want, but I'm not gonna. ------------------ Ironfleet.com
ChriZzZz	Posted - 2010.10.31 22:50:00 - [153] Originally by: Don Pellegrino Quote: I really don't find CCP's claim that microtransactions aren't about the money to be credible. Uh yeah, we're trying to be on the cutting edge of... new ways to get your money? It kind of insults the intelligence. this. You want to be edgy and follow the wave, but WHY? WHY would you want to introduce microtransactions AT ALL if it's not to squeeze more money out of the players? STOP MICROTRANSACTIONS WE DONT WANT THEM
Dacil Arandur Cognitive Industries	Posted - 2010.11.01 16:15:00 - [154] Originally by: CCP Explorer Originally by: Vincent Athena Originally by: CCP Explorer The technical reason for not doing this is that the stations and the interior of the stations will not be on the same node as the solarsystem itself (the space). This information would therefore have to be fed from the solarsystem node to the station node and constant cross-node communication is something we avoid. This can be done without cross node comms. Just send info from 2 nodes to the client. You already do that. For example if I'm mining and doing market orders my client is getting info from the space node and from the market node. But then the client is connected to the location node as well and a part of what we are planning is to reduce the load on it by separating stations from the solar system itself. This would not accomplish that. With respect, at what point do you sacrifice things that really SHOULD be there from every RP and logical standpoint for the sake of performance? If the goal is to have the best Science Fiction simulation around, you're going to have to deal with these issues eventually. If concerns about performance are gigantic roadblocks to what should be in a properly designed game, you'll have to either rework your vision or seriously work on your core infrastructure. Forcing player behaviour change, or cutting good game design because your server infrastructure can't handle it will not end well in the long run. As a side note/suggestion: What about a compromise? Have the ability to look outside of a station normally, but if local jumps above a certain number or if the grid around a station is too full have the station "lockdown" for security reasons. Maybe shields come down over the windows or some sort of electronic protection which are necessary to protect residents from accidental weapon discharge, but also unfortunately stop them from being able to see outside. That way when there are too many pilots outside a station and it would cause a performance hit to move all that data of all those ships, you can cut the connection with a plausible in-game reason. But also allow me to see if I am being station camped in a random backwater system with 5 pilots. Thanks, Dacil
Vincent Athena	Posted - 2010.11.01 17:40:00 - [155] Originally by: Dacil Arandur As a side note/suggestion: What about a compromise? Have the ability to look outside of a station normally, but if local jumps above a certain number or if the grid around a station is too full have the station "lockdown" for security reasons. Maybe shields come down over the windows or some sort of electronic protection which are necessary to protect residents from accidental weapon discharge, but also unfortunately stop them from being able to see outside. That way when there are too many pilots outside a station and it would cause a performance hit to move all that data of all those ships, you can cut the connection with a plausible in-game reason. But also allow me to see if I am being station camped in a random backwater system with 5 pilots. Thanks, Dacil Good idea, except there are several solar systems on one node, so high activity in a completely different solar system could result in window closure in your system, even if there are only 5 pilots in it. I see CCP's point: They got to be able to handle the case of everyone docked in Jita deciding to look out the windows and not lagging out those trying to fly and fight. But there has to be some way to let us RPers see out windows, something like the "Jita cam" that let many people see a real time space scene that were not even logged into EVE. Also: Ive heard that CCP is planning to end docking games by: 1) allowing scrams to block docking, balanced by 2) allowing you to see whats outside the station before you undock. I assume you must be in your ship ( and hence not on the "in station" server) before you can pop a camera drone outside and look around.
