|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Snow Axe
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
546
   |
Posted - 2012.11.18 22:32:00 -
[1] - 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? |
Snow Axe
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
546
|
Posted - 2012.11.18 22:40:00 -
[2] - 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? |
Snow Axe
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
546
|
Posted - 2012.11.18 23:02:00 -
[3] - 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.
|
Snow Axe
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
546
|
Posted - 2012.11.18 23:21:00 -
[4] - 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. |
Snow Axe
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
546
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 00:32:00 -
[5] - Quote
GeeShizzle MacCloud wrote:The proposal is to remove compression all together.
And he's telling you that's a stupid approach to take, since compression is a symptom of the problem that supply can't be met in nullsec, not the other way around. Mineral importation of any form is only done because the supplies simply cannot be reliably sourced locally, and thus compression is used to optimize that process. Removing compression does nothing to solve the problem of low supply of minerals (esp. lowends) in nullsec while making things even harder for nullsec producers for no reason.
Suggesting removal of compression as a fix to anything would be akin to buying a bottle of cough syrup for someone with terminal lung cancer. |
Snow Axe
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
548
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 00:48:00 -
[6] - Quote
GeeShizzle MacCloud wrote:LOL i can tell you dont read things through and just skim read as im NOT saying that i am in favour of the complete removal of compression altogether, its great when people quote you completely out of context, cause it just makes u look bad at arguments.
removal of compression altogether (as said in the doc that this thread is all about) is a BAD thing. it'll impact all manufacturing everywhere negatively. i am in fact NOT promoting this.
You've been arguing the finer points of minerals moving to and from nullsec and how to make it harder since your first post in this thread, first with your JF fuel changes, your "maybe it can only be done in null" thing, etc. Even doing this shows you seem to be under the same mistaken impression as the CSM - that somehow mineral compression is even part of the reason that the supply of lowends is insufficient for large scale production in nullsec. What I've argued (and seemingly what corestwo has so far, though I don't presume to speak for him) is that this is false, and that focusing on compression as something that needs action one way or the other does a disservice to any attempt to actually fix the real problem with industry in 0.0.
Aleks posted earlier in the thread something along the lines of "when, and only when nullsec industry is fixed, then compression should be removed". What we're saying is that once nullsec industry is "fixed", you won't even need to remove compression as it won't be done anymore.
edit: I'll even go a step further as to why this is A Bad Thing. The fact that mineral compression even made the sort of narrow-yet-important scope of this document (think Mittani's "sucking chest wounds") is a sign that the CSM has a poor grasp on what the problems with nullsec really are. The fact that it got its own paragraph (in a category that referenced station upgrades, no less) should worry the hell out of anyone who actually expects effective representation of the game's issues. |
Snow Axe
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
549
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 02:05:00 -
[7] - Quote
Two step wrote:The NDA argument is dumb. The point is not the legal details of what the NDA covers or doesn't cover. CCP asked us for the document, and releasing it to the public ASAP would have greatly hurt the discussion between us and CCP. We released the document as soon as we were able to do so without hurting the process.
If you don't see how not being able to share your own visions on Eve Online: A Bad Game with other players before you submit it to CCP without it violating NDA is a bad thing, then I'm not sure what to say. At this point it's either the NDA is ridiculous, or invoking the NDA to explain away a failure to communicate with players is bullshit. I'll let you guys pick which it is! |
Snow Axe
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
549
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 02:13:00 -
[8] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:Snow Axe, the issue is basic diplomacy, not the NDA.
Considering how often they invoke the NDA (much to the surprise of what few people still try to wrangle public info out of them), they've made it an issue whether they like it or not. |
Snow Axe
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
550
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 02:46:00 -
[9] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:I look forward to you engaging on the substance of the document instead of derailing this thread and attacking my character.
You could also respond to the other people "engaging on the substance of the document". Or was their "engagement" not favourable enough?
GeeShizzle MacCloud wrote:okay i think i understand where you guys are coming from. Its a case of supply and demand.
...
The smaller alliances more often then not do not have the pick of the available systems in null so they have to make a series of less desirable systems work for them. The removal of compression altogether would make this even harder.
