| Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir.
Noir. Mercenary Group
746
   |
Posted - 2012.11.18 22:04:00 -
[1] - Quote
Earlier this month, EVEGÇÖs Senior Producer CCP Ripley called a meeting with the CSM to solicit feedback on some challenges and goals CCP was addressing during an upcoming strategy planning meeting. During the course of this meeting, the CSM offered to provide CCP with a different perspective on what EVEGÇÖs development strategy could be. CCP Ripley stated that she would find such a document helpful, but that this did not imply a commitment to implement what the CSM would give her.
The following document is the result of that collaborative effort and was submitted to CCP approximately two weeks ago. Our goal was not to provide a prescriptive GÇ£wish listGÇ¥, but instead to influence the strategic planning conversation in a positive direction. CSM7 would like to thank CCP Ripley for not only distributing it to CCPGÇÖs development teams but also agreeing to its timely publication.
A Few Notes to the Community:
- The intended audience for this document was CCP, not the community; please keep this in mind when reading it.
- We tried to avoid, as much as possible, specific suggestions like GÇ£fix sov by doing x.GÇ¥ Instead, our emphasis was to explain why GÇ£fixing sovGÇ¥ will address specific business goals.
- The primary coauthors of this document were Alekseyev Karrde, Hans Jagerblitzen, Trebor Daehdoow, and Two Step. It was unanimously endorsed by all active members of the CSM.
- Nothing has been edited or removed due to the NDA; aside from minor edits made for clarity, this is exactly what the CSM sent to CCP.
DOWNLOAD HERE
"Alekseyev Karrde: mercenary of my heart."-á
-Arydanika, Voices from the Void
CSM7 rep, CSM 4 vet
Noir./Noir. Academy Recruiting: www.noirmercs.com |
Trebor Daehdoow
Dirt Nap Squad
Dirt Nap Squad.
2337
|
Posted - 2012.11.18 22:04:00 -
[2] - Quote
I endorse this product and/or document.
The Sarcasm is Strong with Me GÇó Member of CSM 5-7 GÇó Blog |
Seleene
Body Count Inc.
Pandemic Legion
2012
|
Posted - 2012.11.18 22:05:00 -
[3] - Quote
Confirming that the OP is an actual CSM member.
CSM 7 Chairman
My Blog - Where I say stuff
Follow Seleene on Twitter! |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous
Late Night Alliance
3329
|
Posted - 2012.11.18 22:05:00 -
[4] - Quote
I'm looking forward to a productive discussion about 2013 goals for EVE from a player perspective as we go into the summit. We're all looking forward to different features, different objectives - but I think a lot of us share the sentiment that we've had a good run on purely iterative expansions and ready to tackle some of the core issues in the coming year, and without fear of engaging in big projects just as 0.0 Sovereignty, the economy, and POS's.
Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
Dovinian
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
1131
|
Posted - 2012.11.18 22:12:00 -
[5] - Quote
Everyone above this post is on the CSM. |
Zarofdium
The Illuminatii
Mildly Intoxicated
8
|
Posted - 2012.11.18 22:26:00 -
[6] - Quote
I do find it inciting and enthralling that CCP and the CSM are starting to recognize that the newbies, veterans, and bitter-vets, all have important considerations.
It is important to not only retain older players, but also to garner the interest of new ones. Hopefully with the appropriate balancing of these mindsets (rather than on the stereotypical 0.0 versus industry, versus pirate, versus wormhole, etc) that a greater balance is achieved. Hopefully we shall continue to see positive and constructive criticisms and changes to this game.
I am sure we can all agree that progress is important- eve can never simply 'exist.' Stagnation equals death. |
Chitsa Jason
DEEP-SPACE CO-OP LTD
Exhale.
166
|
Posted - 2012.11.18 22:26:00 -
[7] - Quote
Reading now :) |
Reppyk
The Black Shell
206
|
Posted - 2012.11.18 22:28:00 -
[8] - Quote
Nerfing the reprocess thing should be the #1 top priority. GÖÑ |
Snow Axe
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
546
|
Posted - 2012.11.18 22:32:00 -
[9] - Quote
Well, since it's too late to attempt to give any feedback on this document or even discuss it in any meaningful way, I have to ask: what's the point of this thread? |
corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
858
|
Posted - 2012.11.18 22:33:00 -
[10] - Quote
Only have time to skim it but my gut-check impression is that this isn't bad. I've got some issues with it. For example, compression nerfs should not happen until after framework is in place for local production. All too often, CCP nerfs something, promises a buff to offset, and that buff never comes. I'm also not a fan of the group mining thing either, but that's more because I'm skeptical about CCP being able to implement it and also deliver other revamps nullsec needs in a timely manner, as opposed to devoting 100% of dev time to "group mining", releasing it as a jesus feature, and forgetting about it.