Dacil Arandur Cognitive Industries	Posted - 2010.11.01 18:04:00 - [156] Originally by: Vincent Athena Originally by: Dacil Arandur As a side note/suggestion: What about a compromise? Have the ability to look outside of a station normally, but if local jumps above a certain number or if the grid around a station is too full have the station "lockdown" for security reasons. Maybe shields come down over the windows or some sort of electronic protection which are necessary to protect residents from accidental weapon discharge, but also unfortunately stop them from being able to see outside. That way when there are too many pilots outside a station and it would cause a performance hit to move all that data of all those ships, you can cut the connection with a plausible in-game reason. But also allow me to see if I am being station camped in a random backwater system with 5 pilots. Thanks, Dacil Good idea, except there are several solar systems on one node, so high activity in a completely different solar system could result in window closure in your system, even if there are only 5 pilots in it. I see CCP's point: They got to be able to handle the case of everyone docked in Jita deciding to look out the windows and not lagging out those trying to fly and fight. But there has to be some way to let us RPers see out windows, something like the "Jita cam" that let many people see a real time space scene that were not even logged into EVE. Also: Ive heard that CCP is planning to end docking games by: 1) allowing scrams to block docking, balanced by 2) allowing you to see whats outside the station before you undock. I assume you must be in your ship ( and hence not on the "in station" server) before you can pop a camera drone outside and look around. I understand the technical limitation of having several solar systems on one node like that, but my overall point is that these technical hurdles need to be overcome or all the design decisions will revolve around the server's CPU instead of being based on what should actually be in an awesome sci-fi game. However, I'm perfectly ok with changes that have a plausible in-game reasoning, and honestly they aren't hard to come up with. For example, to deal with the Drake blob problem and also encourage smaller fleets in general... how about there is electrical interference from too many shields all together on the same grid and so as a side effect all their shield resistances are lowered. You could do a similar thing with armour. Too much armour on the field and you have too many gravity wells which drop the agility of all ships. Anyway, I just hope that performance issues don't become the sole reason behind game design decisions, because that will make for a lag-free but boring and stupid game. Thanks again, Dacil
Joss56	Posted - 2010.11.02 13:18:00 - [157] Edited by: Joss56 on 02/11/2010 13:23:02 Well i would like to see my blaster becomme usefull over 10km, dont ask rails range but at least samme than pulses? No? -k overloading 425 and tracking modules /Run
pmchem Minmatar GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation	Posted - 2010.11.02 17:24:00 - [158] A lot of talk about PLEX for remaps. How about PLEX for character transfers between accounts? I think everyone would be in favor of that.
Zen Sarum	Posted - 2010.11.03 22:06:00 - [159] Originally by: Marlenus Originally by: Malcanis I mean guys, come on - you're supposed to be releasing this thing in the next 8 months, you've had 70 devs working on it for god knows how long, and at least some working on it for much longer than that, you had a semi-working Demo in 2008, and you *STILL* haven't even got to the point where you've decided what's going to happen? What? The? Hell? I think you need to get used to the idea that it's not going to have any actual gameplay features. OK, maybe one. Torfi said "It's definitely going to be more than walking around, maybe gambling." So when the agile development gets bloody and they start cutting "user stories" out with a bloody axe, they have to leave at least one thing in. So you'll be able to walk around in stations, and maybe use a roulette wheel. And thus did "walking around in stations" get agilely scrummed into "playing roulette with yourself in a bedroom". No, that hasn't happened yet. But the potential is there. They said it over and over again. "Nothing has been decided." They don't have any plans. They haven't built much yet. They don't have any actual vision for how this avatar tech should be used to make a better spaceship game. There isn't any sandbagged coolness. There's a ton of cool stuff they could have been building all these years, but the .pdf makes it brutally clear: they haven't actually been building any of it. They haven't, apparently, even drawn up much of a wish list. And on the schedule they're on, it's too bloody late now. You can hold your breath for later iterations if you want, but I'm not gonna. I agree if this is the case I am very disappointed. With the number of balancing issues not addressed the pretty terrible PI which acheives nothing and worst of all the completely unimaginative and poor sov system introduced under dominion I had expected somewhat more from something that had taken so long and had so many resources used up by it. Resources basicly taken from us to make features that in the end we won't use but will look pretty on the box. Its the lack of game development or imagination that is shocking on the last few 'expansions'. These should add to the game not add diversions and dilute the game with awfully designed features. In my mind the expansions should have built one on the other, such as: Dominion. Introduced a new sov system based on activity on a regular smaller scale with many transactions which effects surrounding influance and hence the sov of a system (not my blob just sat there for hours shooting your thing which isnt a string of POS's but is now possibly worse! Nothing else happens as noone will jump into 500+ hot system!). Tyranis. Allows direct control and interaction with the people of each planet adding to trade aspects of the game as well as having an affect on influance and hence affecting sov. Incarna. Supports more interaction between players and NPCs aiding in the storytelling of EVE. Also adds another dimensions into the game overtime with additional storyline missions and events only accessable through walking in stations if you choose to take part as well as giving helpfull features and tools for planetry/station interaction and trade aspects. Also adds additional vanity features to the game with personal/corp/alliance facilities upgrades to public areas available thru plex. Dust adds/interacts to all of the interaction features above if somewhat indirectly. Job done, or in this case not, its a shame as it could have been so good to have all those layers built on top of each other, making EVE utterly unique, wasted opertunities IMO.