Yeah, we're basically on the same page. You're right about the removal of compression potentially being a bad thing even post-null fixes. I think the key we should all take away from this is that even discussing compression before nullsec industry is given non-joke status is giving it way too much importance on its own. |
Snow Axe
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
550
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 06:11:00 -
[10] - Quote
Seleene wrote:A word on getting lost in the weeds - debating the finer points of the specifics of this document (mineral compression, etc...) is all well and good, but you could literally create a forum thread for each one. We are not wedded to any particular WAY of accomplishing said points, we just want to see CCP address these points and put resources into fixing / finishing them. [:)
Mineral compression isn't a point that CCP should be even addressing (not yet, anyway), so to see it included on a short, concise list of major issues is a concern. It needs to be de-emphasized in anything going forward, lest you give the developers the impression that "fixing" compression would actually benefit the game at all (it really wouldn't).
I'm sorry to keep harping on it, but your own presentation of the issue in this document suggests that you don't actually understand why mineral compression even exists, let alone what the positives/negatives of it are. That's something far too large to chalk up to "getting lost in the weeds".
(note that when I say "your", I mean whatever CSM members were involved with creating or approving the document, not you specifically. Should be obvious, but better safe than sorry  ) |
|
|
Snow Axe
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
552
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 07:09:00 -
[11] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:I'm sorry too ;p
I understand what mineral compression is, and that it's current use is an unintended side effect. Where we're diverging is a philosophical difference, I guess - your document suggests that once null mining and industry has enough opportunities for miners, it'd have to be removed to give these new miners opportunities. The argument against that is that if mining can actually accomodate the demand for minerals in null, mineral compression (importation, anyway) will cease to exist in any meaningful way all on its own.
If at any point I've given the impression that I think the CSM blindly advocated for its removal, I apologize. I know you haven't, not directly anyway. Your document definitely does consider it as something that can only come after buffs are made. The worry is that even including it on the list at all gives the impression that it's a far bigger issue than it really is (the rest of the issues are huge), it sends the message that mineral compression is a big problem, which could lead to problems if CCP decides to implement your suggestions, but not in the order you present them (let's say they go from easiest to implement to hardest, instead of your order).
If you want an extreme tl;dr (I wish I'd think of these BEFORE rambling on end...), it's that mineral compression isn't a big deal, "fixing" it accomplishes nothing as its borne of necessity rather than desire, and it has no place on a list of major issues.
|
Snow Axe
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
553
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 08:01:00 -
[12] - Quote
Peter Powers wrote:and either i got your paper wrong, or wtf?
veteran needs are 10% shinys and 90% iteration?
whats wrong with you?
i'm a veteran, and i wan't new shinys.
Try not to focus on the exact specifics of the percentage numbers, and just think of it more of a representation - the idea that, to your average vet, fixing the game that exists is generally going to be more important than adding new stuff. It's not saying you don't want or won't get new stuff, it's saying that the priority will generally be "make the game I pay for work the way it should" over "give me new things". Think of the Summer of Rage as that sentiment turning into action.
Besides, the overall message is not to get too focused on either side without giving due attention to the other.
|
Snow Axe
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
563
|
Posted - 2012.11.20 03:59:00 -
[13] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:You are right. Why bother increasing the entire fleet's DPS by 5% when you could just keep throwing cheaper ships at the enemy until they suffocate on the wreckage?
There, now you understand the key point of sov warfare!
Seriously though, that's basically it. The only time you'll see Titans on grid is if they're hotdropping, shooting structures, escalating a cap brawl, or in the case of the CFC, clicking jump instead of bridge. |
Snow Axe
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
567
|
Posted - 2012.11.20 05:33:00 -
[14] - Quote
The supercap stuff was already addressed by corestwo in this thread ( https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2198403#post2198403 is a link to the specific post). I'd selectively quote but it's all quite good to read. Also if you're one of those people smart enough not to balk at TM.com, http://themittani.com/features/supercap-proliferation-fixing-solved-problem addresses the point as well. |
Snow Axe
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
572
|
Posted - 2012.11.22 00:25:00 -
[15] - Quote
Zaine Maltis wrote:Er... are you channelling Issler Dainze, or have they just stolen your login?
It's custom to repeatedly mock anyone dumb enough to sign their own posts on a forum when their name is literally attached to the content already written.
Issler |
|
|
| |
|