Further elaboration will have to come later, I'm on my way out the door...
This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
fofofo |
|
|
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir.
Noir. Mercenary Group
746
|
Posted - 2012.11.18 22:38:00 -
[11] - Quote
Snow Axe wrote:Well, since it's too late to attempt to give any feedback on this document or even discuss it in any meaningful way, I have to ask: what's the point of this thread? This is the type of thread that should have been posted before it was submitted, to at least see if there's anything you may have missed, arguments about priority/etc, that sort of thing. Posting it after submission, let alone two weeks after submission, is kind of pointless, don't you think?
It's not too late, feedback away. Once we got the OK to do so, we felt it was important for transparency to let the players know what was done.
"Alekseyev Karrde: mercenary of my heart."-á
-Arydanika, Voices from the Void
CSM7 rep, CSM 4 vet
Noir./Noir. Academy Recruiting: www.noirmercs.com |
Siobhan MacLeary
BRG Corp
Ocularis Inferno
24
|
Posted - 2012.11.18 22:38:00 -
[12] - Quote
Snow Axe wrote:Well, since it's too late to attempt to give any feedback on this document or even discuss it in any meaningful way, I have to ask: what's the point of this thread? This is the type of thread that should have been posted before it was submitted, to at least see if there's anything you may have missed, arguments about priority/etc, that sort of thing. Posting it after submission, let alone two weeks after submission, is kind of pointless, don't you think?
The point, I think, is to be more transparent and open about what the CSM is discussing with CCP.
|
Snow Axe
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
546
|
Posted - 2012.11.18 22:40:00 -
[13] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:It's not too late, feedback away. Once we got the OK to do so, we felt it was important for transparency to let the players know what was done.
What "ok" are you talking about? You guys created this document yourselves and submitted it to CCP - are you seriously saying that the NDA is so restrictive that you can't even share things you haven't proposed to CCP yet? |
Seleene
Body Count Inc.
Pandemic Legion
2012
|
Posted - 2012.11.18 22:41:00 -
[14] - Quote
Snow Axe wrote:Well, since it's too late to attempt to give any feedback on this document or even discuss it in any meaningful way, I have to ask: what's the point of this thread? This is the type of thread that should have been posted before it was submitted, to at least see if there's anything you may have missed, arguments about priority/etc, that sort of thing.
No, this was done and submitted over a weekend. It is, as stated, a condensed version of many ideas that are discussed daily.
Snow Axe wrote:Posting it after submission, let alone two weeks after submission, is kind of pointless, don't you think?
It's an FYI / transparency thing to the community to show the mindset of the CSM leading up to the December summit and let folks know what we are talking to CCP about. 
CSM 7 Chairman
My Blog - Where I say stuff
Follow Seleene on Twitter! |
GeeShizzle MacCloud
232
|
Posted - 2012.11.18 22:45:00 -
[15] - Quote
on the whole a good and concise document there guys!
echoing the concerns of others though is the suggestion of removing mineral compression. Although its an understandable angle to take on the problem its prone to being too hard a nerf that actually breaks the system the other way rather than pressuring players that partake in it to do things differently.
another way is to adjust fuel usage for jump freighters so that its economically less feasible to move low end minerals up from highsec even when compressed.
i am unsure how many jump freighter pilots have jump fuel conservation to 5 but i doubt its a large proportion of them. its less of a requirement for such pilots unlike jump drive calibration 5. Adjusting fuel requirements to jump a freighter into their respective nullsec destinations (say on average 1 full range jump) so that with jdc5 is only just on the cusp of profitability will help curb null sec populations usage of highsec low end minerals.
tldr: dont nerf compression, adjust JF's fuel requirements to full distance jumps to curb profitability on moving low ends into null. |
Ugleb
Masuat'aa Matari
Ushra'Khan
265
|
Posted - 2012.11.18 22:48:00 -
[16] - Quote
Snow Axe wrote:Well, since it's too late to attempt to give any feedback on this document or even discuss it in any meaningful way, I have to ask: what's the point of this thread? This is the type of thread that should have been posted before it was submitted, to at least see if there's anything you may have missed, arguments about priority/etc, that sort of thing. Posting it after submission, let alone two weeks after submission, is kind of pointless, don't you think?