menacemyth	Posted - 2010.11.04 20:39:00 - [160] I read the entire pdf. Well worth the read. All I can say is "I love this CSM" I'll re-elect all of them. Also, thank you CCP. I respect your approach to a concerned CSM. I hope you continue to provide hard answers to tough questions. Any individual failure is still a success for the team if you continue this approach to problem solving, and is well worth my money. M

Malcanis Caldari Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2010.11.04 21:27:00 - [161] Originally by: De'Veldrin Originally by: Malcanis I was intensely interested to see that CCP believe there is too much ISK in EVE. The number of supercaps hot dropping subcaps for lulz seems to support their point. That's a product of resource abundance, not ISK abundance. Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players.
Razin The xDEATHx Squadron Legion of xXDEATHXx	Posted - 2010.11.05 18:34:00 - [162] Originally by: CCP Explorer Originally by: MotherMoon [ Originally by: CCP Explorer The technical reason for not doing this is that the stations and the interior of the stations will not be on the same node as the solarsystem itself (the space). This information would therefore have to be fed from the solarsystem node to the station node and constant cross-node communication is something we avoid. That doesn't at all explain why you don't just have windows that show a skybox. my eve online ships have windows on them but I complain that I can't zoom in and see inside them. Windows have a place in sci-fi, why do you think they have to be functional to be in the game? Then again I have a feeling the lead artist already had this argument with you :P Windows with a skybox is the slippery slope, next expansion everyone wants to see what's outside. This is a somewhat silly answer. Players had always wanted to see what's outside the station while in dock, but only in the same way that the overview lets us see what's outside our ship. The station 'window with a view' in Incarna would serve a completely different purpose that is psychological and aesthetic in nature. The two are not related and there is no "slippery slope" argument relationship between them. ...
Zantris	Posted - 2010.11.07 01:46:00 - [163] Edited by: Zantris on 07/11/2010 01:50:57 It makes absolutely no sense to use PLEX for Neural Remappers. PLEX already have an ISK value, so if you charge ISK for Neural Remappers, you ultimately accomplish the same thing. And in addition, you add a sink. The only reason to use PLEX as the direct currency is to increase the volume of PLEX bought, which is decidedly "for profit" regardless of how much you pretend otherwise. Please don't insult our intelligence by saying something isn't "for profit" when it very obviously is. And even using ISK, Neural Remaps are a bad idea unless they have time constraints. Otherwise excessively wealthy individuals will abuse the hell out of them.
Zlukina	Posted - 2010.11.07 09:07:00 - [164] if CCP adds more microtransactions in future there will be a lot of players who ll quit game for many reasons cause of mt. CCP dont have enough money from subscribers and plex/gtc buyers?
BIZZAROSTORMY	Posted - 2010.11.08 15:35:00 - [165] Originally by: Malcanis I'm still struggling to understand how, after over 4 years since the project started, CCP still haven't decided what we're going to be able to actually do in Incarna. For the love of God, tell us you're sandbagging us. Please tell us that. I mean guys, come on - you're supposed to be releasing this thing in the next 8 months, you've had 70 devs working on it for god knows how long, and at least some working on it for much longer than that, you had a semi-working Demo in 2008, and you *STILL* haven't even got to the point where you've decided what's going to happen? What? The? Hell? Yeah. I started thread about this in general Discussion - devolved into argument about semantics. But the question still stands: Why havent you decided on any of the functionality? all these years, all this work? and you ask the CSm what they want to see? That suggests its all up for grabs still - that you dont know what you are doing with Incarna - even at this late stage! Could CCp please clarify: Has anything been decided on functionality for Incarna as a whole?. Is summer release really still on? If CCP really wish to solicit ideas for Incarna from CSM why not have a player vote?
Zyress	Posted - 2010.11.08 16:39:00 - [166] As far as microtransactions go, as long as the purchases have no ingame performance benefits I don't see it any differently than selling tee-shirts, if they want a custom paint job on their rifter and are willing to pay ccp for it , thats between them and ccp, I expect if they go this route special clothing for the out of pod experience would be another thing they could sell to ppl that care about that without conveying any ingame benefit. Personally I could care less if I walk through the station naked dripping acceleration gell, but I've seen how the sims crowd likes to dress up their avatars.
Hakaru Ishiwara Minmatar Republic Military School	Posted - 2010.11.09 20:17:00 - [167] Originally by: CCP Explorer Originally by: No Pyramid Quoting Allowed Stuff Windows with a skybox is the slippery slope, next expansion everyone wants to see what's outside. And what exactly is wrong with that? Why not strive to delight and surprise your current and potential customers? Why not attempt the extra-ordinary? Why not build your sci-fi simulator to reflect what every space-based sci-fi film, animation and published piece features to one extent or another? If CCP is truly committed to ambulation, then dare to dream of a space sci-fi simulator where people collectively witness events in-space while standing in a station. Or even a large spaceship filled with tourism-minded clones that paid their ship's captain to view a combat competition or a hidden and beautiful spacial anomaly.
Demitrios Di-Tron Heavy Industries Initiative Mercenaries	Posted - 2010.11.11 23:17:00 - [168] Bull** OH NOES! I CANT SAY BULL** ON HERE! BUT IT CAN BE ON A DEVBLOG! Oh the humanity, will someone think of the children! /sarcasm :)
Dierdra Vaal	Posted - 2010.11.12 11:24:00 - [169] Originally by: Hakaru Ishiwara And what exactly is wrong with that? Why not strive to delight and surprise your current and potential customers? [..snip..] I'm sure that, if it is possible, CCP will eventually want to do it (I'm sure it would look cool in Incarna). However, do you want the engineering department to spend all their time making new infrastructure so you can see ships through windows, or would you prefer them to spend that time fixing lag/making eve gameplay? Its a question of priorities and because 'windows in space' is a very difficult technical endeavour with very low gameplay impact, it's understandably low on the list. * * * Director of Education :: EVE University * * * CSM1 delegate, CSM3 chairman and CSM5 vice-chairman
Hakaru Ishiwara Minmatar Republic Military School	Posted - 2010.11.12 18:17:00 - [170] Originally by: Dierdra Vaal Originally by: Hakaru Ishiwara And what exactly is wrong with that? Why not strive to delight and surprise your current and potential customers? [..snip..] I'm sure that, if it is possible, CCP will eventually want to do it (I'm sure it would look cool in Incarna). However, do you want the engineering department to spend all their time making new infrastructure so you can see ships through windows, or would you prefer them to spend that time fixing lag/making eve gameplay? Its a question of priorities and because 'windows in space' is a very difficult technical endeavour with very low gameplay impact, it's understandably low on the list. I am with you 100% in determining priorities. Where I took issue is with a CCP representative going down the path of [paraphrased] 'the methods are too difficult' to implement this feature. Rather, I believe that it is fair to say that a particular feature is either very challenging or not feasible to implement in the current version and with the current server architecture. BUT that feature may be considered when server hardware improvements are planned, etc. in the future. tl;dr - I want to hear a truthful, but can-do message out of CCP. Also, some folks brought up the non-live window box idea that I do not believe was understood by CCP. In other words, have station windows display "stuff" like a star-field but not necessarily stuff that reflects events occurring 'outside' in space.

Bhattran	Posted - 2010.11.13 11:52:00 - [171] Originally by: Dierdra Vaal Originally by: Hakaru Ishiwara And what exactly is wrong with that? Why not strive to delight and surprise your current and potential customers? [..snip..] I'm sure that, if it is possible, CCP will eventually want to do it (I'm sure it would look cool in Incarna). However, do you want the engineering department to spend all their time making new infrastructure so you can see ships through windows, or would you prefer them to spend that time fixing lag/making eve gameplay? Its a question of priorities and because 'windows in space' is a very difficult technical endeavour with very low gameplay impact, it's understandably low on the list. I get your point but I feel you are mistaken in expressing it. The engineering team who are tasked with making Incarna/WIS/ambulation are of course who will work on stuff related to Incarna/WIS/Ambulation not the engineers working on lag/making EVE 'internet spaceships' gameplay, these are two different groups of engineers/developers. At some point they may and likely will swap team members or create new teams but people working on A don't stop working on A to work on B just because B decided to work on a new aspect of B. To your point, could the people working on Incarna/WIS/Ambulation be working on other aspects of it instead of the window yeah of course they can, there might be more pressing aspects of gameplay, whatever the **** they are because we haven't gotten a clear message on what we'll be doing besides gambling/socializing IF those haven't been tossed out. There will be a 'link' between internet spaceships and being in a station when you transition and I'd hope other ways to make them interact but the responses from CCP in this thread make it seem like Incarna/WIS/Ambulation and EVE won't talk to each other or pass data or doing so is so technically horrible they won't do it. I can't see why a couple of views outside of the stations can't exist and be accessed by players when they approach a 'window' on the observation deck or through a terminal. They'd all see the same thing and it would be limited to the grid and could even be gimped to not show any overview data just a pure video feed, what you'd see with your UI turned off when in your ship in space. To further explore my amazement at how internet spaceships and being in a station can't be linked for a video feed, I now wonder will we be able to do things I assumed we would have access to like; using the market, contracts, accessing assets, some method to communicate outside the station like a 'chat', email, etc? My idea was either we'd have a personal device like a commlink/comuter/data pad allowing access to some or all of those things OR we'd interface with them through terminals in public/private. The portable method seems to be more convenient as you wouldn't have people hogging public terminals but who knows what choices would be made if such a thing is put in the game. --Welcome to EVE where 'Commit to Excellence' means trying to squeeze another dime out of the player base.--*
Crexa Star Mandate	Posted - 2010.11.18 05:51:00 - [172] I'm saying NO! To Micro-transactions. Plex was a thin line as it was. If they are ever implemented in EVE, I will be cancelling my 5 accounts and finding something else to do. Thats 5 accounts that pay yearly subs. Its not a threat, its a promise
Gnulpie Minmatar Miner Tech	Posted - 2010.11.18 06:25:00 - [173] Originally by: CCP Explorer But then the client is connected to the location node as well and a part of what we are planning is to reduce the load on it by separating stations from the solar system itself. This would not accomplish that. I don't understand this. First: the looks to the outside through a window is for EVERYONE the same, so you only need to add ONE listener to the node from where you send it to everyone else and this distribution can be done on a different node. Second: If there are no players outside the station, the added load from one more listener shouldn't be a problem. If you have at least one player out there, you already had to query the grid for data, so you can just reuse this data without another query for the database I guess, even lowering the load on the node more - if one single more listener is really such a burden. So, I don't know where the technical problem is, the cross-node communication would be for one single listener per station at maximum, if at all. What have I missed? And to reduce load on the location node further, you could just get snapshots of the outsides from location node every few seconds and then calculate the scenes in between from the incarna node or the client. And in case of some heavy load you would add just static to the window screen


Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 :: [one page]

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.