This is what the CSM are elected to do. The contents of that document should be summation of everything they have learned of the player community's wishes for EVE's future throughout their term and everything leading up to it that got them elected. It is purpose of the CSM to listen and then speak on our behalf.
The transparency is that we are able to read it before the summit begins, so by all means feedback away.
http://uglebsjournal.wordpress.com/
To contact [-MM-] or [UNITY]:
http://www.masuataa.co.uk/defaul1t.asp - channel "Masuat'aa Public"
http://www.ushrakhan.com/ - channel "Voices U'K" |
corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
858
|
Posted - 2012.11.18 22:55:00 -
[17] - Quote
GeeShizzle MacCloud wrote:on the whole a good and concise document there guys!
echoing the concerns of others though is the suggestion of removing mineral compression. Although its an understandable angle to take on the problem its prone to being too hard a nerf that actually breaks the system the other way rather than pressuring players that partake in it to do things differently.
another way is to adjust fuel usage for jump freighters so that its economically less feasible to move low end minerals up from highsec even when compressed.
i am unsure how many jump freighter pilots have jump fuel conservation to 5 but i doubt its a large proportion of them. its less of a requirement for such pilots unlike jump drive calibration 5. Adjusting fuel requirements to jump a freighter into their respective nullsec destinations (say on average 1 full range jump) so that with jdc5 is only just on the cusp of profitability will help curb null sec populations usage of highsec low end minerals.
tldr: dont nerf compression, adjust JF's fuel requirements to full distance jumps to curb profitability on moving low ends into null.
You obviously do not get it. Mineral compression is less a matter of profit and more a matter of "it's the only way to do production on a meaningful scale in nullsec." Jacking up JF fuel prices does nothing to change that.
This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
fofofo |
Snow Axe
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
546
|
Posted - 2012.11.18 23:02:00 -
[18] - Quote
So I'm not a complete *******, here's some feedback.
It's mostly good. The real problem comes with the "nerf then proposed buff" cycle that corestwo hit on, that CCP tends to nerf first and figure things out later, and people get stuck with the consequences. The Drone Regions are a fine example of that - the nerf removed the drone alloys, which was needed, but the "buff" to bring the Drone Regions in line with the rest of conquerable space just hasn't happened, and the dwellers have suffered because of it (and potential conquerors go out the window).
An example in the doc of where this happens is the Mineral Compression section. The emphasis of it is on breaking compression to entice this sudden, new wave of miners to mine and sell locally, rather than mine and import to Jita for better rates, which a scant closing sentence to "revisiting" station upgrades. In this scenario, the revision to station upgrades (i.e. make them actually worth anything at all) is the most important part of the situation. Right now, anyone who mines in null exports their wares, as there's no real market for it in null, due to industry and building being nearly impossible to do on any scale. A large reason for this is the dearth of industrial facilities in null, and it creates a feedback loop - new miners may look to sell locally, realize there's no market, and then export (or just mine in highsec altogether, with the far smaller differences between highsec ores and nullsec ores isk/m3 wise), while new builders will consider setting up, realize there's no market for minerals along with terrible facilities, and just produce in Empire.
The way your paragraph on the topic is constructed, it sells mineral compression as a barrier to competition in null, rather than a result of null being completely unsuitable to the type of resource extraction that can happen in highsec. Mineral compression exists because mining in null simply cannot supply the lowend mineral demand in its current form. Only once that's actually been rectified, be it by changing ore structures in null/changing contents of grav sites and/or buffing the hell out of null's industrial capacity, can compression seriously be considered for removal.
This may seem nitpicky, but remember that this document isn't just laying out facts to CCP, it's trying to sell them that what's presented is the way to go, and your presentation of core issues (or the lack thereof) leaves a LOT to be desired.
So yeah, that's why it would have been a hell of a lot better to share this (or even a draft of this) with the players before submitting this to CCP.
|
Bloodpetal
Mimidae Risk Solutions
1044
|
Posted - 2012.11.18 23:09:00 -
[19] - Quote
Not finding anything profound in that document for myself.
It's a good document for those getting a handle on things and are totally out of the information loop.
POS' then Ring Mining then other little ****.
Along the way, give us a new Industry UI (FOR GODS SAKE) and then new Corporate Roles/Titles (you need this for better DUST integration, so I know it's coming.)
The SHINY stuff IS the old broken stuff at this point.
SHINY SOV SYSTEM! Is going to attract players.
SHINY POS SYSTEM! Is going to attract new players.
Those are in themselves amazing features that you can spin as brand new and creative products if you offer them up correctly.
Where I am. |
Chitsa Jason
DEEP-SPACE CO-OP LTD
Exhale.
166
|
Posted - 2012.11.18 23:15:00 -
[20] - Quote
It is weird that WIS is not mentioned at all.
Would be nice to see iteration or no iteration plan on it.
|
|
|
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir.
Noir. Mercenary Group
751
|
Posted - 2012.11.18 23:15:00 -
[21] - Quote
Snow Axe wrote:So yeah, that's why it would have been a hell of a lot better to share this (or even a draft of this) with the players before submitting this to CCP.
This was simply not possible due to both the timeframe and the NDA. That is why getting feedback now is all the more important.
As to your point about the order of improving 0.0 industrial capacity and breaking mineral compression, you wont get any argument that mineral compression is the only way 0.0 industry can function right now. If that were to change, which is something i feel all three examples contributed to in a different way, there is no reason to keep mineral compression, and removing it would have the benefit of allowing local mining to thrive without old habits suppressing that activity.
So your point is well taken, but I don't think this document advocates anything but taking steps to fix 0.0 before ******* it.
"Alekseyev Karrde: mercenary of my heart."-á
-Arydanika, Voices from the Void
CSM7 rep, CSM 4 vet
Noir./Noir. Academy Recruiting: www.noirmercs.com |
GeeShizzle MacCloud
232
|
Posted - 2012.11.18 23:16:00 -
[22] - Quote
corestwo wrote:GeeShizzle MacCloud wrote:on the whole a good and concise document there guys!
echoing the concerns of others though is the suggestion of removing mineral compression. Although its an understandable angle to take on the problem its prone to being too hard a nerf that actually breaks the system the other way rather than pressuring players that partake in it to do things differently.
another way is to adjust fuel usage for jump freighters so that its economically less feasible to move low end minerals up from highsec even when compressed.
i am unsure how many jump freighter pilots have jump fuel conservation to 5 but i doubt its a large proportion of them. its less of a requirement for such pilots unlike jump drive calibration 5. Adjusting fuel requirements to jump a freighter into their respective nullsec destinations (say on average 1 full range jump) so that with jdc5 is only just on the cusp of profitability will help curb null sec populations usage of highsec low end minerals.
tldr: dont nerf compression, adjust JF's fuel requirements to full distance jumps to curb profitability on moving low ends into null. You obviously do not get it. Mineral compression is less a matter of profit and more a matter of "it's the only way to do production on a meaningful scale in nullsec." Jacking up JF fuel prices does nothing to change that.
well if its not profitability and more of a case of ease of movement, then nerfing movement is going to hinder movement of minerals IN nullsec not just from high to null.
what about the compression being a nullsec activity / only achievable in nullsec stations via a station service? |
Snow Axe
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
546
|
Posted - 2012.11.18 23:21:00 -
[23] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:This was simply not possible due to both the timeframe and the NDA. That is why getting feedback now is all the more important.
As to your point about the order of improving 0.0 industrial capacity and breaking mineral compression, you wont get any argument that mineral compression is the only way 0.0 industry can function right now. If that were to change, which is something i feel all three examples contributed to in a different way, there is no reason to keep mineral compression, and removing it would have the benefit of allowing local mining to thrive without old habits suppressing that activity.
So your point is well taken, but I don't think this document advocates anything but taking steps to fix 0.0 before ******* it.
It also doesn't advocate making goddamned sure that they fix things before taking away, and that's even more important than any of the ideas contained within. There was nary a breath spent on any of that. To put it simply, they asked you to sell them on changes to their design philosophy, and you gave them a wish list of Things You'd Like To See.
I'd say that you guys suck at communicating, but let's be honest, we knew that already. This little bit of transparency just shows us that you suck at communicating with CCP just as much as you suck communicating with us. |
Raid'En
Devil's Depot
173
|
Posted - 2012.11.18 23:34:00 -
[24] - Quote
interesting.
However I'm sad thinking CCP would need 3 years to tackle all of these things :(
crucible, inferno and revelation made lots of good things come true, but I consider they don't deliver enough... mostly because what I really wait are what are written on this document ; sov remake, pos remake, and industry remake... and this incarna we're still waiting for also. |
Seleene
Body Count Inc.
Pandemic Legion
2015
|
Posted - 2012.11.18 23:41:00 -
[25] - Quote
Just want to add this bit - this document is in no way a stand alone proposal. It represents just one piece of a much larger engagement with CCP over several weeks. There have been multiple voice meeting sessions and other exchanges of ideas along with the normal daily chatter. This document just serves as a good way of capturing what most of these discussions have been about lately.
CSM 7 Chairman
My Blog - Where I say stuff
Follow Seleene on Twitter! |
Trebor Daehdoow
Dirt Nap Squad
Dirt Nap Squad.
2340
|
Posted - 2012.11.18 23:43:00 -
[26] - Quote
I think you might find it more illuminating to focus on the first half of the document, which describes the problem (balancing the needs of current and potential players) and a proposed change in development strategy that addresses the problem. The second half are just examples that illustrate how that strategy could be applied.
While I'm sure we all can argue ad nauseum as to why our personal pet issue is the most critical and must be addressed ASAP, the key problem to my mind is finding a development strategy that addresses both CCP's business goals while at the same time providing the resources to address any of the critical issues.
tl/dr: focus on the forest, not on the trees (or the shrubberies).
The Sarcasm is Strong with Me GÇó Member of CSM 5-7 GÇó Blog |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous
Late Night Alliance
3333
|
Posted - 2012.11.18 23:44:00 -
[27] - Quote
Chitsa Jason wrote:It is weird that WIS is not mentioned at all.
Would be nice to see iteration or no iteration plan on it.
CCP Unifex gave the community an update on the future of Incarna back in October, here is the link so you can read the official statement from CCP on Walking in Stations / Walking in Space content.
Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
Grojar Flesp
SQS Group
0
|
Posted - 2012.11.18 23:53:00 -
[28] - Quote
Hi there,
Read the doc (well scanned it and read the interesting bits) and I have to say: "meh".
Tbh I can understand all the focus on 0.0 sec and sovereignty and such but for me? No, I don't care, I don't want to go to null sec, I am quite happy here in High Sec. There is a lot of stuff already going on in null sec so why focus on that even more?
Ok, so I have heard that a lot of nothing is going on in null sec as well. Ok, let's expand high sec towards low sec and low sec towards null sec. If you claim a sector, get your own sec status (positive, or negative, what ever you want). From a role-playing perspective I have always found it hard to believe that a successful corporation didn't expand into low sec and brought their own justice with them. Once the system had been populated (this doesn't have to be a single NPC corp, but could consist out of a conglomerate) then the security status could be transformed to high sec. Better even, let the NPC be owned by the players themselves.
Oh yeah, one of my major problems with this: "Don't tell me what to do, don't tell me to go to low or null sec, I don't wanna."
I consider myself a newb in most Eve things, but I enjoy the relative safety of High Sec, it suits me. Let me keep it that way.
Regards and all that sort of stuff.
Grojar Flesp |
GeeShizzle MacCloud
233
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 00:03:00 -
[29] - Quote
to be fair grojar the next expansion on dec 4th is full of stuff for people in highsec and lowsec, and not too much for nullsec... so yahh this doc may not be full of things for you specifically but thats because a lot of the good stuff is actually being finalised right now!
|
corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
859
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 00:06:00 -
[30] - Quote
GeeShizzle MacCloud wrote:corestwo wrote:GeeShizzle MacCloud wrote:on the whole a good and concise document there guys!
echoing the concerns of others though is the suggestion of removing mineral compression. Although its an understandable angle to take on the problem its prone to being too hard a nerf that actually breaks the system the other way rather than pressuring players that partake in it to do things differently.
another way is to adjust fuel usage for jump freighters so that its economically less feasible to move low end minerals up from highsec even when compressed.
i am unsure how many jump freighter pilots have jump fuel conservation to 5 but i doubt its a large proportion of them. its less of a requirement for such pilots unlike jump drive calibration 5. Adjusting fuel requirements to jump a freighter into their respective nullsec destinations (say on average 1 full range jump) so that with jdc5 is only just on the cusp of profitability will help curb null sec populations usage of highsec low end minerals.
tldr: dont nerf compression, adjust JF's fuel requirements to full distance jumps to curb profitability on moving low ends into null. You obviously do not get it. Mineral compression is less a matter of profit and more a matter of "it's the only way to do production on a meaningful scale in nullsec." Jacking up JF fuel prices does nothing to change that. well if its not profitability and more of a case of ease of movement, then nerfing movement is going to hinder movement of minerals IN nullsec not just from high to null. what about the compression being a nullsec activity / only achievable in nullsec stations via a station service?
Dumb, since the point of compression is to get minerals there in the first place.
Frankly I disagree that it should be needed at all, even in the ideal scenario, but I'm posting from a phone and can't articulate my reasoning as easily; it'll have to wait.
E: to make it clear to people it may not be clear to, "compression" is building things like large guns with a high amount of minerals relative to their volume, not rorqual compression. Just to make the topic clear.
This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
fofofo |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |