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 |
|
GeeShizzle MacCloud
233
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 00:25:00 -
[31] - Quote
corestwo wrote:GeeShizzle MacCloud wrote:corestwo wrote: 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.
The proposal is to remove compression all together (be it actual compression or compressed minerals in modules).
- The argument for is that itd greatly increase the work for anyone moving low ends into null from high sec.
- The argument against is that itd greatly increase the work for anyone moving minerals anywhere not just from high to null. and therefore will dis-incentivise the movement of minerals everywhere increasing work for ALL manufacturing. (regardless of where it takes place)
As far as i can see it this is essentially what it boils down to, PLEASE correct me if i am wrong here.
The current state of affairs in manufacturing is that most is done in highsec, some in null (mostly capital/supercapital). Movement of freighters is exceptionally risky in null and much less so in high. Hence the much higher use of jump freighters in null than regular freighters.
IF the aim of fixing this is to promote manufacture in null and curb the movement of low ends from high to null in jump freighters.....
.....then removing compression and increasing the size of items used to compress materials (ie 425mm rails) in high sec and allowing a better standard of compression of minerals in null (only in stations and not via rorqual compression) would mean:
- highsec still has large volume transit with relatively little risk with high volume freighters.
- The movement of minerals via jump freighters from high to null is reduced as itd take many more trips moving uncompressed low ends
- The incentive of compressing in null for ease of movement in null to promote manufacture would occur.
|
Snow Axe
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
546
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 00:32:00 -
[32] - 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. |
GeeShizzle MacCloud
233
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 00:40:00 -
[33] - Quote
Snow Axe wrote: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.
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. |
Snow Axe
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
548
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 00:48:00 -
[34] - 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. |
Poetic Stanziel
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
1447
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 01:48:00 -
[35] - Quote
Snow Axe wrote: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? I was going to point this out as well, but I second Snow Axe's question/astonishment.
Amarr Militia |
Poetic Stanziel
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
1447
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 01:51:00 -
[36] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote: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. Your own wishlist on where you all think EVE should be heading is under NDA?
I'd better be careful posting about what I'd like to see out of EVE in the future. I could be sued.
Amarr Militia |
Two step
Aperture Harmonics K162
2277
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 01:59:00 -
[37] - Quote
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. CSM 7 Secretary CSM 6 Alternate Delegate @two_step_eve on Twitter My Blog
|
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor Cosmic Consortium
2082
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 02:01:00 -
[38] - Quote
I can see that no one in the CSM is actively involved in industry. Super yield mining? Create incentives for miners in null by increasing yield? Create incentives for miners in null by breaking mineral compression? Your super capital fleet addiction is showing.
Shiny things for new players: how about being able to set courier or "delivery of material" contracts with POCO hangars as the pickup or drop off? With the POS rework coming, it would be really nice to have POS hangars as pickup/drop off points too. Simple things like this will greatly enhance the prospects for people interested in space trucking as a career.
The article provided by the CSM is entirely too focused on sov holding in nullsec as the definition of what this game is about. Who will be the barbarians pillaging and razing your farms and plundering your fields? What incentives will there be for bitter vets who left the game due to the politics of nullsec to return? Any work on sovereignty has to include some means of ensuring that a small alliance with fewer than a thousand members can achieve something in nullsec. A force as small as fifty pilots in sub capitals should be a significant threat to any alliance.
Why aren't Incursions as good for nullsec income as they are for hisec income (you get 50% higher payouts in lowsec and null)? Why have wardecs reduced the risk of living in hisec? It was the barge buff which broke hisec ganking, not changes to CONCORD (the barge buff also impacted detrimentally on hisec mining income, BTW, but I see no complaint about that in the CSM paper). Gankers are still profitably ganking freighters in Uedama & Niarja. The nullsec bias and propaganda in this paper indicates to me that you folk should take a good hard look at the assumptions you make about the game and your perceptions of other players' motivations for playing.
The first two pages of this paper aren't particularly well thought out. What evidence do CCP or CSM have that new features attract new players? Haven't the numbers shown quite decidedly that new players are attracted by stories such as the GHSC assassination, the collapse of BOB, etc? Wouldn't Quality of Life and UI be the things that attract potentials? Where is the UI from so many teaser videos, CCP? You advertise using this holographic, animated UI, then saddle people with the 2D UI drawn on top of the 3D universe. I don't doubt that new/shinier/fixed stuff brings back lapsed players, much like new expansions bring back the "wonder what it is like now" crowd to most MMOs for however long it takes the novelty to wear off.
What I feel will attract more potentials is a more meaningful way to interact with people during the first few hours of play: a pilots lounge, a shared emoting space where you can be an actual person instead of a spaceship. Where is EVE's Ironforge or Dalaran? There need be nothing to do there other than see and be seen. Enhance the ability to be recruited right off the bat: allow for corporate uniforms (and corp/alliance logos in chat channel portraits) so new players can more easily appreciate that certain corps have more players active during their play time. The people who look at EVE and stay are comfortable with being a spaceship all the time. How many of the potentials who don't stay end up leaving because they want to have a person avatar? The future of Incarna is shooting in structures, but I really do wonder how much of an impact a space barbie play house will have on retaining new players.
The five pillars presented by the CSM are a very comfortable statement that CSM perceives CCP's current direction a seeing the right one. This direction is great for the moment, but CSM seems entirely blinkered in the mindset of nullsec sov holding alliances being the only place for players to go.
Not listed in the list of pillars is the invisible sixth pillar of communication. The massive face-saving that CCP did between Incarna and Inferno was as much due to CCP GÇ£lifting the skirtsGÇ¥ as it was about the refocus on flying in space. There must be leaks from the skunkworks! CSM needs to keep reminding CCP that devblogs are appreciated (just as we players do too). Pushing the issue of e.g: defaulting dev posts to unflagged will enhance communication (and different flag colours for game devs vs community devs vs CSM vs ISD vs CCP Punkturis) will be iteration in the community & communication space.
Acknowledge that pillar so that you are reminded about communication yourselves, most silent of CSMs.
Day 0 advice for new players: Day 0 Advice for New Players |
Poetic Stanziel
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
1449
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 02:03:00 -
[39] - 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. A much more reasonable explanation. Glad to see you not using the NDA as an excuse/weapon against communicating with the playerbase as Aleks and Hans so often do.
Amarr Militia |
Snow Axe
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
549
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 02:05:00 -
[40] - 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! |
|
Poetic Stanziel
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
1450
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 02:09:00 -
[41] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:I can see that no one in the CSM is actively involved in industry. Super yield mining? Create incentives for miners in null by increasing yield? Create incentives for miners in null by breaking mineral compression? Your super capital fleet addiction is showing. It was stated a couple months ago that all the mineral compression numbers were being spreadsheeted by Kelduum and that he was looking for a solution in this regard to nullsec industry. Who better qualified to do that than the CEO of EVE University? Amarr Militia |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor Cosmic Consortium
2082
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 02:10:00 -
[42] - Quote
Snow Axe, the issue is basic diplomacy, not the NDA. Day 0 advice for new players: Day 0 Advice for New Players |
Snow Axe
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
549
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 02:13:00 -
[43] - 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. |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor Cosmic Consortium
2082
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 02:17:00 -
[44] - Quote
Poetic Stanziel wrote:Mara Rinn wrote:I can see that no one in the CSM is actively involved in industry. Super yield mining? Create incentives for miners in null by increasing yield? Create incentives for miners in null by breaking mineral compression? Your super capital fleet addiction is showing. It was stated a couple months ago that all the mineral compression numbers were being spreadsheeting by Kelduum and that he was looking for a solution in this regard to nullsec industry. Who better qualified to do that than the CEO of EVE University?
How involved is Kelduun with the process of mining, refining, T1 manufacture, invention, T2 materials acquisition, T2 production, T3 materials acquisition, reactions, and the limitations of storage and production facilities?
Mineral compression is one tiny part of a much larger puzzle. Changing mineral compressions will impact other areas such as ammunition capacity for spaceships, for example. I look forward to Kelduun's findings.
Day 0 advice for new players: Day 0 Advice for New Players |
Poetic Stanziel
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
1450
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 02:31:00 -
[45] - Quote
Poetic Stanziel wrote:Alekseyev Karrde wrote: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. Your own wishlist on where you all think EVE should be heading is under NDA? I'd better be careful posting about what I'd like to see out of EVE in the future. I could be sued. Aleks challenged me to find an instance of him using the NDA disingenuously, as an excuse for lack of communication with the playerbase. I offer up his reason for not coming to the players first, because of the NDA, as a good example of just that. Even though the NDA has no bearing on this document at all. Unless CCP actually can claim ownership of his (and the CSMs) ideas.
https://twitter.com/grrusso/status/270352348612808704
I look forward to my PLEX, Aleks. Amarr Militia |
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
757
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 02:36:00 -
[46] - Quote
CCP's strategic planning process is by its nature proprietary. This document was released without any NDA edits as soon as CCP gave us the time they were "done."
I look forward to you engaging on the substance of the document instead of derailing this thread and attacking my character. "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
235
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 02:38:00 -
[47] - Quote
okay i think i understand where you guys are coming from. Its a case of supply and demand. if the supply isnt there in say local null then manufacturers will import regardless, and if the 'rug' that allows them to do so is perpetually pulled from under them (compression) then regardless of some special case compression where they are, the compression on nothing is still nothing.
Null sec mining does need to be remedied prior to any screwing around with compression, i get that.
The point i was trying to put across is the total removal of compression would hurt null manufacturing even with a healthy supply of minerals as movement is an important and necessary factor of the process. Albeit not as much as it is currently, but thats only because null sec doesnt have a healthy supply side of the formula.
What needs to be taken into account is that in order to not create an unfair artificial barrier of entry for industry in null sec the removal of compression would make industry in small recently established null sec entities much more difficult and taxing, meaning itd only really occur in strong established alliances and coalitions.
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. |
Snow Axe
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
550
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 02:46:00 -
[48] - 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. |
corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
861
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 02:47:00 -
[49] - Quote
Poetic Stanziel wrote:It was stated a couple months ago that all the mineral compression numbers were being spreadsheeted by Kelduum and that he was looking for a solution in this regard to nullsec industry. Who better qualified to do that than the CEO of EVE University? Someone who knows what they're talking about, has done it. Bonus points for having done it at multiple points throughout Eve's history, both before and after jump freighters were introduced.
*coughs*
Anyway.
Snow Axe wrote: 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
Snow Axe scores the point on the tl;dr.
Here's the long and the short of it when it comes to nullsec industry and logistics: When given the choice, we will do whatever is most convenient, even if it costs us more to do it.
Now, early in the game, there was no choice. If we wanted battleships in nullsec, we either flew them individually in convoys, imported them in freighter ops, or stuffed a carrier's bays full of compressed minerals, jumped them to our build point, refined them, very carefully freightered them to a build station, built, and (if necessary) freightered them to a sale station. Convenience factor goes to the compressed minerals - only one person has to suffer, everyone else who wants a battleship merely pays the (oftentimes hefty) markup.
At some point later, jump freighters were introduced. Huge cost? Worth it! If nothing else they represented a massive increase in the amount of compressed minerals we could import. Score! Of course, as is the case today, we quickly figured out that we'd much rather do ten times as many jump freighter trips (and pay the associated 10x fuel bill) shipping finished hulls than we would shipping compressed minerals if it meant we got to not do nullsec freighter work. Heck, seeing as a round trip of a jump freighter is faster than a round trip between factory and refinery in nullsec and that I wouldn't have to do as many freighter trips in empire (as finished hulls are more compressed than minerals themselves), I'm even saving my time.
As an aside, we literally ran the invasion of scalding pass, the destruction of Lokta Volterra, and much of the invasion of BoB controlled space on the backs of a couple of guys with carriers and (later) a mothership. So if anyone tries to tell me that Jump Freighters are somehow why empires these days are so big, I laugh in their face at their ignorance.
Back to the topic. If you give me the means to acquire my minerals locally, via buy orders located in the improved station in which I can build and those miners selling me minerals can refine, you bet I'll take that option, provided that mining volume can supply me with what I need. No freighter work, no jump freighter work, and paying miners Jita buy prices for the minerals will be a bargain to them - they'd get less after shipping. Win win all around.
So that's the end result, the tl;dr from Snow Axe's statement, the first argument against nerfing compression. Give me the means to do get minerals locally, and I won't bother doing compression anymore, because I won't have to.
But, there's a catch there, and that catch is the second argument against nerfing compression. "If I can get what I need." Can (or will) miners supply the war machine? Who knows. Maybe not. Perhaps nullsec demand is simply too high to run locally. If CCP is absolutely determined to nerf compression, then I'd argue that they leave it in after implementing meaningful local supply, just to make sure that removing it isn't going to break and kill nullsec. They can always remove it at a later patch.
Third argument? Give players the choice. If they want to pay the premium in fuel to import finished hulls, maybe because they're bad at forward planning and need them now, let them. If they are good at forward planning, are able to setup the buy orders and source their supplies locally, let them. And, if they don't want to deal with what is assuredly going to be a smaller mineral volume than Jita can deliver, and so would rather spend the time in empire compressing minerals, let them. Eve is a sandbox game, and unless there's a damn good reason for it, player choice should not be restricted.
Which, brings me to my final argument. That "damn good choice". I know that Aleks, at least, has a bit of an axe to grind regarding super. Compression needs to be nerfed, he argues, because the rate of proliferation is too high.
Hogwash. I've partially addressed that already. CCP's nerfs to supercarriers and then titans significantly dropped the rate at which they were built. It may even be lower now - my numbers were from May and so are nearly six months old at this point. Nerfing compression to nerf supercap proliferation is the wrong approach. First, as I very plainly stated above, players will get around it. If we have to pay more to do it, we will. But second, it's attacking the wrong problem. Nerfing proliferation does nothing to the thousands of supercaps already in existence, does nothing to fix the fact that they almost never die. Take care of that problem - by giving players even more reasons to make war on each other, by nerfing their defensive capabilities, by adding a supercap sized focused warp disruptor module so that supercaps themselves can tackle other supercaps, any or all of the above, even ideas I haven't suggested at all, I don't really care - and the vastly diminished proliferation rate will stop being an issue.
Out of letters. here. ~fin~ This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
fofofo |
corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
861
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 02:50:00 -
[50] - Quote
Also, since I just ran myself out of room in that last post:
I call on CCP to respond to this. These are incredibly important subjects to a very large portion of your playerbase. We would like to hear from you on it. This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
fofofo |
|
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
3333
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 02:56:00 -
[51] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote: Mineral compression is one tiny part of a much larger puzzle. Changing mineral compressions will impact other areas such as ammunition capacity for spaceships, for example.
And with all changes that have unintended side effects beyond the problem they are trying to solve, mineral compression isn't something to be undertaken lightly. I'm not personally sold on the idea that this needs to be a priority, I'd much rather CCP look at the issue of mineral distribution in lowsec first before nerfing the supply to a region that already has trouble supporting itself, during the time we're trying to make that region of space attractive to live in the first place.
The minute you delve into the details about each topic touched upon in the document, you'll start seeing difference in how each of us as individual representatives would tackle the problem. Keep in mind the purpose of the document was not to prescribe explicit solutions (we can have more focused discussions on the individual topics in separate threads) as much it was to help CCP realize that 1.) They need to tackle some key economic issues next year and not be afraid of major undertakings and 2.) They don't have to give up on either iterations OR the need to showcase new features if they adopt a holistic approach to their expansion-building efforts.
Snow Axe wrote:Also, another question for clarification: Who came up with the idea for this document? Aleks' OP says that the CSM proposed creating it, while the header of the document seems to say that CCP Ripley requested it.
Both are correct. During a meeting where CCP indicated that they were beginning the process of zeroing in on the scope of the expansion content to be tackled in the coming year, we offered to share feedback about what we were hearing from the players in terms of both the big issues to be worked on as well as the expressing the restlessness many of you have described regarding CCP's struggle with hitting the "sweet spot" between Jesus Features and more iterative patch-like expansions in the style of Crucible, Inferno, and Retribution. CCP Ripley said she was interested and gave us a window of time to get a statement together, which we than spent the weekend working on. The result is what is linked in the OP. Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
Arydanika
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
172
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 03:05:00 -
[52] - Quote
Kudos to the CSM for the transparency. Efforts like this have been asked for time and time again by the community. It's great to see CSM 7 delivering what you promised. Just don't get too complacent. I'm sure this document will create many questions. Luckly for all involved the CSM Town Hall meeting is coming soonGäó and that is the perfect forum for those questions to be answered.
When I first saw this, I was worried about reading an "open letter" and I'm glad this is not that. It's good to know CCP is soliciting feedback from the CSM. It's also good to know what the CSM is advising CCP of. Some positive points about the document are the designation of player interest groups and balancing the impact of expansions. The CSM seems to have a fairly decent handle on what the players are asking for. The true test will come if and when CCP takes this document in to considersation when going forward with their plans.
The portions on game design I can't really comment on. I'm no game developer and have no idea what's truly right for Eve. I can say with some assurity, these items are all something I've personally heard players comment on and they all desired a change for the better. I don't think the CSM is far off on what they feel are key community conserns. That said, I'm not sure how all of this fits in to what CCP had planned or in production.
Still, great to see this kind of transparency and communication. I certainly hope this keeps up.
Runner of Voices from the Void podcast, Eve Online Pod Pack & DJ on eve-radio.com Sundays at 1800.-á Organizer of the ATX Eve Online Meet. GÖÑ |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
3334
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 03:11:00 -
[53] - Quote
Poetic Stanziel wrote:Poetic Stanziel wrote:Alekseyev Karrde wrote: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. Your own wishlist on where you all think EVE should be heading is under NDA? I'd better be careful posting about what I'd like to see out of EVE in the future. I could be sued. Aleks challenged me to find an instance of him using the NDA disingenuously, as an excuse for lack of communication with the playerbase. I offer up his reason for not coming to the players first, because of the NDA, as a good example of just that. Even though the NDA has no bearing on this document at all. Unless CCP actually can claim ownership of his (and the CSMs) ideas. https://twitter.com/grrusso/status/270352348612808704I look forward to my PLEX, Aleks.
To second Two Step, this whole NDA obsession is peripheral to this document and this situation. What is covered by NDA is exactly which meetings we have with CCP, and when, and about which topics. That NDA is lifted when CCP makes that information known themselves, or allows us to, or once the terms of our NDA contract expire.
What we specifically say to CCP, in terms of a document like this, is not. Aleks is correct in that announcing to the players "We've had this meeting with management about these issues and they're interested in these topics" does risk NDA violation even if we still retain ownership of our own advice to CCP.
Thankfully, we're talking about a very short timeframe here that the players weren't aware such a conversation existed, and what is important here is that we were able to move on an opportunity to share high-level advice with CCP management in a timely fashion before they outline their own plans for next year. There is still plenty of time to fine tune specific topic advice in the weeks ahead according to the summit topics schedule, which should be announced sometime this week. Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
879
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 03:18:00 -
[54] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:To second Two Step, this whole NDA obsession is peripheral to this document and this situation. What is covered by NDA is exactly which meetings we have with CCP, and when, and about which topics. That NDA is lifted when CCP makes that information known themselves, or allows us to, or once the terms of our NDA contract expire.
Going to echo this. There is a time and a place to castigate the CSM for any failures, perceived or otherwise. This thread, one that we'd very much like CCP to comment on, and comment on in a positive light rather than a "what are you children squabbling about", isn't it.
You in particular, Poe, have a blog. Do it there. This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
fofofo |
GeeShizzle MacCloud
235
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 03:46:00 -
[55] - Quote
corestwo wrote:Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:To second Two Step, this whole NDA obsession is peripheral to this document and this situation. What is covered by NDA is exactly which meetings we have with CCP, and when, and about which topics. That NDA is lifted when CCP makes that information known themselves, or allows us to, or once the terms of our NDA contract expire. Going to echo this. There is a time and a place to castigate the CSM for any failures, perceived or otherwise. This thread, one that we'd very much like CCP to comment on, and comment on in a positive light rather than a "what are you children squabbling about", isn't it. You in particular, Poe, have a blog. Do it there.
Well said corestwo, and of course you too Hans!
+1 |
Poetic Stanziel
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
1448
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 04:10:00 -
[56] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:CCP's strategic planning process is by its nature proprietary. You could have released the document without ever having run it by CCP ... and you would have not been in any legal trouble for having done so. There was no requirement to submit the document first into CCP's "proprietary" planning process. Amarr Militia |
None ofthe Above
360
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 04:49:00 -
[57] - Quote
I appreciate the disclosure of the document and the conversations that it is spawning.
It must have been an interesting couple of weeks so I won't second guess the CSM as to the process. It seems reasonable to tread lightly for a short period of time. Thank you for getting it out there.
I understand how, even if it is too late to shape the document before it goes to CCP, that their strategic thinking can still benefit for the wider conversation here. So kudos for taking advantage of the opportunity but still including the community.
On a strategic level I have to admit, the document makes some good points, but seems to me to be stating the blindingly obvious. Perhaps it was something that needed to be said though.
Of course CCP needs to strike a balance between iteration (little things and big fixes) and innovation. Pointing out the player age is a good characteristic. I would go further and point out that it needs to be matrixed by role: Missioners, Industrialists, Null sec empire builders, High Sec pirates, Fashionistas, Explorers, Faction Warriors, Worm Hole Dwellers, Etc. Each need at least little attention over the releases or they start feeling neglected and forgotten, particularly if there are large broken systems afflicting them. (Although some, particular wormholers, might not like attention and shakeups if the changes are not well thought out, so some caution advised.)
Likewise, the game needs the shakeups and the new features, just can't put everything else on hold while they are doing it.
I like the foundation and deliver suggestion, although not sure that wasn't what they where doing anyway.
I might suggest a short term iteration and maintenance team and a long term team. Those could even potentially swap every year and let the long term team switch to maintaining and tweaking their creation. Maybe that is overly simplistic but that dual focus is what is needed.
On the more tactical level, Twocores gives a pretty good analysis on the problems with calling out compression without fixing the underlying nullsec industry problem. Thanks to you and Snowaxe for piping up, and giving really good detail beyond the obvious. That shows how important it was to get this document out to a wider audience.
EVE is a sandbox; The only "end-game" content in EVE is the crap that makes you rage-quit.
|
Seleene
Body Count Inc. Pandemic Legion
2016
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 05:43:00 -
[58] - Quote
None ofthe Above wrote:On a strategic level I have to admit, the document makes some good points, but seems to me to be stating the blindingly obvious. Perhaps it was something that needed to be said though.
You pretty much nailed it. In the context of the discussions we've been having with CCP, this document highlights what the CSM considers to be the, "Hey, FOCUS!" topics for CCP in the coming months. It is now up to we the players to help CCP understand that focusing on these areas is a good thing.
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. CSM 7 Chairman My Blog - Where I say stuff Follow Seleene on Twitter! |
Kelduum Revaan
EVE University Ivy League
1902
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 06:04:00 -
[59] - Quote
Poetic Stanziel wrote:Alekseyev Karrde wrote:CCP's strategic planning process is by its nature proprietary. You could have released the document without ever having run it by CCP ... Well, there's a simple solution to that: Poetic Stanziel for CSM8! Kelduum Revaan CEO, EVE University |
Poetic Stanziel
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
1448
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 06:11:00 -
[60] - Quote
Kelduum Revaan wrote:Poetic Stanziel wrote:Alekseyev Karrde wrote:CCP's strategic planning process is by its nature proprietary. You could have released the document without ever having run it by CCP ... Well, there's a simple solution to that: Poetic Stanziel for CSM8! We all look forward to Kelduum for CSM8, because silence is golden.
Amarr Militia |
|
Snow Axe
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
550
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 06:11:00 -
[61] - 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 ) |
Poetic Stanziel
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
1448
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 06:16:00 -
[62] - Quote
Snow Axe wrote: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). But you're throwing away months of work by Kelduum ... it's the only work he's done. Amarr Militia |
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
759
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 06:39:00 -
[63] - Quote
Snow Axe wrote:
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".
I'm sorry too ;p
Frankly, the way you keep on it suggests to me YOU dont know why mineral compression exists. It exists because way way way way back at the dawn of EVE (before cap ships, let along outposts and supers) CCP made Magic Modules that refine for a larger volume of minerals than the item itself.
Today, players take advantage of this by buying these modules in empire and jumping them out to 0.0 where they are refined and reused for things that can't be purchased from empire (supercaps, for instance) as well as to fill in gaps in producing common daily needs (ammo) because there is no incentive to mine low end minerals in 0.0. This gap exists because CCP has neglected 0.0 broadly and its industrial self sufficiency in particular.
You seem to be under the impression Magic Modules were intentionally put in by CCP to support 0.0 industry. Rather it was just a lack of foresight that players have been taking advantage of to compensate for the lack of 0.0 industrial capacity and viable 0.0 low end mining. If 0.0 had viable, high-volume sources of low end minerals that players would WANT to mine (which is exactly what the example which references mineral compression includes as its headline feature) there's really no reason for Magic Modules to continue to exist. As significant a portion of the player base would like compression removed for one reason or another as want it to stay; if the reason why 0.0 players "need" it were to finally get addressed, both groups could have their concerns laid to rest.
This supports the approach reinforced throughout the entire document: finally commit to addressing long standing sucking chest-wound level problems with EVE's core mechanics, and do so in a way that appeals to mutliple sections of the playerbase (both in activity area and demographic).
It's unfortunate that message was lost in your attachment to a small part of one of three examples included illustrate what that approach could look like in an actual EVE Online expansion. I am, however, thankful for your feedback and the feedback of the rest of the players on both the approach advocated and on the merits of specific recommendations. I would like to reinforce the points made by corestwo and Seleene that if a serious response from CCP is desired, keeping the discussion constructive and somewhat focused on forest vs the trees is important. "Alekseyev Karrde: mercenary of my heart."-á -Arydanika, Voices from the Void
CSM7 rep, CSM 4 vet Noir./Noir. Academy Recruiting: www.noirmercs.com |
Snow Axe
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
552
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 07:09:00 -
[64] - 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.
|
Gilbaron
Free-Space-Ranger Ev0ke
421
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 07:17:00 -
[65] - Quote
mineral compression is not the main problem. a too hefty nerf to mineral compression also comes with another problem, you would not be able to produce :stuff: in 00 and export it to empire tradehubs without huge amounts of boring work. if one thing has to be reduced it is boring work
(some) much bigger problems are:
- the extreme quality of higsec, production lines are basically free and available everywhere, same with high-quality refineries - lack of lowend minerals in 00 (obvious candidate for fixing this is spodumain !) - lack of outposts where both, refinery and production can be done in large scale - a corp role design with an all-or-nothing approach in regards to build-rights |
|
ISD Eshtir
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
209
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 07:36:00 -
[66] - Quote
Stickyfied! ISD Eshtir Vice Admiral Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department |
|
Peter Powers
Terrorists of Dimensions Free 2 Play
95
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 07:42:00 -
[67] - Quote
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. I'm sick of all the new shinys allways being focused on new players. Where is the new Status Symbols? Where is the stuff that i can use to show off "hey im a f'cking veteran"? Where is the new cool toy that i can spend hours with to explore its possibilities?
oh. right. there are new destroyers comming.
3rdPartyEve.net - your catalogue for 3rd party applications |
Snow Axe
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
553
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 08:01:00 -
[68] - 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.
|
Konrad Kane
20
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 08:32:00 -
[69] - Quote
Interesting document, I have a few observations about high sec vs. 0.0/low sec income.
I recently moved out of player held 0.0 space into low/npc null to experience a different aspect of the game. One of the things that struck me was the income nerf. In player held 0.0 the risk of PvE is relativity low and is always available to solo. For example, I'm sure I'm not the only one to have run an anomaly whilst eating their breakfast. This isn't to say if you want to make decent isk in high sec it isn't possible, but it does require a little more effort and time. Compare running an incursion to doing solo exploration for example. One I can pretty much do solo whenever I want, the other I need to get into a fleet, etc.
Many people who live in low/npc null make their isk in high sec because they don't have the relativity low risk environment to make isk that player owned 0.0 often affords. My concern would be that any significant nerf in high sec income would mean fewer of those people being able to do less pvp etc in low/npc and driving more people into player held 0.0 corps and alliances; meaning that the npc/low community redcues.
Obviously player owned sov should provide the most secure, profitable space in the game. Those player groups have had to conquer that space, then invest in it to secure it. The rudimentary mechanisms available to alliance to earn income from those players (for example corp tax only really impact pve income not say traders) and space also seems to cause issues.
So, if you live in player owned 0.0 should you be able to earn an easier, better living from that space than most people? Yes, absolutely. Do they only live their because they can make more isk, I didn't and many of the people I played with didn't. They enjoyed the gameplay of player owned 0.0.
|
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
760
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 08:32:00 -
[70] - Quote
A lack of new veteran content is definitely a problem though, look for the CSM to press that point hard at the Summit. "Alekseyev Karrde: mercenary of my heart."-á -Arydanika, Voices from the Void
CSM7 rep, CSM 4 vet Noir./Noir. Academy Recruiting: www.noirmercs.com |
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange Nabaal Syndicate
5
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 08:32:00 -
[71] - Quote
Poetic Stanziel wrote:Alekseyev Karrde wrote:CCP's strategic planning process is by its nature proprietary. You could have released the document without ever having run it by CCP ... and you would have not been in any legal trouble for having done so. There was no requirement to submit the document first into CCP's "proprietary" planning process.
The goal of the CSM is not to remain in compliance with the letter of their legal agreements, their goal is to get CCP to make a better game. You don't do that by spitting at them. I'm perfectly willing to see a document a day or two later if it means that any would-be ruffled feathers get smoothed down and the CSM has a better chance of actually making a positive contribution to the future of Eve. Just because being a **** is legal doesn't mean it's a good idea. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
5143
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 08:59:00 -
[72] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:A lack of new veteran content is definitely a problem though, look for the CSM to press that point hard at the Summit.
Bear in mind that "new content" needn't necessarily mean "new ships" or "new modules". What we need is new things to do. A good example is bounty-hunting - technically this is already in the game, but in the current system it's basically a place-holder. After Retribution, it will be a viable profession. It will be a New Thing To Do.
Ideally, each expansion would add at least one new thing to do, however minor or niche. MatrixSkye Mk2: "Remember: You consent to unconsensual PVP the moment you press the "Undock" button." |
Poetic Stanziel
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
1448
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 08:59:00 -
[73] - Quote
Herschel Yamamoto wrote:The goal of the CSM is not to remain in compliance with the letter of their legal agreements, their goal is to get CCP to make a better game. You don't do that by spitting at them. I'm perfectly willing to see a document a day or two later if it means that any would-be ruffled feathers get smoothed down and the CSM has a better chance of actually making a positive contribution to the future of Eve. Just because being a **** is legal doesn't mean it's a good idea. These guys are too concerned with potentially upsetting their new besties.
The Mittani, last year, brought the issue of Monocles, the in-game demonstrations, and the failures of Walking in Stations straight to the gaming press, very likely to the consternation of CCP. He was less worried about his besties and more concerned about correcting the course of CCP development on EVE Online.
Given all that, I don't think his relationship with CCP was hurt all that much. (His fanfest gaffe is beside the point.)
The CSM is more concerned with keeping CCP happy than the playerbase, because they live in fear of being denied access if they upset their keepers.
Now this document speaks to correcting development course as well. But it's certainly not time sensitive. CCP won't be roadmapping their next expansion, deciding upon features, until January or February, so there was time to discuss on a public forum first, then they could draft their document.
What we have here is a roadmap that the CSM is already firmly behind (only five or six of them had any legitimate input on the document), and we're meant to accept its direction, more or less, as is. Given that you don't see much discussion happening in this thread, just the CSM defending their stance, speaks to that. Amarr Militia |
Poetic Stanziel
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
1448
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 09:02:00 -
[74] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:After Retribution, it will be a viable profession. It will be a New Thing To Do. Hopefully. The new wardec system was supposed to make mercenaries a viable profession, but that didn't really pan out. Best to see how bounties actually play out once live, rather than make the mistake of assuming it'll do what it's intended to do.
Amarr Militia |
Konrad Kane
21
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 09:23:00 -
[75] - Quote
Poetic Stanziel wrote:These guys are too concerned with potentially upsetting their new besties.
Or maybe they understand collaboration works better when you trust each other?
|
Tornii
Moira. Villore Accords
4
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 09:28:00 -
[76] - Quote
I think it is hard not to agree with 90% of what is outlined in the document.
And, in line with these general outlines, I think it would be good for the CSM to remind CCP of the smallholdings idea for 0.0 when they have such opportunity. That feature could improve so many thinks in nullsec. "If the essence of life is information carried in DNA, then society and civilization are just colossal memory systems." |
Peter Tjordenskiold
31
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 09:30:00 -
[77] - Quote
Cite:
Quote:Rather than replace a Technetium bottleneck with a new bottleneck, care should be taken to balance mineral requirements to avoid built-in bottlenecks while maintaining high-end moons as valuable sources of income. EVEGÇÖs widely touted player-driven market will be empowered to determine which moons have the highest relative value, while providing more PVP conflict drivers.
Rather than to think in terms of moongoo, a player driven economy would include the total financing of entities by players. Moongoo has disadvantages. It causes powerblocks and less pvp because moongoo pays the reimbursement and the loser doen't become the economy to win wars. A player financed alliance or corp is only depending on the player base not on bottlenecks like today. Ift woul be more than like a big social group. Only whenan alliance is able to activate their pilots, they should be able to win a war.
So I propose a different approach:
- encourage alliances to activate pilots for the economical challenges of the alliance . A war should be only possible when an alliance or coalition has the backbones of PVP and industry.
- give the alliances and corp more tools to be social (access rights starbases and production slots, wallet)
|
Zloco Crendraven
BALKAN EXPRESS
87
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 09:47:00 -
[78] - Quote
And again there is no any kind of plan to reanimate lowsec. I know ring mining, POSes would be available for lowsec too, but that doesnt Solve the lowsec problem. What lowsec needs it is a purpose, an identity.
I think CCP sees low sec like a training ground or a road to pass from highsec into null. And i agree to that idea but actual lowsec just doesnt deliver it.
How i see it is that Lowsec should retain 4 kind of player base.
- Militia ( which i think is finally solved and its in a good place), - Stand alone organized corps ( these corps should ve incentives to go live in lowsec, train and prepare for harsh 0.0 space. They should be able to exercise both of their industry and Military capabilities) - Lone wolves (trying to Ninja PvE, exploration, fast mining OPS, prolific missions etc.) - And pirates (Basically if u got the 3 above solved u ll have happy pirates too)
For example i am atm in a lowsec pirate corp and we are atm around militia grounds because its the only active lowsec part for more organized pirate corporations. And guess what, we got almost no ways to gain isk.
So what should be done?
There is need of a rise in reward in lowsec. Those features needs to be doable in small amount of time 1 to tops 2 hours and reward be very high.
Exploring is the way. 6/10 are really good excellent profit time/reward. Only regular visitors from highsec are ppl that do those sites. But there needs to be some more of em. Rise the spawn rate. It will attract ppl from high and null and animate some more low sec PvP. Boost the rewards of 5/10 and 4/10 and make them not to be blitzable. 4/10 to be doable in 20 mins, 5/10 in 30 mins and 6/10 in 40 mins. That is a proper risk/reward ratio. Not too much time to be finished, but still enough time go get probed and caught.
Add 1, 2 and 3/10 to lowsec also and make them a bit more profitable than highsec ones. Those wont boost huge amount of isk to lowsec dwellers cos is not much isk/hour, but will be quite more for the hisghsec inhabitants who could risk their frigates/destroyers/cruisers for some fast income of 20/40/60 of mils per 20/25/30 min of time needed to do them.
lv 1/10 d accept only frigates. Lv 2/10 d accept destroyers and less. lv 3/10 cruisers and less. Remember that the right system d needed to be found, same as the plexe. So its NOT like u d farm 3/10 60mils per 20mins = 180mil but it d be in line btw 50-100 mil per hour if only 1 player clears all. It will be a fast excursion to lowsec, inject some nice ammount of isk and be done for today.
Also lv 4 and 5 missions. Rise the rewards. It should be in line with FW isk/hour.
These changes bring lots of of frigates/destroyers/cruisers from highsec. But also more expensive ships for 4/5/6 of 10. U d see low skill players coming in a group with their frigs, destroyers or cruisers doing those plexes.
What else? Make the gravimetric sites to have all kind of expensive ore but high concetraded. Let say that u d need 5 hulks and an orca full skilled and boosted to empty it in 1 hour. But so they can earn few bills from that asteroid alone. What will happen. There will be some ninja miner ops (who knows maybe rorqs d be used more). Miners could pay to lowsec pirates to protect em or even mercenary groups also. Lot of possibilities rise.
And finally static anomalies. These now in lowsec are useless. Make 2 kind of those anomalies appear in lowsec randomly once a week but in same constellation always and with quite a higher reward. One anomaly d require 5 players minimum to be done cruiser and below and one d require 10 players (BS and below). Would add lots of content, highsec excursions of players or even some wars btw lowsec corps to stay within those anomaly grounds.
2 more things should be considered are Incursions (make them more profitable in lowsec) and make drug production a valuable option in lowsec, it is afterall "Low" security space.
Make some conflict drivers in lowsec not with sov, but with fictional sov. Make constellation around lowsec that have higher radar spawns with higher rewards. Some constellations with awesome belts, gravimetric sites, some with DED complexes. Some with awesome agents that have unique rewards.
These places with static anomalies i mentioned above will drive more organized corporation and pirate corps to fight over them and claim that fictional sov by just chasing the other party away. These changes will attract renters, will add a lot to mercenary market.
These changes with new POSes, ring mining and new agro mechanics that are getting out in December (Finally no 15 mins pause roams) will make lowsec a hit.
HANS please read this and give it a thought. Its everything what lowsec needs. |
Lemon Sorbet
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
4
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 09:54:00 -
[79] - Quote
Poetic Stanziel wrote: The Mittani, last year, brought the issue of Monocles, the in-game demonstrations, and the failures of Walking in Stations straight to the gaming press, very likely to the consternation of CCP. He was less worried about his besties and more concerned about correcting the course of CCP development on EVE Online.
Given all that, I don't think his relationship with CCP was hurt all that much. (His fanfest gaffe is beside the point.)
This is just blatantly twisting history to suit your silly agenda. It's widely known that The Mittani roasted CSM5 for their indignant letter, which huffed and puffed and got REAL MAD at CCP and ended with the council members being labeled "terrorists" by the developers and effectively shut down communications until CSM6 was able to restore the relationship not only through their personal relationships with staff members but also good ole' fashioned diplomacy (Remember, CSM6 included Vile Rat as well).
CSM6 did not hesitate to take a stand publicly when pressed against a wall, but this idea that they got mad at every turn the way you've called out CSM7 for refusing to do is a falsehood. CSM6 understood the value of a cooperative, constructive dialogue with CCP and they spent the first half of their term repairing the credibility of the institution by acting like professionals and friends instead of children throwing tantrums.
Is a similarly professional CSM7 disappointing for a self-proclaimed sperging drama llama with an obsession for hit counters? Yup, but it doesn't mean you get to run around making **** up just to fuel this ridiculous narrative you keep trying to weave. Players are smart and most of them see right through it.
If and when CCP drops the ball and foists another set of Incarna news on the CSM, and they roll over and let it pass without standing up for player concerns, than such allegations will be valid. But in the meantime, please brush up on history (I'll assume for the moment the possibility exists that you're simply ignorant instead of just the manipulative troll that most people see.)
Also, next time you start ranting about transparency - take a moment and read up on that history thing again. I think you'll find a sharp contrast between the minutes that CSM6 outsourced to CCP to handle (talk about too much trust in the company) and CSM7's similar efforts, and maybe read some of the public press releases The Mittani handled where he did everything BUT give specific credit to individual CSM contributions and peel back the curtain into what was actually going on. You're not fooling anyone with your attempts to rewrite events the way you'd like them to be. |
Hakan MacTrew
Caledonian Heavy Industries Sick N' Twisted
24
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 09:56:00 -
[80] - Quote
Having read the document, I think it has covered the 3 key areas that need sorting as a priority.
How they are solved is till up for debate, but I'm sure everyone agree's that these are the area's that need work.
Glad to see more communication between the CSM, CCP and the EVE Community. MODULAR DRONES
MORE ORE SHIPS |
|
Bump Truck
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
13
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 09:58:00 -
[81] - Quote
Love the document, keep up the good work. Pretty much everything I care about is in there and the focus is right (convincing CCP money comes from having an awesome game not pandering to carebears).
Great, good work guys. |
ma perke
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
5
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 09:59:00 -
[82] - Quote
eve has a big problem because still cant reach 55k player levels from 2 years ago. The main reason is that everything is focused on big alliances and less and less players interaction.
in the past it was possible to get 100kils on a single roam! (not blob fight!), now you make 4 hours roam and you cant meet people to kill.
few suggestions: - create more interaction. for instance on completing an anomally you get next annomaly in different system - this will increase traffic i.e. interaction. of course should be ballanced with increased bounties. - decrease station services EHP, so that it be possible for a small gang to kill it in reasonable time(no more than 10min for 15-20man gang) - increase number of WH connecting null sec to null sec. this is the main was to get small gang pvp now since big alliances space is empty. - create an everybody visible list with all reinforced structures in game so that fight could be joined by everyone interested - make undock radius very small for all outposts, like it is now for caldary research outpost. give aggression to people who undock and rep services/ships.
MORE INTERACTION !!! |
ma perke
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
5
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 10:10:00 -
[83] - Quote
one more thing:
content in eve is created by players who run stuff, take the lead i.e. lead fleets! If there is no FC all peeps just stay in station spin ther ships. Hence to have more content motivate people to go out and make content for rest of the players!
Create reward system for FCs!
- one way to do that will be to give Concord LP to FC based on the time they spent leading a fleet. of course fleet should be undocked and doing stuff. Also the LPs should be based on size of the fleet as well. |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
3337
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 10:16:00 -
[84] - Quote
Zloco Crendraven wrote: HANS please read this and give it a thought. Its everything what lowsec needs.
Great post, thanks for the detailed suggestions. I'll add them to the notes I'm formulating as I prepare for the summit (for those that haven't yet heard, I will be traveling in place of Kelduum this Winter.)
What I hope everyone notices when they read your post is this - so many of these issues are exactly what we've taken the time to nail down in Faction Warfare through subsequent patches: the proper balance of risk and reward). Plexing works when its lucrative enough to stand out above high sec game play in terms of income, but dangerous enough to create explosive PvP in the process of trying to obtain those riches.
It's exactly what the rest of low sec content needs, and on a larger scale, its exactly what 0.0 needs as well - enough effort put into balancing income streams that creates something even remotely resembling a logical progression. I personally think that such a balancing effort (constructed with a sense of logic and design direction, much like "Tiericide" for ships) is one of the biggest bang-for-your-buck endeavors CCP could begin this Spring, and would do wonders to kickstart activity and to repopulate dead regions.
Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
Inquisitor Kitchner
Galaxy Punks Executive Outcomes
480
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 10:24:00 -
[85] - Quote
Let me just say a few things:
1) I approve of the fact the CSM is both being transparent and actually having a vision to being with. Even if I disagreed with the entire document, I'd appluad the fact it exsists and that the CSM has been forthcoming in posting it here.
2) I think the document is well written and just about the right length. Too long and too detailed would have been boring and detracted from the purpose, but too short would have been a waste of time.
3) I think the content is, by and large, OK or good.
The CSM does get a lot of stick, some serious and some just on the basis that you guys are there, but the ones of you who are involved and active are doing a great service to the community.
Unironic ohseven for you all: o7 "If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared." - Niccolo Machiavelli |
Joe XR
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 10:36:00 -
[86] - Quote
Thank you CSM and CCP, hopefully some of this stuff will happen sooner than "soonTM" |
Konrad Kane
22
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 10:52:00 -
[87] - Quote
ma perke wrote: - create an everybody visible list with all reinforced structures in game so that fight could be joined by everyone interested!
^ this is an awesome idea!!
|
Gilbaron
Free-Space-Ranger Ev0ke
423
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 11:00:00 -
[88] - Quote
Poetic Stanziel wrote:Malcanis wrote:After Retribution, it will be a viable profession. It will be a New Thing To Do. Hopefully. The new wardec system was supposed to make mercenaries a viable profession, but that didn't really pan out. Best to see how bounties actually play out once live, rather than make the mistake of assuming it'll do what it's intended to do.
the new system is actually not that bad (decshield aside)
bad are the things you can (or can not !) achieve via hiring mercenaries |
Poetic Stanziel
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
1448
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 11:11:00 -
[89] - Quote
Gilbaron wrote:Poetic Stanziel wrote:Malcanis wrote:After Retribution, it will be a viable profession. It will be a New Thing To Do. Hopefully. The new wardec system was supposed to make mercenaries a viable profession, but that didn't really pan out. Best to see how bounties actually play out once live, rather than make the mistake of assuming it'll do what it's intended to do. the new system is actually not that bad (decshield aside) bad are the things you can (or can not !) achieve via hiring mercenaries Don't get me wrong. The new bounty system is certainly promising. But then, I thought the same of the new wardec system. So I'm going to remain guarded on declaring it a success until we see how it plays out with the EVE playerbase at large.
The test server will test those new mechanics. They will not test how players eventually utilize the system.
Amarr Militia |
Zloco Crendraven
BALKAN EXPRESS
87
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 11:31:00 -
[90] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Zloco Crendraven wrote: HANS please read this and give it a thought. Its everything what lowsec needs. Great post, thanks for the detailed suggestions. I'll add them to the notes I'm formulating as I prepare for the summit (for those that haven't yet heard, I will be traveling in place of Kelduum this Winter.) What I hope everyone notices when they read your post is this - so many of these issues are exactly what we've taken the time to nail down in Faction Warfare through subsequent patches: the proper balance of risk and reward). Plexing works when its lucrative enough to stand out above high sec game play in terms of income, but dangerous enough to create explosive PvP in the process of trying to obtain those riches. It's exactly what the rest of low sec content needs, and on a larger scale, its exactly what 0.0 needs as well - enough effort put into balancing income streams that creates something even remotely resembling a logical progression. I personally think that such a balancing effort (constructed with a sense of logic and design direction, much like "Tiericide" for ships) is one of the biggest bang-for-your-buck endeavors CCP could begin this Spring, and would do wonders to kickstart activity and to repopulate dead regions.
The suggestion i gave are really logical but as u say the "tiercide" for isk/hour in respective secs needs to be done, the magic formula if done properly will solve lot of problems in EVE.
For me the most important factor is time. Lowsec needs to have PvE activities that are done faster and yield more than highsec. And the null longer activities that yield the most of all of em (My first 6 months of EVE were in nullsec Alliances so i know smth about it too)
I ll give u an example: Before the incursion nerf my corp farmed em and killed like 10 Uroborus in the row. We ned like 5 mins to clear a vanguard and the payout was really nice. That was still enough time to catch farming parties cos we did catch lot of T3 in those incursions. There was quite a nice community battling it out for the dominance over the incursions,
After the nerf we are doin sites almost double the more time than before for same reward. And ofc we stopped and i think none is doing them anymore and a nice piece of content gone.
There was really needed lot of organisation and skill to prevail in 1 lowsec incursion, the payoff was not that bad imo only the Uroborus bpc needed a bit of higher drop rate and it needed on some attribute boosts also (of those 10 kills we got 0 Uroborus BPC).
What i want to say is that it had that ratio short time/same or higher yield than highsec and it was quite popular. |
|
NetheranE
Millennial Dawn Touch Fiberoptic
17
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 11:40:00 -
[91] - Quote
Overall, I think this was a spectacularly drafted document (http://dl.eve-files.com/media/1211/EVE_Online_Development_Strategy_%28CSM_Public%29.pdf) and fin that it does successfully address a large portion of issues that have and still are plaguing EvE and its respective future. I think more emphasis should be placed on the Risk:Reward ratio issues that plague most of EvE currently, as they are the biggest crux imho.
Further, I believe making POS and Control Towers exclusive from high sec (except say perfect standings), and making them more accessible to younger players would be a step in the right direction. Ex. give them a trainable skill and spec skills that enable greater sizes and more available "slots." Pushing players deeper into lower security spaces, yet enabling a simply transition between them is probably going to prove difficult, but if we as a community can reach the point where new people entering the game commonly have the goal of "I want to move and live in null sec," while still being encouraged by the majority of existing players, that will be a new EvE that I'll happily login to any day. :Note: I live in high sec.
Make high sec a place where people want to get out of to get better things, and make the other systems of EvE a place where you want to be despite the risks. Remove any value of no/minimal environments besides those in their first month or so in EvE, and then scale everything from there. Do not be scared to crack the main foundation of main of EvE's core pillars in order to build a newer and more enjoyable experience in the future. Just make sure you tell us why ;) ^ A good example of this not being used is removal of ship spinning. If you gave us a good set of reasons and explanations and future progressions, the riots may have been less bloody.
I know I trolled and bad mouthed a few of the current CSM members, but during this term you have all done a great job in changing my opinions. Well done, good sirs. |
Two step
Aperture Harmonics K162
2279
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 12:08:00 -
[92] - Quote
Poetic Stanziel wrote:Herschel Yamamoto wrote:The goal of the CSM is not to remain in compliance with the letter of their legal agreements, their goal is to get CCP to make a better game. You don't do that by spitting at them. I'm perfectly willing to see a document a day or two later if it means that any would-be ruffled feathers get smoothed down and the CSM has a better chance of actually making a positive contribution to the future of Eve. Just because being a **** is legal doesn't mean it's a good idea. These guys are too concerned with potentially upsetting their new besties. The Mittani, last year, brought the issue of Monocles, the in-game demonstrations, and the failures of Walking in Stations straight to the gaming press, very likely to the consternation of CCP. He was less worried about his besties and more concerned about correcting the course of CCP development on EVE Online. Given all that, I don't think his relationship with CCP was hurt all that much. (His fanfest gaffe is beside the point.) The CSM is more concerned with keeping CCP happy than the playerbase, because they live in fear of being denied access if they upset their keepers. Now this document speaks to correcting development course as well. But it's certainly not time sensitive. CCP won't be roadmapping their next expansion, deciding upon features, until January or February, so there was time to discuss on a public forum first, then they could draft their document. What we have here is a roadmap that the CSM is already firmly behind (only five or six of them had any legitimate input on the document), and we're meant to accept its direction, more or less, as is. Given that you don't see much discussion happening in this thread, just the CSM defending their stance, speaks to that.
Poetic, I served with the Mittani. I know the Mittani. The Mittani is a friend of mine. You are no the Mittani.
Sorry, couldn't resist the comparison of you to Dan Quayle.
We (all of CSM 6) went to the gaming press after Incarna because it was the right thing to do at the time. We were terribly worried about damaging the relationship of CCP with the CSM, but we knew that we *had* to do what we did. This is a totally different situation, and calls for different tactics. If you weren't blind with rage at Kelduum, you might see that.
You assumptions about what CCP is doing when are just that, assumptions. Do you actually think CCP would be talking to us about a future roadmap if they weren't doing some future roadmap planning of their own? CSM 7 Secretary CSM 6 Alternate Delegate @two_step_eve on Twitter My Blog
|
GizzyBoy
Old Spice Syndicate Sailors of the Sacred Spice
21
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 12:38:00 -
[93] - Quote
how do i tell if im in the bitter vet class?
pos's freaking check, mineral compresion so/so
hulks getting more trit in low than high, hrmmm...
with the relative success at removing bots and the removal of meta 0 items, mins are now trading at what they ought to be trading at, i have no problem with mining in null on contract, but i cant trust any one there not to blow me up. theres also the issue of docking rights.
So you don't want me there mining, so not going to mine for you. That's an alliance/sov holding group finding a balance between pvp and markets.
outpost upgrades yes, efficiencies should of 100% for refining should be achievable, perhaps with time in skills. failing that a outpost compression service might be available with some form of time & fees for use of the service.
Likewise with pos's refinery off 100% should be achievable with some level 5 skills and maybe some implants.
pcco's suffer in null because you don't like 'other people' accessing them so you lock them out, thus you loose possible corp/alliance income.
Perhaps instead of being plant for corp, plant for alliance could be worth while, thus alliance can achieve part of your goals, "alliance income"
|
pierre arthos
Aperture Harmonics K162
4
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 13:11:00 -
[94] - Quote
A main limitation in Eve seems to be that although it has great depth, there is very little worth doing that only takes a limited amount of time. I feel that if you want to attract new players, there needs to be exciting short snippets of content available. This time factor affects us bittervets too; families and other responsibilities often lead to people only having an hour to play, which hardly seems worthwhile in the current climate. I'm not suggesting any specific solutions, just that CCP need to retain the complexity but also look at this time issue. For example, nullsec is often so empty when roaming these days, that a 2 hour roam can result in only a single engagement. That isn't very encouraging! |
GizzyBoy
Old Spice Syndicate Sailors of the Sacred Spice
21
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 13:14:00 -
[95] - Quote
pierre arthos wrote:A main limitation in Eve seems to be that although it has great depth, there is very little worth doing that only takes a limited amount of time. I feel that if you want to attract new players, there needs to be exciting short snippets of content available. This time factor affects us bittervets too; families and other responsibilities often lead to people only having an hour to play, which hardly seems worthwhile in the current climate. I'm not suggesting any specific solutions, just that CCP need to retain the complexity but also look at this time issue. For example, nullsec is often so empty when roaming these days, that a 2 hour roam can result in only a single engagement. That isn't very encouraging!
I don't always go fishing to catch fish, Just the chance of catching the fish is sometimes enough. (and having a nice bonfire and drinking some beer to pass the time and shooting the breeze with my brothers) |
Aerallo
Kaesong Kosmonauts Test Alliance Please Ignore
304
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 13:19:00 -
[96] - Quote
I can't even begin to describe how terrible the idea of removing Mineral Compression is.
Fix nullsec mining/mineral acquisition through revamped Mining, Asteroids and this proposed "Ring Mining" before you decapitate what we have left of Industry out here. Kaesong Kapitals - a TEST/HBC Capital/Supercapital Service http://www.kaesong-kapitals.com/ |
Aidamina
Hedion University Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 13:30:00 -
[97] - Quote
Excellent document. High level goals are important for a long term strategy. |
Unforgiven Storm
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
162
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 13:36:00 -
[98] - Quote
I left this in another forum post, I will leave it here also (I consider myself a bittervet)...
my wish list to keep me subscribed in order of preference:
Small little things:
- Give us the possibility to change chars in the same account without the need to login again - Allow us to create Industry and invention jobs that required less clicking and that allows us to make bulk actions - PI extractors stop, start or restart of 1 planet in one mouse click in the command center - POS module online queue - Big nice red Jump/bridge buttons in the overview for Capitals (and subcaps near JBs) instead of menus - Give shield pilots a equivalent to a slave set - Give armor pilots a equivalent to a crystal set
Priority 1 fixes needed in this game:
- Give us a new and improved POS (POS revamp) - Improve SOV system and reduce structure griding - Finish ships tiercide (including Capitals); Fix black ops and electronic attack ships; fix leviathan and chimera; - separated local intel from chat system - Give us a new overview, local intel and chats UI - Fix null-sec industry - Fix moon mining (for example, make it work like PI) - Give us a new industry and invention UI with less cluter, user friendly, futuristic look and that cuts with the tipical excel windows look that we have nowadays; and above all that required less clicking please! - Improve invention and manufacturing mechanics - Fix the T2 BPO problem (for example, by removing the research copy ML -4 and give it 0 by default... just an idea) - Give alliances the proper tools to tax corps, mining and moon mining, get rent money from (blue) POS in their space
New long expected features:
- Give us new integrated accounts system where I can see all my accounts / characters, only login once and lunch multiple clients (one for account of course) from it. - Allow the possibility (only for POSes) to reserve several slots and associate them to a queue and then the possibility to schedule up to 100 jobs in that queue independent of my max jobs skills and let the pos alocate them automatically having in account my max jobs skills and slot availability. - Allow us to fly customized painted ships - Give alliances, corps and players tools to make military , trade, ratting, mining, moon mining agreements (a.k.a treaties) - Give us more t3 ships - Give give us more end-of-game contents for vets like achievements, more skills, more caps like carriers T2
Nice to have:
- Find a proper role for titans and supers in the battle field - Give us all the remaining ships (including caps) with the shader v3 skins - Replace the ugliest ships in this game with new hulls - Give us more t1 ships, clearly there are still areas that need more ships (for example, like Electronic warfare/logi destroyers or a new t2 command destroyer; or Electronic warfare battleships for other races other than the caldari, etc) - Continue fixing and improve more and more visual effects - Give us more station models for 0.0 (for example, just allow us to deploy all the station models that exist in empire is the easier way) - Make mining fun (I can dream right?) Allow us to change characters of the same account without the need to logout and put the password again. |
Kirith Kodachi
Kadavr Crimson Guard
13
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 13:39:00 -
[99] - Quote
While I like a lot of what was said in this document, I am a little disappointed that nothing was said in regards to supercap proliferation and dominance contributing to the stagnancy of null sec.
Overall, B+. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
5144
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 13:41:00 -
[100] - Quote
Poetic Stanziel wrote:Malcanis wrote:After Retribution, it will be a viable profession. It will be a New Thing To Do. Hopefully. The new wardec system was supposed to make mercenaries a viable profession, but that didn't really pan out. Best to see how bounties actually play out once live, rather than make the mistake of assuming it'll do what it's intended to do.
Well let's just say that I'm more confident about the bounty system than I was for the revised wardec one. I'm certainly confident that it'l be way better than what we have now.
As for wardecs, I'm not sure that there can even be a good solution to making them workable for the wardeccer and fair to the wardecced. The expectation gaps are just too wide. As I've said previously, I'd rather see Faction Warfare expanded further to provide PVP-risk in hi-sec than rely on the wardec system to do so. MatrixSkye Mk2: "Remember: You consent to unconsensual PVP the moment you press the "Undock" button." |
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
5144
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 13:42:00 -
[101] - Quote
Kirith Kodachi wrote:While I like a lot of what was said in this document, I am a little disappointed that nothing was said in regards to supercap proliferation and dominance contributing to the stagnancy of null sec.
Overall, B+.
Supercaps have already been quite heavily nerfed, and they're not the sub-cap killers that they used to be. Unsupported supers are horribly vulnerable once again. MatrixSkye Mk2: "Remember: You consent to unconsensual PVP the moment you press the "Undock" button." |
Duke Foreman
Solar Sun Imperative
0
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 13:46:00 -
[102] - Quote
Let me throw this out and get you fine people to shoot holes in it. Why can't CCP award skill points to noobs that subscribe for a certain amount of time. The award would be a 1 time gift. For example, 1 month sub = 500k SP, 3 month = 1.5mil etc... The biggest problem I've seen for noobs is that they just can't get in to ships fast enough and they lose interest in the game. They see all the great Youtube videos showing fleet fights only to realize that they won't be able to participate in them for months/years... Additionally, the gift would be grandfathered in for all the vets. Food for thought... |
Laerise
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
22
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 13:57:00 -
[103] - Quote
First off, this document is yet another proof that Hans Jagerblitzen is once again betraying his platform for lowsec rebalance. The whole thing centers around 0.0 and why it should be superior in any way to "empire".
The most obvious thing that Hans should have pointed out is that to lump lowsec and highsec into one cheap phrase like "empire" is just plain wrong.
Lowsec, and especially faction warfare lowsec, is actually much more dangerous than the average nullbears system deep in the sea of NAP fested blue. There is no way to reliably cynojam a system, there is no way of reliably controlling who enters a system and there is much more hostile traffic around at all times of the day.
To be frank, nullbears may be the loudest part of EVE on the forums, but the most broken part of EVE with the most broken risk/reward situation is still lowsec - and especially non FW lowsec. There is no sane reason to live in non FW lowsec, except maybe the very few level 5 mission agent areas. Lowsec has all the problems listed in the document but none of the advantages of nullsec.
Especially damning is the fact that you put features like "Group PVE for Miners aka "Ring Mining" (New Feature)" into nullsec, where it should be "more common and lucrative".
What is your reason to put the most "lucrative" PVE mining content into nullsec again, except but to appease the nullbears who want to reap all the benefits of this new system without the (true) risk of lowsec? Again, putting high yield content into nullsec because nullsec is "the most dangerous" is fallacious because it's actually not.
|
John Dowland
Martyr's Vengence Test Alliance Please Ignore
2
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 14:00:00 -
[104] - Quote
What a balanced document! The concepts in here are all things that affect me. Many of the issues CSM cites in here are things that resulted in some of my friends unsubscribing as well... |
GeeShizzle MacCloud
238
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 15:10:00 -
[105] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Kirith Kodachi wrote:While I like a lot of what was said in this document, I am a little disappointed that nothing was said in regards to supercap proliferation and dominance contributing to the stagnancy of null sec.
Overall, B+. Supercaps have already been quite heavily nerfed, and they're not the sub-cap killers that they used to be. Unsupported supers are horribly vulnerable once again.
My issue with supercaps are that supported supers are safe supers as no one tends to drop supers on supers (plural) anymore.
i had an idea at the manchester meet that i was looking for people to share their thoughts on but i think i need a larger audience so here goes:
Allow Titans either a role ability to fit capital ecm and ewar mods (would require the mods to be made in game) that can affect supercaps but not subcaps. Or allow Titans to use ecm and ewar but allow them a role bonus to use them against supercaps.
Reasoning: At the moment titans arent exactly used in offensive situations unless the grid is being completely dominated, theyre mainly used as a bridging platform and not much else. The offensive supercaps are supercarrier such as the nyx, aeon, hell and wyvern and thats generally because they can defang pos's and make structure grinding much less 'work'. Their safety is their ehp (higher than titans for the most part) and their ability to work as supercap logistics with remote reps and remote energy transfers.
Giving titans the ability to disrupt and/or break locks for extended periods of time (not like ecm bursts), reduce lock range or increase lock time can only be a good thing when considering supercap proliferation. at least it gets them out there doing a job no other can do. and with the risk vs reward aspect, titans are considered brittle and expensive in comparison to supercarriers so their added utility and role comes at a greater risk putting them on field, whether its an agressive break up of a supercap blob or as a support for a supercap blob.
of course if ive missed something horrendously obvious, dont hesitate to slap me about the face with it! =) |
Slaktoid
Aperture Harmonics K162
16
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 15:14:00 -
[106] - Quote
Document seems very ambitious, but I understand that this is long term planning. I agree with it mostly, I feel the biggest problem with Eve is the declining numbers. With more people come more opportunities, more PVP and the time spent ingame is more rewarding, since interacting with other people is the core of the game.
Feels like there is too many actors in this day and age, and not enough CCP to go around. Lowsec wants this, Nullsec wants that, Wormholes, Highsec dwellers, industrialists, marketeers, pve bears, small gang pvp'ers, large gang pvp'ers, supercoalitions and god knows what, all want their piece of the pai. The game feels unneccessarily divided. I would argue for the complete removal of Lowsec and turn it into Nullsec, but I know many people would freak out. I mean, Lowsec has been a failed experiment for 10 years...when is enough gonna be enough? At the same time I think about the ever increasing Nullsec megacoalitions that, for an observer, has turned a once thriving and exciting, politically charged place, into a dead stinking pile of turd.
There are many things I've given up believing in when it comes to Eve, but occationally I see a glimmer of hope. The removal of off-grid boosters and rebalancing of ECM certainly gives me hope for the future of small gang action (and I might add that I've spent most of the last year putting 9.5 mill sp into leadership on one of my alt characters, and I STILL love the change in mechanics). I'm glad there is a CSM that are still passionate about the game, best of luck to you guys.
Shoutout to corestwo. Dude knows what he's talking about. |
Seleene
Body Count Inc. Pandemic Legion
2023
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 15:40:00 -
[107] - Quote
Poetic Stanziel wrote:Now this document speaks to correcting development course as well. But it's certainly not time sensitive. CCP won't be roadmapping their next expansion, deciding upon features, until January or February.
Do you... actually believe this? I can buy that you like to stir the pot, but you don't really think CCP starts planning their expansions after they do release planning for those expansions do you? C'mon, man! CSM 7 Chairman My Blog - Where I say stuff Follow Seleene on Twitter! |
Casirio
DEEP-SPACE CO-OP LTD Exhale.
135
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 15:44:00 -
[108] - Quote
i want more shiny stuff! more new expansions! WIS viable, more customization of your ship and avatar. good document, I agree with most everything on it. |
Blurtmaster
Aperture Harmonics K162
2
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 16:12:00 -
[109] - Quote
1. Roadmap - CCP can always change it - just have one 1.1 Continuity - Short term goals - Balancing & Bugs 1.2 Continuity - Long term goals - Expansions (WIS etc etc)
2. Playability - New Players and their way into an alliance - How long is the road there? - How do I do it? (Where is my cool video showing me the steps from mining in a frigate to sieging a pos in a capital? Make the new players understand.) 2.1 Playability - Veterans - End Game. So hard it can not be done before a lot of group effort. Make us Sweat. And die horribly. 2.2 Playability/Specialization - Bitter vets - 100 MIL SP+ What is the actual challenge of flying a ship anymore? Hard small wormholes/mission gates that closes on entry and only have one exit. (2.1-2.2: You warp out/die = that's it) (Best implant rewards _implanted_ after completion perhaps? ((C7/L6-7 Missions)))
4. Competitive Product - Jesus Features - Whats the ONE feature or game mechanic you could implement per year to draw new and old subscribers?
5. Increase Revenue - Skill point Ques - Be able to activate all three character slots on an account for PLEX. (This would make people add SP without having to switch out & in characters from a main account (4 plex) = never switch them out once an alt is trained as ex. scanner or trading alt.) 5.1 Creating semi- permanent content by players with PLEX. - IMO There should be a way to destroy all content that players build. (ex. War Monuments for PLEX - Size dependent on actual number on ships killed and number of PLEX spent.) 5.2 Buy extra slots on an account for PLEX.
Summary: If you want to take one point from this - Availability to use Skill Ques on all character slots.
|
Forlorn Wongraven
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
30
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 16:19:00 -
[110] - Quote
ma perke wrote:eve has a big problem because still cant reach 55k player levels from 2 years ago. The main reason is that everything is focused on big alliances and less and less players interaction.
in the past it was possible to get 100kils on a single roam! (not blob fight!), now you make 4 hours roam and you cant meet people to kill.
You mix stuff up there. 0.0 suffers from the the last expansions that increased both high-sec (incursion) and low-sec (factional warfare) income with very little risk while 0.0 fell behind in isk/h. People will do what will make them the most isk and doesn't bore them to death. So many people picked one of the mentioned and do that, while back in the days where you would find 0.0 populated with them. To get 0.0 attractive again 0.0 needs a boost in both PvE and industry/ mining content - that's what this CSM document is about. People actually living in space, and not the alt army that do factional warfare and incursions.
Also I am quite happy with less players logged in, as the bot purge continues. Ugleb > and TDR won't log in so long as their core members are demotivated for whichever reason is in flavour this week |
|
Olerie Viliana
Devicron
1
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 16:21:00 -
[111] - Quote
Forgive me if I'm not excited about yet more ideas to help Null sec get richer, and to improve PI. What I feel is lacking is any attempt to nurture the rise of newer alliances, allowing them to grow and strengthen independently without being pets.
Faction warfare has greatly improved life in low sec, but I'd really like to see some more focus and iteration on low sec in general. As much as people like to repeat the slogan of "risk vs reward" over and over. The truth is null sec is full of very safe bearing havens. Much of low sec and faction warfare is some of the most dangerous space in eve. It needs to have much more wealth injected into it for almost every imaginable profession. With the coming changes to aggression mechanics, low sec will become even more dangerous. Give the high sec bears, and low sec pvp'rs a very tempting reward for journeying into this pirated hell that is low sec. Make smaller groups want to band together and form new alliances to take control over low sec space because it is so profitable. Doing this will help sew the seeds for more groups being ready to enter null sec and make a name for themselves.
CCP is doing a good job on low sec, I just wish there was more support for it and ideas coming from the CSM. There only concern, year after year, is null sec. Null sec is full of money and much of it is a lot safer than many low sec areas. I've flown all over null sec and the majority of it is empty, only having bears who dock up when you enter local.
What makes parts of null sec dangerous is bubbles, blobs, and higher sp / more experienced players living there. What makes Low sec dangerous is that it is full of small roaming bands of pvp'rs. As it stands now, low sec is a place to dump isk into pvp, isk that you earn in high sec because it is just too dangerous to try and farm or grind anything in low sec and the rewards don't justify the risk.
You really can't live and play in low sec if you only have one account. There is just no income there and it's an expensive place to live, you are constantly being engaged by hostile roams and gate camps.Faction warfare is a good balance of risk vs reward, the problem is you get almost nothing for PvP in faction warfare since the changes. Getting 200 lp for killing stuff is a joke. The pvp rewards for faction warfare should be about 10x to 50x what they are.
I do agree that sov mechanics, and the distribution of wealth in null sec is really bad, it does need fixing. I think it would be great if they made some changes that affect null and low at the same time.
Do things that put more money and people out in space. The money should come from items, not isk rewards. Such as , make mining insanely profitable in low or null sec, put some tech in the asteroid belts, make belt rats much better, have them give lp rewards from the local npcs when you kill a rat, make missions better in low and null maybe have the mission bonus rewards more frequent and also be useful and valuable things like implants, faction frigs, high value skill books, ect. Put better drops in the npc's as well, some tech 2 mod drops. Increase the standing changes that you get with faction empires when you kill enemy npc's in low or null. Make manufacturing cheaper to do in low or null. Make all of the rewards better in systems without stations. Basically, do everything you can to "bait" more people to do bearing in dangerous places. This will greatly improve the quality of life for low and null in so many ways. Also, greatly increase the buy and sell orders you are allowed for null sec or low sec stations, putting all these valuable items into these ares and then removing the incentive to ship supplies in from high sec, and ship items out to high sec for sale. All these things will help the markets flourish outside of high sec, which may actually be the most important change of all.
But please, please, please, all of the null sec focused CSM's, try to make changes that help everyone outside of high sec and get more money and people in space outside of high sec. Not just null. |
No More Heroes
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1639
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 16:34:00 -
[112] - Quote
Briefly skimming this document while at work this actually looks pretty good. I can really get behind these items-
Need for more lucrative incentives to live/work in dangerous space; Need for 0.0 space to support ground-up alliance income; Need for large-scale conflict drivers; Need for small-scale objectives; Need for players to express themselves and create emotional attachment.
A lot of us would like a meaningful way to contribute to the alliance in a ground up manner rather than just capturing some moon. . |
Forlorn Wongraven
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
30
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 16:35:00 -
[113] - Quote
Duke Foreman wrote:The biggest problem I've seen for noobs is that they just can't get in to ships fast enough and they lose interest in the game.
CCP Ytterbium and CCP Fozzie make T1 ships alot more useful in fleet fights, newbies are useful soon(tm). Ugleb > and TDR won't log in so long as their core members are demotivated for whichever reason is in flavour this week |
qDoctor Strangelove
TaskF0rce Executive Vice Empire
45
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 16:52:00 -
[114] - Quote
In addition to balancing the MOON MINERALS for T2, please also balance the salvage units needed to make rigs, and make XL Rigs for capitals and XXL rigs for supers. |
Calek
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 17:02:00 -
[115] - Quote
forum eat my post. |
Amaya Blaze
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
4
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 17:11:00 -
[116] - Quote
A couple of things to address here that I see as glaring ommissions or simply buried in the Null sec wonderland.
The new player experience is left un(under)discussed as a major road block to player acquisition and retention. - Tutorials are long and boring for most people and do not engage the player with WHY this or that is important. - It would be helpful if the tutorials included or were prefaced with a video, yes a real video in the game, like the ones done for the website and youtube. There are tons of very talented video makers our there that can easily produce the needed content very quickly. Perhaps a 3-5 minute video of what the tutorial will cover and WHY it is important along with perhaps some examples of how it becomes critical later on in the game. Make it a contest, give away a year free subscription to the winner and some plex for others and there you go. You know that the scanning tutorial sucks and pretty much everyone recommends the youtube ones, right? I would almost bet real money that 3-5 minutes of video on why something matters and how it becomes useful will get a lot more of the point across than the current tutorials. - The UI needs improvement and less of a click fest. It also would be greatly improved by the ability to customize and/or replace it with your own. People will cry about it being a race to see whoever gets what mod and only if they have the mod will they win against others. Bull crap. It can and has been fixed in other games where UI mods don't allow interactions without physical inputs from the player and lag is lag, no UI in the world will ever fix lag, poor reflexes and stupid. - There needs to be a battle arena/simulator/something that allows new pilots to try out combat in bigger ships earlier at no cost. PvP system/arena where everyone can go, maybe have betting, something where peeps can try out no consequence PvP almost immediately with premade skills.
People need to quit crying about empire dwellers and stop treating them like crap. You want more peeps in nullsec, then stop treating people in empire like crap and they may want to come out and play with you. All the anti-social behavior out there and people wonder why they are alone. DUH! This includes CCP who needs to get off the imagined "risk/reward" fail train. The facts are simple, 2 things "win" Eve they are persistence and determination. No matter what you do to empire space, those that aren't on the instant gratification endorphin addict rush will always end up earning more with less apparent effort than others and those others crying about it will never understand that this level of class warfare is as destructive in real life as it is in Eve. - Incursion peeps trained 6+ months to be skilled at incursions for the fits, and then had to learn to be social team players to get into fleets to make that large income quickly. Those that didn't, didn't get the money. The risk was pissing people off and being in a site and going down due to being a jerk. Yet the outsider only sees ISK signs and cries about it. - Mining takes a long train to be efficient and a large investment to really make money at it with multiple accounts, haulers, refinery skills and so on, yet the outside player sees only moderately AFK peeps making money and they whine about it. - The same for missioning, running anoms, WHs and so on. It all takes time, planing and execution and those that are crying about it simply don't want to do those things, they want the instant gratification.
Null sec revamp. Sov is broken, it's too cheap, too easy and if you have cash to replace ships, you never have to do anything other than fleet up for CTA's. Alliances work to overcome the issues with supplying ships and so on, that's nice, it doesn't mean the average person needs to do anything to keep Sov and fundamentally, that could really use changing. There needs to be a fundamental tie to not only militarily gaining Sov but also mining, industry, ratting and so on to keep Sov. After all, you can put your flag up all you want, but if you aren't settling the frontier, sowing those fields and collecting those resources, it means nothing. Alliances need to be able to tax down to the individual member and there needs to be an industrial benefit to Null Sec as has been stated over and over. - Maybe more ore, better mining laser output in Null and so on (less Space EPA concerns with max power lasers). - Easier access to refining and manufacture. - Both need to be competitive with empire though at a cost like
Lastly, there needs to be a way to combat the blob. Small alliances/corps have no chance. In the past, as illustrated by the Battle of Thermopylae, the Battle of Chattanooga, the Battle of the Ardennes, this was done with terrain. Eve has none since you can cyno in a fleet nearly anywhere. You have range, safe jumping games, gate games, station games and meta games with log on and off and cynos, that's about it. Then you get to shooting range and slug it out, it's then F1 and pray for good Logi. There needs to be ways to counter it without all these things that most people really hate.
Have fun, there is enough here to whine about, so I will check back in a little bit. |
Amaya Blaze
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
4
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 17:13:00 -
[117] - Quote
No More Heroes wrote:Need for more lucrative incentives to live/work in dangerous space
You need more actual danger in space instead of 30 jump deep blue zones. CFC and HBC calling null sec space "dangerous" is about as funny as Ted Kennedy calling himself sober.
|
Forlorn Wongraven
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
31
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 17:27:00 -
[118] - Quote
Amaya Blaze wrote:You need more actual danger in space instead of 30 jump deep blue zones
Current sov mechanics encourage/force people to build large blocs to keep up with the grind that is required.
Ugleb > and TDR won't log in so long as their core members are demotivated for whichever reason is in flavour this week |
Besbin
Balderfrey Holding inc
11
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 17:30:00 -
[119] - Quote
Read the document. Like the segmentation approach.
Would love to see some numbers on the spread of those segments, in regards to both present segment member numbers and movements (entrants/exits over time period (subs/unsubs) + movements from one segment to the next) to validate how to spend development ressources.
Adding up the percentage points (Shiny vs. Iteration) gives 220% Shiny versus 180% Iteration total...and yet the entire document revolves ONLY around the issue of Iteration. Dear CSM7, could you argue for this appearant lack of consistency?
I acknowledge the fact that it's the first half of the document that's the important part and agree to skip the fact that a few of the ideas in the second half are so thinly described that I simply don't get what they're about.
I hope you, dear CSM7, will succeed in coaxing a response out of CCP in regards to their view on the segmentation angle as a whole.
On a personal note, I also hope that the Shiny part will not continue to be left off the list due to Iteration prioritization (although it's definitely been good to have given it full focus for a while now) and that Balance shall again be achieved in the Galaxy... (erhh whoops, too much Star Wars lingo there...sry ;-)
Also: Keep up the good work CSM7! :-)
/Besbin Aka. the guy who's fault it is that you all have to say Kill Reports rather than Kill Mails...HA!!! :-p |
Besbin
Balderfrey Holding inc
11
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 17:35:00 -
[120] - Quote
P.S. Somebody wake up Hicks! Erhh I mean, Issler Dainze... He promised to put focus on WiS, carebear crap and high sec shenanigans...and I ain't seein' that hap'nin'! |
|
Noisrevbus
286
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 17:40:00 -
[121] - Quote
Comments
1. The Disclaimer Almost every document that involve CCP communication come with the disclaimer that CCP do not commit to implement ideas presented by the community. That is understandable, as a company they can not and should not simply do as told. The issue is that they don't communicate. When the community ask for communication or commitment from CCP, what we want them to commit to is the discussion. We want them to explain and motivate their decisions. We want them to enter into argument with us and stand for the position they take on important matters.
Giving us the decision and motivating their own decisions are two different things. We don't expect the former.
The CSM should strongly remind CCP of this. Do not let the former be a caveat for the latter.
We want CCP to talk to us (through CSM or elsewhere), explain why, motivate the choices they make, accept criticism and respond to it - we don't want them to simply do as told (by a majority or otherwise). Progression through conflict.
2. Farms & Fields is EVE It's down right frightening reading that "a revamp of 0.0 is low on the list at the moment". That would equate to saying that EVE is low on the list for EVE-development. Issues that relate to the Farms & Fields initiative deal with the interaction and progression of the game. To me, it's a development strategy that both ensure piecing a fractured game together again and lowering total workload by focusing on content that affect everyone, rather than reaching out to a fractured community one by one. That is why F&F is important and why a "Nullsec revamp" is so important beyond what the word Nullsec entail. It affects everyone, it's there to create content for everyone in all regions of the game. The CSM must be able to clobber that message by thick skulls.
If you look at the list of items in the document, several other passages pertain to F&F in some way: The POS-revamp have F&F concerns (aka. scalability concerns, because that is what F&F is; Farms and Fields each represent one scale or scaling, meant to illustrate how content in the game should have the full spectrum to include- or appeal to all players). It should be independent of where you are or how you choose to play, so it can be used everywhere by everyone. The small scale objectives item is part of the same discussion, in a way, so is Ring Mining. It's a question of scaling and progressing mining from Empire and out, driving complexity and reward from one scale to another. That's how it should appeal to Empire as much as it should anyone in Sovnull. The very notion of "X does not pertain to me since i am a Y-player" should signal that something is wrong, within a reasonable span.
The reason small scale get multiple mention have to do with small scale objectives sorely lacking, while large scale objectives do not lack - they just rest on unappealing mechanics. The important connection to development strategies here is that: Any change to one should include both, as with the POS revamp. You can't create specific "small gang content" and leave larger objectives to fester. The smaller scale content should provide alternatives alongside differently scaled content. There should be multiple ways to interact with a mechanic, multiple means to the same end so different groups can interact with each other.
The problem with Sovnull now is that there is essentially just large-scale content for large-scale groups, which drive smaller-scale organisations away from that area and away from interacting with large groups. That situation is what feed many of the shallow issues the playerbase raise: "space bushido", "wormhole CSM candidates" and "empire only players" are all results of alienation, which stem from poor interactivity in mechanics and continued game-design. The development strategies employed: theme-parking, which is the direct opposite of a sandbox.
You can't say sandbox and do themepark.
3. NPE Mathematics and terminology Old content = new content for a new player
The introduction listing new players as being interested in new shinies baffles me. If you have not played the game and experienced the content it has to offer - how can you be interested in completely new features?
Are you aware of what iteration and shiny actually imply? If you have trouble defining the terms, you will have trouble entering into a discussion that involve them.
The continued discussion suffer from just that, where you try to attribute values to different player groups. If you look at what i wrote above regarding F&F i think you should at least stop to consider how you present this information segment. It has tendence of all the very issues i raise regarding a fractured game and Themepark-design. What makes you think that "iteration" does not appeal to a new player? A new player afterall experience alot of things for a first time with an open mind, and can often see quite clearly what we need to iterate upon.
If the CSM have trouble defining their own terminology, how can you expect CCP to do so?
It may be a case of loss in translation, but i think the CSM should consider how they communicate that important tidbit.
It comes out as unecessarily complicated and fractured. It comes out as designing specific content for specific groups, which goes against the entire F&F ideal you claim to subscribe to. You need tangle out that mess before you can present any concrete and unified front toward development strategies.
Possibly more to come... |
No More Heroes
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1639
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 17:44:00 -
[122] - Quote
Amaya Blaze wrote:No More Heroes wrote:Need for more lucrative incentives to live/work in dangerous space You need more actual danger in space instead of 30 jump deep blue zones. CFC and HBC calling null sec space "dangerous" is about as funny as Ted Kennedy calling himself sober.
Dozens of gangs of experienced killers roam our space everyday along with solo killers. There's a carrier group being attacked by a T3 gang that came out of a WH right now as I am typing this post. Allies and the sov map have absolutely nothing to do with safety in space. . |
Ghazu
284
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 18:15:00 -
[123] - Quote
Looks great, yall are doing a great job CSM-ing I supposed Issler didn't do jack but that is a good thing or it'd be about how dudes can emote each other. This is important stuff, how/why we live and fight. http://www.minerbumping.com/ |
Jouron
Hadon Shipping
39
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 18:29:00 -
[124] - Quote
Poetic Stanziel wrote:Herschel Yamamoto wrote:The goal of the CSM is not to remain in compliance with the letter of their legal agreements, their goal is to get CCP to make a better game. You don't do that by spitting at them. I'm perfectly willing to see a document a day or two later if it means that any would-be ruffled feathers get smoothed down and the CSM has a better chance of actually making a positive contribution to the future of Eve. Just because being a **** is legal doesn't mean it's a good idea. These guys are too concerned with potentially upsetting their new besties. The Mittani, last year, brought the issue of Monocles, the in-game demonstrations, and the failures of Walking in Stations straight to the gaming press, very likely to the consternation of CCP. He was less worried about his besties and more concerned about correcting the course of CCP development on EVE Online. Given all that, I don't think his relationship with CCP was hurt all that much. (His fanfest gaffe is beside the point.) The CSM is more concerned with keeping CCP happy than the playerbase, because they live in fear of being denied access if they upset their keepers. Now this document speaks to correcting development course as well. But it's certainly not time sensitive. CCP won't be roadmapping their next expansion, deciding upon features, until January or February, so there was time to discuss on a public forum first, then they could draft their document. What we have here is a roadmap that the CSM is already firmly behind (only five or six of them had any legitimate input on the document), and we're meant to accept its direction, more or less, as is. Given that you don't see much discussion happening in this thread, just the CSM defending their stance, speaks to that.
Since you seem to love mittens so much Ill bring this up from the fire side chats from last year:
"-And part of what were trying to do as the CSM, in a non threatening way, IE not screaming 'you[CCP] f***ing idiot it doesnGÇÖt work like this,' Ideally speaking over beer with sweet words and sweet nothings say look it actually doesnGÇÖt work like this Uh ya know this is really how things work." - The Mittani Fireside, Chat 1 April 2011. 27:18 - 27:39.
How is the CSM not achieving this by there current actions? By the way when this csm tried to do more informal and loose communications they were accused of being ineffective and looking disorganized and informal and that the player base would take them less seriously, as well as CCP. They tighten up there act try to formalize and distill things down for public consumption, now there being accused of not communicating enough. Did you ever think for a second maybe they're actually to busy working on the games issues with CCP trying to get through to them, they cant turn around and do an interview or a Fireside when ever you demand it. Dont forget they do this work for free on top of any RL time constraints they already have. In politics there are work horses and show horses im going to take a stab in the dark and say the current csm are work horses. My general take on you poetic is regardless of what the CSM is doing you will be unhappy with it until you are on it. Theres nothing wrong with that its a pretty common election strategy: run against something as the change that will fix it. |
Nevryn Takis
University of Caille Gallente Federation
20
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 18:33:00 -
[125] - Quote
I'm not going to re-iterate on the discussion in the Farms and Fields thread.. but I'm going to make the same observation on this document that I did in regards to the orginal Farms and Fields thread .. The document was put together by a group of people with a vesteted interest in mainting the status quo of the amorphus blob concept of EVE. There is nothing for the small scale enterprenur or casual player. Driving them out of High Sec, which appears to be the intent, will just drive them out of the game. I think the analyss of the player grouping completely missed looking at the demographics of existing Corporation size and why they are the way they are. Whether I continue to play still remains to be seen. Making it impossible to support my play style by forcing me out of high sec definately will force me out of the game (expecting to be flamed by the amorphus blob trolls that predate the foruns). |
NinjaTurtle
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
23
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 18:35:00 -
[126] - Quote
I for one thank CSM7 for their awesomesauce |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
1948
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 18:36:00 -
[127] - Quote
Considering this document and all feedback associated with it greatly involve everyone playing the game; shouldn't this thread be in general discussion forum so it has a better chance of being seen?
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
CataCourier
Asha' Man Corp
10
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 18:37:00 -
[128] - Quote
I greatly appreciate the work that the CSM has done on this, and sincerely hope that CCP listens and applies these ideas (or some of them) in their design process.
tl;dr: Fix 0.0 industry, buff supercaps/titans in a way that encourages more "super" destruction, give more reason for people to pvp and blow stuff up.
As a "0.0 miner/industrialist", changes to mineral distribution in 0.0 are greatly welcome. Industry as a whole in 0.0 is stale (as Corestwo described) and needs an improvement- both for existing industrialists like myself, and for prospective/newbies that are just starting to play eve.
Like it or not, there are a lot of players that are willing to subscribe for the sole purpose of shooting rocks and building stuff out of it. Even though Eve is a pvp-focused game, CCP (and the playerbase as a whole) would benefit by more industrial minded players subscribing- more production, more consumption, and many, many more tears. The problem is enticing those players to pick up Eve and stick with it. Building 0.0 industry and giving venues for industrial minded players to own and improve their operations would be a huge benefit. Additional system/POS/planet structures and upgrades would allow for growth of 0.0 industry and provide tons of pvp opportunities.
To quickly rattle off some ideas to coincide with the mining section: -Upgraded refineries at POS that give benefits based on the industrial level of the system -Additional system upgrades that allow the spawning of very rich ore sites that show up on overview as a celestial object -Revamp/rebalance 0.0 ores in general (Spod & Gneiss and maybe Dark Ochre) -Redesign Rorqual so they can actually be used in belts (by non-bads) -Once NPC AI is revamped, perhaps a mixed mining/combat site, where there are valuable rewards for both industry and pve (IE: a combat fleet is required to persistently engage NPCs while the miners mine out the site- NPCs spawn based on volume of ore mined, etc). Perhaps this could also show up as a celestial object. -"Permanent", destructible, planetary structures that mine planets for low end ores. This could benefit DUST too. (Permanent means that it can't be un-anchored to dodge impending destruction). These would require industry upgrades active in the system to continue producing minerals.
It seems like the original idea for 0.0 industry was to have an outlet for corps and alliances to have profitable mining ops with their own protection force- enabling them to gather resources while giving enemies a target to aim for. The problem with this in implementation is that there currently isn't enough reward or benefit for having any type of defending fleet or major mining operations, because it's simply more profitable to run hubs/sanctums than it is to support a mining fleet. On top of that, even if a huge mining fleet is assembled and protected, there aren't enough low ends in 0.0 to support real industry without importing the bulk of the minerals.
Aside from the mining/industry section, I am all for more pvp improvements and reasons to fight. There is nothing better for a miner than consistent pvp and destruction- even if that means that you occasionally lose hulks/orcas/rorquals. As Corestwo noted, production of supers/titans has diminished due to the plethora of nerfs against them. I'd also like to see a way for Supers/Titans to be used (and destroyed) more often. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
119
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 19:06:00 -
[129] - Quote
I would love to hear what CCP thought of the contents of this. Tech moons need to be replaced with moon goo in belts you should have to spend time and effort and risk to get should immense rewards. No mention of fixing the mercenary contracts/high sec war release it was only half completed at best when released. And industry clearly needs a lot of attention as well as mining content. And i can't believe incursions are still going on i mean sansha lost and the content is still the same boring repetitive frigate grinding with battleships which is odd as we all know battleships aren't good at killing frigs. Drone improvements/ideas for improvement https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=133767 Electronic Attack Frigate ideas for improvement https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1986048#post1986048 |
Maraner
The Executioners Capital Punishment.
222
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 19:29:00 -
[130] - Quote
Strongly agree with this document and the suggestions it makes. I applaud CCP for asking for such a thing from the CSM.
We must get small entities into the sov game and make the risk vs reward stronger for 0.0. Everyone that wants to is welcome to mine and mission in high sec with the inherent low risk (should be) low to moderate reward. A revamp of 0.0 with higher rewards would hopefully elicit a gold rush to 0.0 like we saw post dominion. The Sov changes would have to go hand in hand.
All in all an excellent document. Thanks to CSM and I hope CCP find it helpful.
|
|
RDevz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
136
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 19:31:00 -
[131] - Quote
Harvey James wrote: Tech moons need to be replaced with moon goo in belts you should have to spend time and effort and risk to get should immense rewards.
Ah, yes, risk and effort. It takes 250 people between 1 and 3 hours to capture (or defend) a tech moon. Tech moons are surprisingly well defended by their owners when they come out of reinforced. All in all, you're spending 750 man hours' effort, combined with risking a substantial subcap or capital fleet.
You also appear to be under the (distressingly common) illusion that nullsec logistics is done by pixies and involves no risk or effort to keep the tower fuelled or to harvest the sweet, sweet goo it produces.
One can make 80 million ISK an hour while ratting relatively easily. If you assume that a tower is attacked once every six months, would you like to run the numbers and work out where the break-even figure on tech capturing versus going ratting is? ~ |
corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
916
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 19:47:00 -
[132] - Quote
Harvey James wrote: Tech moons need to be replaced with moon goo in belts you should have to spend time and effort and risk to get should immense rewards.
Gotta echo RDevz here. While I feel moons should go away and be replaced by some form of alliance taxable bottom up income, the idea that they are "no effort" is pretty funny. And wrong. This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
fofofo |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
1949
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 19:59:00 -
[133] - Quote
CataCourier wrote:buff supercaps/titans in a way that encourages more "super" destruction, give more reason for people to pvp and blow stuff up. Buffing super capitals will not encourage players to blow them up anymore than they do now. If a super is tackled people come out of the woodwork to kill it. No one stops for a moment to ponder if the ship is balanced, recently buffed or what kind of damage bonus it gets to fighter bombers or resistance to armor.
If anything supers carriers need their bonuses changed a bit to define them more as anti-capital and structure killers. For instance: 1. Remove the range bonus on remote modules. That just encourages spider tanking/logistics within its own ship class which means they are not obligated to bring logistics to support them. 2. Remove or redefine the remote ECM burst module. With enough super carriers in a fleet they can effectively neuter a ton of incoming dps from enemy non-capital ships and drastically increasing their ability to escape. 3. Change the number of fighter/fighter bombers deployed per level from 3 to 1. In addition provide a bonus to fitting drone control units so each one fit allows 3 instead of 1. This is so supers have to make a real choice on how to fit their high slots. Currently the default on super carriers is a couple smart bombs, couple neuts, remote rep and a cloak. The entire high slot rack for killing bubbles, neuting out hics and a cloak for complete safety. All the while dishing out a majority of its potential damage. With this change super carriers can still do the safety dance on the top rack, but at half the damage they do now. 4. Which brings me to the last change that would affect super capitals exit strategy. Currently the only thing super capitals need to ensure a safe exit is find a safe spot, cloak up and wait for enough cap to jump out. What needs to happen is all non-covert ops cloaks to stop a capacitor from recharging while cloaked. This will encourage supers to bring a proper support fleet for the ENTIRE duration of it being in hostile territory. 5. Also opening a cyno should cancel and prevent self destructing. Which is a popular trick supers use to travel around without a support fleet. I could go in more detail, but I'll leave it at that.
Make those changes and you will see more super capitals die while the ones with a proper support fleet be fine.
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
1949
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 20:02:00 -
[134] - Quote
A propery setup moon tower takes all of five while minutes to empty the silo and top off the fuel tank. Stop exaggerating on the struggles of maintaining one please.
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
Midnight Hope
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
54
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 20:08:00 -
[135] - Quote
+1 A big step in the right direction! |
Forlorn Wongraven
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
32
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 20:20:00 -
[136] - Quote
Your whole rebalance idea would only change the amount of supercap kills per month to zero. If you nerf things too much people will only use it as POS decoration, not fielding it in combat. Ugleb > and TDR won't log in so long as their core members are demotivated for whichever reason is in flavour this week |
Cash Miner
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 20:49:00 -
[137] - Quote
Read and had a few points might want to bring to CCP.
1. In regards to the mineral compression thing, rather then having completely doing away with mineral compression, how about we allow Rorqual or an equivalent version to be allowed in High Sec. This would allow for low-end minerals to be compressed and shipped to null sec for production, rather then the other way around. Seems to me that if they allow Jump Freighters to use gates and be in high sec, then there shouldn't be a problem allowing Rorquals there either. This to me seems like the logical step. You mine the low-end ore....compress it...and jump it down to null sec all in one ship. The current system of mining high end ore, compressing it, jumping to high sec, build ships, then jump those back into null....its a little backwards.
2. I couldn't agree more about the way PoS and Corp Hangers in general work. Could they not allow for a Personal Corp Hanger bay to allow for more secure research/construction to be performed? The main reason I see a lot of one-man corps is due to the inability of the current system to protect members assets that are in corp hangers. I know a lot of industrial corp face this problem when members want to be industrialist but don't want to risk losing BPO that are very valuable to corp thief because everyone has to share the same hanger for research, while it can be somewhat controlled, still allows for a lot of corp security issues. A simple addition of a personal corp hanger that would allow research/copying/invention/production to be performed without worrying about thief could solve this. Of course this hanger would follow the member no matter what corp he joins/leave. So if you leave your corp and move to an NPC corp, all the items would still be in that personal corp hanger....untouchable by anyone other then yourself. Or just allow these jobs to be performed at your personal hanger rather then the corp hanger....there are plenty of ways to solve this.
3. PI is something as well I was glad that was being touched on, as I believe that the current tax rate is too high. I know that some will argue that you just increase your prices, which is fine. I am talking more along the lines of having to be taxed multiple times when trying to perform PI to make higher lvl production items. *Insert whatever troll comment you want here*
4. Industrial Ship Revamp or Addition- So need this on so many levels. We need a tier system put in place that allows for a larger amount of cargo space rather then....t1 indy with no defense and decent hauling or t2 great defense....tiny cargo hold. Maybe the addition of a mini-freighter ship....rather then going from 20k m3 straight to 850k m3.....there is a lot of room here to work with.
5. Lastly goes out to the common tactic of bumping.....Bumping ships to me seems like the bumper should be taking some damage. I been in war decs were the common tactic used has having an out of corp alt bumping my industrial ship over and over using a frigate with MWD while allowing the war targets more time to get to me. Along with the whole bumping of Titans and Freighters. I'm sorry but if we want to be realistic here, we need to acknowledge the fact that when 2 ships ram each other....both ships are going to take damage....and in all reality, a frigate ramming a BS/Freighter is going to cause the the frigate to explode....*insert troll comment after here*
Oh well said my peace... |
CataCourier
Asha' Man Corp
10
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 21:01:00 -
[138] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:CataCourier wrote:buff supercaps/titans in a way that encourages more "super" destruction, give more reason for people to pvp and blow stuff up. Buffing super capitals will not encourage players to blow them up anymore than they do now. If a super is tackled people come out of the woodwork to kill it. No one stops for a moment to ponder if the ship is balanced, recently buffed or what kind of damage bonus it gets to fighter bombers or resistance to armor. If anything supers carriers need their bonuses changed a bit to define them more as anti-capital and structure killers. For instance: 1. Remove the range bonus on remote modules. That just encourages spider tanking/logistics within its own ship class which means they are not obligated to bring logistics to support them. 2. Remove or redefine the remote ECM burst module. With enough super carriers in a fleet they can effectively neuter a ton of incoming dps from enemy non-capital ships and drastically increasing their ability to escape. 3. Change the number of fighter/fighter bombers deployed per level from 3 to 1. In addition provide a bonus to fitting drone control units so each one fit allows 3 instead of 1. This is so supers have to make a real choice on how to fit their high slots. Currently the default on super carriers is a couple smart bombs, couple neuts, remote rep and a cloak. The entire high slot rack for killing bubbles, neuting out hics and a cloak for complete safety. All the while dishing out a majority of its potential damage. With this change super carriers can still do the safety dance on the top rack, but at half the damage they do now. 4. Which brings me to the last change that would affect super capitals exit strategy. Currently the only thing super capitals need to ensure a safe exit is find a safe spot, cloak up and wait for enough cap to jump out. What needs to happen is all non-covert ops cloaks to stop a capacitor from recharging while cloaked. This will encourage supers to bring a proper support fleet for the ENTIRE duration of it being in hostile territory. 5. Also opening a cyno should cancel and prevent self destructing. Which is a popular trick supers use to travel around without a support fleet. I could go in more detail, but I'll leave it at that. Make those changes and you will see more super capitals die while the ones with a proper support fleet be fine.
I should have pointed out that I do not own a super, so I can only speculate (but I am well aware how they are used).
Supers/titans in general already have gotten nerfed pretty fairly. Instead of further nerfs, I think a change is in order. This may be "buffing" some things while "nerfing" others- making supers slightly more powerful in terms of capabilities, but slightly less tanky or slightly more vulnerable to being locked down. Supers should be powerful- which is why they are such an expensive upgrade from their carrier counterparts- but they should also not be largely immune to bad decisions. |
Poetic Stanziel
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
1448
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 21:08:00 -
[139] - Quote
Cash Miner wrote:5. ... we need to acknowledge the fact that when 2 ships ram each other....both ships are going to take damage.... Can of worms that does not need to be opened.
People being concorded on the Jita undock due to unintentional bumps.
Amarr Militia |
Cash Miner
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 21:13:00 -
[140] - Quote
Poetic Stanziel wrote:Cash Miner wrote:5. ... we need to acknowledge the fact that when 2 ships ram each other....both ships are going to take damage.... Can of worms that does not need to be opened. People being concorded on the Jita undock due to unintentional bumps.
no concord involvement needed as it damaging yourself.....but as far as the jita undock then set the damage to be applied to ships with active afterburners or mwd on.
If you bump at regular speed=no damage
if you bump with afterburner/mwd on=damage
but I understand the post....not trying to restart old arguments but it is a tactic that needs to be addressed |
|
Chirality Tisteloin
Evil .inc WHY so Seri0Us
0
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 21:15:00 -
[141] - Quote
Very interesting Document! Thanks for the work! From what I can tell by having lived through just 3 months of sov-war and nullsec logistics all these points are super-valid.
What I find intriguing though, is that you did not mention Dust514 in the Document.
Right, it is about EVE. However, I have the impression that for CCP the Dust/EVE integration will be THE major boundary condition and benchmark for the coming years. Even when you want to remind CCP of the spaceship-specific topics this can not be neglected. Talking about the future without making a statement on Dust and how you envision the two games should work together and how Dust will interface with all your ideas runs the risk of falling short of any design process CCP is running.
I guess the CSM is aware of this and has more insights in CCPs positions and there might be special reasons why Dust was/had to be excluded from the present discussion. Nevertheless, in the spirit of transparency, I would like to urge the CSM to openly express their opinion on those matters.
Fly smart! Chira. |
CataCourier
Asha' Man Corp
10
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 21:16:00 -
[142] - Quote
Cash Miner wrote:not trying to restart old arguments but it is a tactic that needs to be addressed
I'm pretty sure there are a thousand issues more important than this that need to be addressed. Bumping really only affects miners who haven't paid their tax and supers caught making bad decisions.
|
Jack Miton
Aperture Harmonics K162
825
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 21:33:00 -
[143] - Quote
Very nicely put together document, +1.
Chitsa Jason wrote:It is weird that WIS is not mentioned at all. that's cos the CSM are covering the important issues in EVE.
|
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
779
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 22:42:00 -
[144] - Quote
Peter Tjordenskiold wrote:Cite: Quote:Rather than replace a Technetium bottleneck with a new bottleneck, care should be taken to balance mineral requirements to avoid built-in bottlenecks while maintaining high-end moons as valuable sources of income. EVEGÇÖs widely touted player-driven market will be empowered to determine which moons have the highest relative value, while providing more PVP conflict drivers. Rather than to think in terms of moongoo, a player driven economy would include the total financing of entities by players. Moongoo has disadvantages. It causes powerblocks and less pvp because moongoo pays the reimbursement and the loser doen't become the economy to win wars. A player financed alliance or corp is only depending on the player base not on bottlenecks like today. Ift woul be more than like a big social group. Only whenan alliance is able to activate their pilots, they should be able to win a war. So I propose a different approach:
- encourage alliances to activate pilots for the economical challenges of the alliance . A war should be only possible when an alliance or coalition has the backbones of PVP and industry.
- give the alliances and corp more tools to be social (access rights starbases and production slots, wallet)
I dont disagree with those points but I'd be interested in you expanding on the idea of large scale player financing. It sounds interesting, feel free to mail me about it or post 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 |
Zarak1 Kenpach1
Aperture Harmonics K162
49
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 22:43:00 -
[145] - Quote
Well done at bringing this to the forefront of debate in EvE ,CSM7!
@ Poetic Stanziel, You have one of the more popular blogs out there regarding EvE at the moment. It is shameful that you would focus in so tightly on politics involving NDA's and not the content of the message they have delivered. Truly, think about what you are writing here before you post anymore drivel on semantics. It just looks like you are trying to make the current CSM reps look bad so you can run at a later date or endorse someone more to your liking. I doubt anyone else could have put together such a well written, concise message to CCP and if you think you could of done so, I challenge you to do just that. I highly doubt you will though because you strike me as someone who criticizes without ever moving to action themselves. You are welcome to prove me wrong though.
@ The folks concerned with compression, please don't make this a thread completely about that one detail. Lets stay focused on the broader message here. since that above all else is critical in the coming years of EvE's development. |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
1951
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 22:45:00 -
[146] - Quote
Forlorn Wongraven wrote:Your whole rebalance idea would only change the amount of supercap kills per month to zero. If you nerf things too much people will only use it as POS decoration, not fielding it in combat. I don't see an issue with a super that turns into a pos decoration because they were unable to have a support fleet with it.
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
779
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 22:51:00 -
[147] - Quote
ma perke wrote:eve has a big problem because still cant reach 55k player levels from 2 years ago. The main reason is that everything is focused on big alliances and less and less players interaction.
in the past it was possible to get 100kils on a single roam! (not blob fight!), now you make 4 hours roam and you cant meet people to kill.
few suggestions: - create more interaction. for instance on completing an anomally you get next annomaly in different system - this will increase traffic i.e. interaction. of course should be ballanced with increased bounties. - decrease station services EHP, so that it be possible for a small gang to kill it in reasonable time(no more than 10min for 15-20man gang) - increase number of WH connecting null sec to null sec. this is the main was to get small gang pvp now since big alliances space is empty. - create an everybody visible list with all reinforced structures in game so that fight could be joined by everyone interested - make undock radius very small for all outposts, like it is now for caldary research outpost. give aggression to people who undock and rep services/ships.
MORE INTERACTION !!! Love these ideas. I particularly share a desire for more 0.0 static WH (or just random 0.0 connections) would be great. I ran through all of the Wolf Rayet and Pulsar C4's and while there are a ridiculous number, the amount with 0.0 statics was surprisingly low. Groups like Verge of Collapse have illustrated the interesting fight opportunities 0.0 WH can create.
As for your FC idea, it's kinda hard for the computer to tell who's FC'ing a fleet. Sometimes the person in the Fleet Command position isnt the FC, it's just someone with the skills or a booster alt. I think rewards for FC's should come from the fleets and organizations they're leading. What i think CCP could do, however, is provide more tool to make managing a fleet, sharing information, and making sense of that information easier and faster. I know Elise Randolph has been talking about that kind of stuff and I'm with him on that.
"Alekseyev Karrde: mercenary of my heart."-á -Arydanika, Voices from the Void
CSM7 rep, CSM 4 vet Noir./Noir. Academy Recruiting: www.noirmercs.com |
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
779
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 22:57:00 -
[148] - Quote
Unforgiven Storm wrote:I left this in another forum post, I will leave it here also (I consider myself a bittervet)...
my wish list to keep me subscribed in order of preference:
Small little things:
- Give us the possibility to change chars in the same account without the need to login again - Allow us to create Industry and invention jobs that required less clicking and that allows us to make bulk actions - PI extractors stop, start or restart of 1 planet in one mouse click in the command center - POS module online queue - Big nice red Jump/bridge buttons in the overview for Capitals (and subcaps near JBs) instead of menus - Give shield pilots a equivalent to a slave set - Give armor pilots a equivalent to a crystal set
Priority 1 fixes needed in this game:
- Give us a new and improved POS (POS revamp) - Improve SOV system and reduce structure griding - Finish ships tiercide (including Capitals); Fix black ops and electronic attack ships; fix leviathan and chimera; - separated local intel from chat system - Give us a new overview, local intel and chats UI - Fix null-sec industry - Fix moon mining (for example, make it work like PI) - Give us a new industry and invention UI with less cluter, user friendly, futuristic look and that cuts with the tipical excel windows look that we have nowadays; and above all that required less clicking please! - Improve invention and manufacturing mechanics - Fix the T2 BPO problem (for example, by removing the research copy ML -4 and give it 0 by default... just an idea) - Give alliances the proper tools to tax corps, mining and moon mining, get rent money from (blue) POS in their space
New long expected features:
- Give us new integrated accounts system where I can see all my accounts / characters, only login once and lunch multiple clients (one for account of course) from it. - Allow the possibility (only for POSes) to reserve several slots and associate them to a queue and then the possibility to schedule up to 100 jobs in that queue independent of my max jobs skills and let the pos alocate them automatically having in account my max jobs skills and slot availability. - Allow us to fly customized painted ships - Give alliances, corps and players tools to make military , trade, ratting, mining, moon mining agreements (a.k.a treaties) - Give us more t3 ships - Give give us more end-of-game contents for vets like achievements, more skills, more caps like carriers T2
Nice to have:
- Find a proper role for titans and supers in the battle field - Give us all the remaining ships (including caps) with the shader v3 skins - Replace the ugliest ships in this game with new hulls - Give us more t1 ships, clearly there are still areas that need more ships (for example, like Electronic warfare/logi destroyers or a new t2 command destroyer; or Electronic warfare battleships for other races other than the caldari, etc) - Continue fixing and improve more and more visual effects - Give us more station models for 0.0 (for example, just allow us to deploy all the station models that exist in empire is the easier way) - Make mining fun (I can dream right?) good gravy that's a nice wish list. "Alekseyev Karrde: mercenary of my heart."-á -Arydanika, Voices from the Void
CSM7 rep, CSM 4 vet Noir./Noir. Academy Recruiting: www.noirmercs.com |
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
779
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 23:03:00 -
[149] - Quote
Kirith Kodachi wrote:While I like a lot of what was said in this document, I am a little disappointed that nothing was said in regards to supercap proliferation and dominance contributing to the stagnancy of null sec.
Overall, B+. Moving away from structure grinds and (eventually) getting the ship balancing team done with subcaps and onto caps/supers will help with this. On the production/death specifics, there's a lot of controversy about it, as evidenced with the fight over mineral compression in this thread.
My personal feeling is that while their production rate has been reduced, super capitals were intended to be rare and any month where triple digits of supers are being produced is a bad month. I think they need to be harder to build (or have disrupting their building be easier), i think they need a battlefield role that differentiates them from carriers/dreads but is never the less so compelling that you WANT to use your super fleet, and I think that super fleet needs to have more threats to it while they're deployed. Obviously a lot of these goals are competing, but somewhere in the balance between them is the sweetspot where supers will be useful and the death/production numbers so close that during particularly violent months we might see the global number drop (which it hasnt for like 3 years) "Alekseyev Karrde: mercenary of my heart."-á -Arydanika, Voices from the Void
CSM7 rep, CSM 4 vet Noir./Noir. Academy Recruiting: www.noirmercs.com |
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
779
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 23:26:00 -
[150] - Quote
Noisrevbus wrote:Comments 1. The DisclaimerAlmost every document that involve CCP communication come with the disclaimer that CCP do not commit to implement ideas presented by the community. That is understandable, as a company they can not and should not simply do as told. The issue is that they don't communicate. When the community ask for communication or commitment from CCP, what we want them to commit to is the discussion. We want them to explain and motivate their decisions. We want them to enter into argument with us and stand for the position they take on important matters. Giving us the decision and motivating their own decisions are two different things. We don't expect the former. The CSM should strongly remind CCP of this. Do not let the former be a caveat for the latter. We want CCP to talk to us (through CSM or elsewhere), explain why, motivate the choices they make, accept criticism and respond to it - we don't want them to simply do as told (by a majority or otherwise). Progression through conflict. 2. Farms & Fields - IS - EVEIt's down right frightening reading that "a revamp of 0.0 is low on the list at the moment". That would equate to saying that EVE is low on the list for EVE-development. Issues that relate to the Farms & Fields initiative deal with the interaction and progression of the game. To me, it's a development strategy that both ensure piecing a fractured game together again and lowering total workload by focusing on content that affect everyone, rather than reaching out to a fractured community one by one. That is why F&F is important and why a "Nullsec revamp" is so important beyond what the word Nullsec entail. It affects everyone, it's there to create content for everyone in all regions of the game. The CSM must be able to clobber that message by thick skulls. If you look at the list of items in the document, several other passages pertain to F&F in some way: The POS-revamp have F&F concerns (aka. scalability concerns, because that is what F&F is; Farms and Fields each represent one scale or scaling, meant to illustrate how content in the game should have the full spectrum to include- or appeal to all players). It should be independent of where you are or how you choose to play, so it can be used everywhere by everyone. The small scale objectives item is part of the same discussion, in a way, so is Ring Mining. It's a question of scaling and progressing mining from Empire and out, driving complexity and reward from one scale to another. That's how it should appeal to Empire as much as it should anyone in Sovnull. The very notion of "X does not pertain to me since i am a Y-player" should signal that something is wrong, within a reasonable span. The reason small scale get multiple mention have to do with small scale objectives (the impact, or impression they have) sorely lacking, while large scale objectives do not lack - they just rest on unappealing mechanics. The important connection to development strategies here is that: Any change to one should include both, as with the POS revamp. You can't create specific "small gang content" and leave larger objectives to fester. The smaller scale content should provide alternatives alongside differently scaled content. There should be multiple ways to interact with a mechanic, multiple means to the same end so different groups can interact with each other. Anyone who belive that F&F is "only for existing nullsec players" have completely misunderstood the point. It's just as much meant to be appealing for you to go live there and give you content there when you visit. The problem with Sovnull now is that there is essentially just large-scale content for large-scale groups, which drive smaller-scale organisations away from that area and away from interacting with large groups. That situation is what feed many of the shallow issues the playerbase raise: "space bushido", "wormhole CSM candidates" and "empire only players" are all results of alienation, which stem from poor interactivity in mechanics and continued game-design. The development strategies employed: theme-parking, which is the direct opposite of a sandbox. You can't say sandbox and do themepark. Quoting 1 and 2 for effect.
As for 3, shiny new features appealing to new players is based on the idea of attracting new players with new stuff. If you've NEVER heard of EVE then i suppose it doesnt matter what a new feature is; the burden there is on CCP Marketing and existing players (word of mouth) not the development teams. BUT if you've already heard of EVE but never tried it or maybe tried it for a week, a new feature (or a radically redesigned old one) might spark your interest and get you to play. I think most people share that understanding of terms.
As for the %'s, we made the numbers up (seriously, how could we know with scientific accuracy what values different groups of players would assign there lol). I think it's clear to everyone there are different groups of players just like different groups of people. Marketing professionals have known this for ages, and have called these groups demographics. Just like IRL there are demographics in EVE too. That portion of the document is there to convince CCP that if you want to think about EVE demographics, the best way to do that is not to look at physical age as the grouping characteristic but rather their in game experience. Someone playing for a month *probably* has a very different set of interests, opinions, and goals than someone who's been in the game for 6 years. "Alekseyev Karrde: mercenary of my heart."-á -Arydanika, Voices from the Void
CSM7 rep, CSM 4 vet Noir./Noir. Academy Recruiting: www.noirmercs.com |
|
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
779
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 23:30:00 -
[151] - Quote
CataCourier wrote:I greatly appreciate the work that the CSM has done on this, and sincerely hope that CCP listens and applies these ideas (or some of them) in their design process.
tl;dr: Fix 0.0 industry, buff supercaps/titans in a way that encourages more "super" destruction, give more reason for people to pvp and blow stuff up.
As a "0.0 miner/industrialist", changes to mineral distribution in 0.0 are greatly welcome. Industry as a whole in 0.0 is stale (as Corestwo described) and needs an improvement- both for existing industrialists like myself, and for prospective/newbies that are just starting to play eve.
Like it or not, there are a lot of players that are willing to subscribe for the sole purpose of shooting rocks and building stuff out of it. Even though Eve is a pvp-focused game, CCP (and the playerbase as a whole) would benefit by more industrial minded players subscribing- more production, more consumption, and many, many more tears. The problem is enticing those players to pick up Eve and stick with it. Building 0.0 industry and giving venues for industrial minded players to own and improve their operations would be a huge benefit. Additional system/POS/planet structures and upgrades would allow for growth of 0.0 industry and provide tons of pvp opportunities.
To quickly rattle off some ideas to coincide with the mining section: -Upgraded refineries at POS that give benefits based on the industrial level of the system -Additional system upgrades that allow the spawning of very rich ore sites that show up on overview as a celestial object -Revamp/rebalance 0.0 ores in general (Spod & Gneiss and maybe Dark Ochre) -Redesign Rorqual so they can actually be used in belts (by non-bads) -Once NPC AI is revamped, perhaps a mixed mining/combat site, where there are valuable rewards for both industry and pve (IE: a combat fleet is required to persistently engage NPCs while the miners mine out the site- NPCs spawn based on volume of ore mined, etc). Perhaps this could also show up as a celestial object. -"Permanent", destructible, planetary structures that mine planets for low end ores. This could benefit DUST too. (Permanent means that it can't be un-anchored to dodge impending destruction). These would require industry upgrades active in the system to continue producing minerals.
It seems like the original idea for 0.0 industry was to have an outlet for corps and alliances to have profitable mining ops with their own protection force- enabling them to gather resources while giving enemies a target to aim for. The problem with this in implementation is that there currently isn't enough reward or benefit for having any type of defending fleet or major mining operations, because it's simply more profitable to run hubs/sanctums than it is to support a mining fleet. On top of that, even if a huge mining fleet is assembled and protected, there aren't enough low ends in 0.0 to support real industry without importing the bulk of the minerals.
Aside from the mining/industry section, I am all for more pvp improvements and reasons to fight. There is nothing better for a miner than consistent pvp and destruction- even if that means that you occasionally lose hulks/orcas/rorquals. As Corestwo noted, production of supers/titans has diminished due to the plethora of nerfs against them. I'd also like to see a way for Supers/Titans to be used (and destroyed) more often. That dual mining/PVE site is interesting indeed. Quoting whole post for effect.
EDIT: OK looks like im all caught up. There were a lot of good posts (and some bads) so if i didn't quote you dont take it personally, im probably spamming the thread already as it is haha "Alekseyev Karrde: mercenary of my heart."-á -Arydanika, Voices from the Void
CSM7 rep, CSM 4 vet Noir./Noir. Academy Recruiting: www.noirmercs.com |
Poetic Stanziel
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
1449
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 23:42:00 -
[152] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:That dual mining/PVE site is interesting indeed. Quoting whole post for effect.
EDIT: OK looks like im all caught up. There were a lot of good posts (and some bads) so if i didn't quote you dont take it personally, im probably spamming the thread already as it is haha No trolling. I'll leave that behind on the first few pages. Fun is over.
You're doing a good job of actually discussing the document. It originally looked like you'd all get defensive and simply defend the document and the ideas you all put forward, rather than discuss openly.
Credit where it is due. Good job here, Aleks. Amarr Militia |
DiaoMoney
DMoney Corp
0
|
Posted - 2012.11.20 02:07:00 -
[153] - Quote
One issue I would like to add to the POSes:
While player-driven and freedom is the sell point of EVE, the designers should realize that making things vulnerable to attack is not the right way to generate player-driven events: people will simply try their best to avoid that feature .
The ship maintenance array is just a bad example. I will compare it with the corporate hangar array, which is a good one (not perfect but at least much better).
Trust is granted rather than forced upon. When someone hangar-flip a corporation, he was exactly granted the right to access the specified hangar that he can possibly to flip, because the leadership trusted him.
To a ship maintenance array, however, you can only choose to make it "Unusable" or "Totally undefended". The other option that "Manage it by person in role" will just burnout people quickly.
People may argue that this is important to encourage players to build a station. But actually people still need an usable outpost, which functions between a station and a safe spot with just force field.
This is important to populate the null, for smaller forces that live in NPC space or can't afford to build massive stations. |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor Cosmic Consortium
2087
|
Posted - 2012.11.20 03:43:00 -
[154] - Quote
To make people actually use titans? Nerf OGB, done. Now you have to have your Avatar on-grid to get that juicy increase in cap recharge, your Ragnarok has to be on-grid to get that sig radius bonus, etc.
Then there could be new shinies: officer & deadspace warfare links, for example. More warfare links to do simple things like reduce sig resolution of the fleet's weapons (or explosion velocity for missiles). Every skill in a character's skill tree should have a parallel warfare link, allowing a fleet to boost character skills to 6 (because 11 would be ridiculous).
But this is ideas for shinies, not commentary on the CSM white paper. Day 0 advice for new players: Day 0 Advice for New Players |
corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
918
|
Posted - 2012.11.20 03:52:00 -
[155] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:To make people actually use titans? Nerf OGB, done. Now you have to have your Avatar on-grid to get that juicy increase in cap recharge, your Ragnarok has to be on-grid to get that sig radius bonus, etc.
Then there could be new shinies: officer & deadspace warfare links, for example. More warfare links to do simple things like reduce sig resolution of the fleet's weapons (or explosion velocity for missiles). Every skill in a character's skill tree should have a parallel warfare link, allowing a fleet to boost character skills to 6 (because 11 would be ridiculous).
But this is ideas for shinies, not commentary on the CSM white paper.
This only ever encourages players to put one or two titans at risk at a time, or simply not deploy them at all in favor of weaker but much cheaper command ships. A meaningful battlefield role that doesn't relegate dreads to relative obsolescence and encourages people to deploy 'em if they've got 'em, hopefully to be destroyed, is much better.
In my opinion, of course. This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
fofofo |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor Cosmic Consortium
2087
|
Posted - 2012.11.20 03:57:00 -
[156] - Quote
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? Day 0 advice for new players: Day 0 Advice for New Players |
Snow Axe
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
563
|
Posted - 2012.11.20 03:59:00 -
[157] - 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. |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
850
|
Posted - 2012.11.20 05:20:00 -
[158] - Quote
I got caught up in the earlier discussion over the timing to nerf compression or if it would disappear magically.
I always thought one of the main reasons to nerf it was to nerf titan and super construction makeing them a lot harder to build. Bring this up since people want industry in null and want that first before compression nerf.
I am curios to see what level of industry players want in null really. (Like how much they want miners to mine and builders to go through.)
As in miners might be able to supply BS or below with a compression nerf, but would players want miners to support titans and supers easily in null.
With timing, you can nerf compression earlier and hurt supers being built. Or if you do want industry to support their production, then you have to wait longer for compression to be nerfed.
I might have missed though, the conversation of what players actually wanted to be built in null to support a war or so, or how big a war they wanted supported. I'm not shitposting. |
Snow Axe
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
567
|
Posted - 2012.11.20 05:33:00 -
[159] - 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. |
None ofthe Above
365
|
Posted - 2012.11.20 05:59:00 -
[160] - Quote
People who are upset about their issues not being talked about, don't understand the purpose of the document.
The CSM outlined a strategy and then picked a couple of example projects and wrote about how to apply the strategy in each case.
It was NOT work on these things because they are more important than everything else.
I direct you to this section:
Quote:Examples for Consideration The following examples, in alphabetical order, are included to provide concrete illustrations of a pillar-based approach in practice. These examples center on themes and concepts widely considered by existing subscribers as significantly broken and would likely need to be spread out over two expansions/12 months. Each area is a significant problem taking money out of CCPGÇÖs pocket through lost or missed subscriptions. They are not wish-lists, but rather illustrations of how new features and iteration can be weaved into powerful, themed expansions with broad demographic appeal.
Its all very fine to use it as a spring board for more conversation (and there has been some excellent examples of that in this thread) but please stop pulling your hair out. That never did me any good. EVE is a sandbox; The only "end-game" content in EVE is the crap that makes you rage-quit.
|
|
corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
921
|
Posted - 2012.11.20 07:02:00 -
[161] - Quote
I wrote that article too :ssh:
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?
How many mindlinks are you really going to be able to invent to give people reason to field more than a few titans in the role you're imagining? At eight links a titan you'll run out of things people will consider worth bringing awfully fast, even in this notional "a mindlink for every skill" scenario. I'd say give them a reason to deployed against each other dozens at a time (this already exists, arguably), give them the means to tackle each other (or give dreadnaughts a new role by allowing them to tackle supers), and lean back to watch the carnage. Imagine how many more supers might have died in that SOLAR vs the world engagement a few weeks back if the supers themselves had been able to tackle each other? Quite a lot more than 7 out of over a hundred deployed on field, I'd hope. This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
fofofo |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor Cosmic Consortium
2088
|
Posted - 2012.11.20 07:30:00 -
[162] - Quote
What about expanding the role of titans to deliberately include blapping subcaps?
Or allowing logistics to repair HICs? Tackle dreads might be worthwhile if there was a capital tackle module whose only purpose was to prevent jump drives from functioning. Day 0 advice for new players: Day 0 Advice for New Players |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
5151
|
Posted - 2012.11.20 07:59:00 -
[163] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:What about expanding the role of titans to deliberately include blapping subcaps?
This has been tried. It did not end well, unless you think roving fleets of dozens of titans killing everything with impunity is "well".
MatrixSkye Mk2: "Remember: You consent to unconsensual PVP the moment you press the "Undock" button." |
Noisrevbus
288
|
Posted - 2012.11.20 08:25:00 -
[164] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:What about expanding the role of titans to deliberately include blapping subcaps?
Or allowing logistics to repair HICs? Tackle dreads might be worthwhile if there was a capital tackle module whose only purpose was to prevent jump drives from functioning.
Logistics can already repair HICs, you just have to operate in tandem with other HIC to maintain points - which makes for a more complex and interesting tactical situation. We don't want the game dumbed down further where more HICs survive and less people commit SC.
The questions seem to operate under the assumption that SC rarely die because they have too easy a time to escape, while in reality SC "rarely" die because as with everything else there's little incentive to commit them from an unfavourable position. Very few groups are ballsy enough to use them as equalizers. It's more common to see them played as a stake rush when you have a good hand. Unlike many other ships in EVE, the loss of one also often hurt a wallet. |
Jack Miton
Aperture Harmonics K162
833
|
Posted - 2012.11.20 08:27:00 -
[165] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:What about expanding the role of titans to deliberately include blapping subcaps?
that's exactly what they used to do. issue is it's fine if you have a dozen or less titans per alliance like in the olden days, but now that everyone and their mother flies a titan, 200man titan blobs than can each volley any subcap gets old real fast.
titans need an on field role that no other ship has. until then, they will remain as they are: glorified epeens. |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
850
|
Posted - 2012.11.20 11:27:00 -
[166] - Quote
Thanks, but I don't really agree with corestwo's opinoins though.
I do see it as a viable nerf to supers and stuff, if compression was nerfed. If players found a way around it, it would be by doing a ton of work, which really isn't a way around things at all.
Also don't really care about the rate of super deaths or how many there are I suppose, just annoying that it is too easy to get one. But that is a wierder point though.
I mostly made my post off of corestwo's post though, about how the miners and industry peeps would have to carry the null sec residents if compression was nerfed. Suppose, with some of his opinions he wouldn't allow anyone to carry him though. Personally I don't think I could ever support super production really, but BS sized hulls would be worth debating over. I'm not shitposting. |
Sinzor Aumer
Atlas Research Group Aerodyne Collective
24
|
Posted - 2012.11.20 12:45:00 -
[167] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:Kirith Kodachi wrote:While I like a lot of what was said in this document, I am a little disappointed that nothing was said in regards to supercap proliferation and dominance contributing to the stagnancy of null sec.
Overall, B+. Moving away from structure grinds and (eventually) getting the ship balancing team done with subcaps and onto caps/supers will help with this. On the production/death specifics, there's a lot of controversy about it, as evidenced with the fight over mineral compression in this thread. My personal feeling is that while their production rate has been reduced, super capitals were intended to be rare and any month where triple digits of supers are being produced is a bad month. I think they need to be harder to build (or have disrupting their building be easier), i think they need a battlefield role that differentiates them from carriers/dreads but is never the less so compelling that you WANT to use your super fleet, and I think that super fleet needs to have more threats to it while they're deployed. Obviously a lot of these goals are competing, but somewhere in the balance between them is the sweetspot where supers will be useful and the death/production numbers so close that during particularly violent months we might see the global number drop (which it hasnt for like 3 years) The issue of proliferation can be dealt with pretty easily, without increasing death rate or otherwise messing it with PVP activity. And I'm not talking about nerfing production as well, as nerfing the industry in nullsec is not a good idea at all.
You just need to impose maintenance costs for the owner of a supercapital ship, these costs should be considerable and comparable to the production costs. I'll present the draft of this mechanics, but I dont insist it should be exactly as I say - just to give a general idea.
Every day you should put you super into a ship maintenance array, and click "pass maintenance". It would take 15 minutes and will consume some random amount of capital components. If you dont pass maintenance, your ship would loose 1% of max shield, armor, structure and capacitor every day after downtime. When you finally decide to pass it - it would cost you more time and materials, proportional to the number of skipped days. |
Besbin
Balderfrey Holding inc
13
|
Posted - 2012.11.20 12:57:00 -
[168] - Quote
ma perke wrote: - create more interaction. for instance on completing an anomally you get next annomaly in different system - this will increase traffic i.e. interaction. of course should be ballanced with increased bounties.
It's there already: Escalations. However, I see no reason why the escalation chance should be as low as it is right now. And it should be easy code to just increase that chance significantly. |
corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
921
|
Posted - 2012.11.20 18:02:00 -
[169] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:What about expanding the role of titans to deliberately include blapping subcaps?
The ability to do this is exactly why, up until recently (last November for supercarriers, April for titans) supers were proliferating at such a sky-high rate. The fact that their rate of production fell off a cliff after those nerfs is rather telling. Players love flying overpowered ships, who knew. 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
783
|
Posted - 2012.11.20 19:08:00 -
[170] - Quote
corestwo wrote:Players love flying overpowered ships, who knew. I'm shocked you would suggest such a thing! ;p
Supers already have a maintenance cost atm: PLEX. Because the character cant leave that ship, using a super on your "main" is rare indeed. So 600m/month. Now if you COULD leave it safely maybe some kind of in-game upkeep would make sense "Alekseyev Karrde: mercenary of my heart."-á -Arydanika, Voices from the Void
CSM7 rep, CSM 4 vet Noir./Noir. Academy Recruiting: www.noirmercs.com |
|
Imports Plus
Brothel of Slating Intellectual Lusts
96
|
Posted - 2012.11.20 20:26:00 -
[171] - Quote
I wont pretend to know how to accomplish this but the primary issues seem to be:
1. Make a reason for them to be fielded more frequently (more than a pos bash) without going back to the days of a 40 titan blob devastating a 250 man BS fleet.
2. Let caps tackle caps. |
corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
922
|
Posted - 2012.11.20 20:31:00 -
[172] - Quote
Imports Plus wrote:I wont pretend to know how to accomplish this but the primary issues seem to be:
1. Make a reason for them to be fielded more frequently (more than a pos bash) without going back to the days of a 40 titan blob devastating a 250 man BS fleet.
2. Let caps tackle caps.
Well, sort of.
Issues are:
1. People need more of a reason to use them beyond structure bashing. "Drop them on other people's supers" is another reason, but it's always going to be a reason unless their offensive capabilities are removed entire.
2. Supercaps are devilishly hard to actually pin down. Part of that is due to a willingness to sacrifice an entire support fleet to scrape off the only ships able to tackle them.
And so proposed solutions are:
1: ??? Lots of talk about increasing or changing role, nothing firm.
2: Let caps (or dreads with a special module, or whatever) tackle supers. This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
fofofo |
CataCourier
Asha' Man Corp
11
|
Posted - 2012.11.20 20:40:00 -
[173] - Quote
corestwo wrote:2: Let caps (or dreads with a special module, or whatever) tackle supers.
Aren't dreads susceptible to EWAR? There would need to be a preventative measure to keep them from being quickly target jammed as soon as they tried to lock down a super.
|
Sofia Wolf
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
72
|
Posted - 2012.11.20 20:46:00 -
[174] - Quote
IDK if I like the tone of the report. It leaves me with GÇ£**** empire space, 0.0 is only thing importantGÇ¥ after-taste. I find it quite dishonest to claim that empire space is more profitable then 0.0 space. This is simply not true, unless one counts market speculation and trading, but I don't think those should count.
And despite their focus on 0.0 as on most important part of the game they ignored 2 biggest problems of 0.0 space: blobbing and fact that something like 2 to 4 (depending on how one counts) mega coalitions control all of sov space in 0.0 and that nobody that is unwilling to suckup to handful of oligarchs running those coalitions has any place in sov 0.0. Both of those problems are consequence of excessive speed of travel in 0.0. It takes about as much time to transit from one corner of 0.0 to another in carrier blob as it takes to transit from one corner of empire space to another in interceptor.. If one is serious about improving 0.0 he must first deal with mechanic that make fast travel in that space possible: cyno, jump bridges and titan bridging.
That said there are some proposals that I like: Farms and Fields sov mechanics, diversifying 0.0 (although I donGÇÖt know why CSM thins this should be exclusive to 0.0 alone, any part of New Eden could benefit from that), Standings and the Map (UI) , and Breaking Mineral Compression. |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
3345
|
Posted - 2012.11.20 20:46:00 -
[175] - Quote
Sinzor Aumer wrote: You just need to impose maintenance costs for the owner of a supercapital ship, these costs should be considerable and comparable to the production costs. I'll present the draft of this mechanics, but I dont insist it should be exactly as I say - just to give a general idea.
You say this as if $15 or 600 million for a PLEX every month isn't a high enough maintenance cost.
Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
Poetic Stanziel
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
1451
|
Posted - 2012.11.20 20:47:00 -
[176] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Sinzor Aumer wrote: You just need to impose maintenance costs for the owner of a supercapital ship, these costs should be considerable and comparable to the production costs. I'll present the draft of this mechanics, but I dont insist it should be exactly as I say - just to give a general idea. You say this as if $15 or 600 million for a PLEX every month isn't a high enough maintenance cost. There's an echo in here.
Amarr Militia |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
3345
|
Posted - 2012.11.20 21:19:00 -
[177] - Quote
That's what I get for not hitting refresh before posting. Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor Cosmic Consortium
2094
|
Posted - 2012.11.20 21:22:00 -
[178] - Quote
Why would someone only have one character on an account? Why would only Titan piloting accounts be considered to be paying an "upkeep" of an account subscription?
I disbelieve.
Here's what actually happens: you have accounts that have titan flying pilots on them. In some cases, that is in fact the only viable character on the account, and the account is shared by an alliance (because why spend the money on a Titan when the player is only on two hours a day, four days a week?). In other cases, there are one or two other characters on the account: for example a hisec ice mining alt and a destroyer-flying ganking alt, which are perfectly usable for those times when the player (who is GÇö incredibly GÇö the only user of the account) doesn't want to be a titan.
The argument that the upkeep for a Titan pilot is 1 PLEX a month is bogus to start with: all accounts cost that kind of upkeep, even the new player who has just started and can only fly frigates with poor tank and DPS has to pay for that account somehow.
A Faction Warfare alt costs more "upkeep" than a Titan flying alt, because the FW alt will lose ships and need to replace them. The Titan/Supercarrier alt isn't losing ships.
Day 0 advice for new players: Day 0 Advice for New Players |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor Cosmic Consortium
2095
|
Posted - 2012.11.20 21:41:00 -
[179] - Quote
Noisrevbus wrote:Mara Rinn wrote:Or allowing logistics to repair HICs? Tackle dreads might be worthwhile if there was a capital tackle module whose only purpose was to prevent jump drives from functioning. Logistics can already repair HICs, you just have to operate in tandem with other HIC to maintain points - which makes for a more complex and interesting tactical situation. We don't want the game dumbed down further where more HICs survive and less people commit SC. The questions seem to operate under the assumption that SC rarely die because they have too easy a time to escape, while in reality SC "rarely" die because as with everything else there's little incentive to commit them from an unfavourable position.
So we can already tackle capitals and supercapitals with HICs, and HICs can be repaired (when they don't have their infinite point active), why do we need (super)capitals to be able to tackle supercapitals? Is this just a wish from dreadnought pilots wanting to have something worthwhile to do with their dreadnoughts?
I wonder if the real reason that supercapitals aren't dying is simply that there are no fights important enough to win that they're worth sacrificing super-expensive ships for? Or is the reason more likely to be that noone wants to escalate a supercapital fight because the only people currently using supercapitals have such vastly superior numbers that anyone else using supercapitals is going to have their supercapitals effortlessly removed from space?
Day 0 advice for new players: Day 0 Advice for New Players |
corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
922
|
Posted - 2012.11.20 22:35:00 -
[180] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:Why would someone only have one character on an account? Why would only Titan piloting accounts be considered to be paying an "upkeep" of an account subscription?
Someone might want to come to fleet ops in a regular ship while they dawdle in their titan, which means two accounts, an extra account which they might not actually have.
Most super pilots also tend to maintain their own network of cyno and scout alts too, for that matter.
Sofia Wolf wrote:IDK if I like the tone of the report. It leaves me with GÇ£**** empire space, 0.0 is only thing importantGÇ¥ after-taste. I find it quite dishonest to claim that empire space is more profitable then 0.0 space. This is simply not true, unless one counts market speculation and trading, but I don't think those should count. I don't think anyone is saying that empire space is unimportant and indeed many things in this would likely be a boon to empire as well. What's being said is that null has been neglected for quite some time and has glaring structural issues that have been unaddressed throughout the entire game.
Sofia Wolf wrote:And despite their focus on 0.0 as on most important part of the game they ignored 2 biggest problems of 0.0 space: blobbing and fact that something like 2 to 4 (depending on how one counts) mega coalitions control all of sov space in 0.0 and that nobody that is unwilling to suckup to handful of oligarchs running those coalitions has any place in sov 0.0. Large coalitions have existed in the past and often throughout the entire game. The old "Southern Coalition" of Lokta Volterra, Veritas Immortalis and KOS numbered some ten thousand players, for example. The old "Northern Coalition" in all its myriad incarnations was similarly sized. Two things have changed. First, the servers have grown and been refined to actually allow players to work together (or against each other) in increasingly large numbers. No one wants to revert this. And second, the out-of-game coordination and infrastructure supporting these coalitions has grown increasingly more sophisticated, something CCP can't do anything about anyway.
Sofia Wolf wrote:Both of those problems are consequence of excessive speed of travel in 0.0. It takes about as much time to transit from one corner of 0.0 to another in carrier blob as it takes to transit from one corner of empire space to another in interceptor.. If one is serious about improving 0.0 he must first deal with mechanic that make fast travel in that space possible: cyno, jump bridges and titan bridging. Uh...based on your extensive, what, 16 months of playing this game wherein you've played with such carrier blob using superstars as "Ubuntu Inc" that would qualify you to actually say something like this?
Look. Goons conquered everything from Scalding Pass to Detorid before jump bridges and titan bridges ever existed, with just very dedicated carrier pilot or two doing out logistics. The argument that players can only conquer and hold large amounts of space because of titan bridges, jump bridges and cynos is laughable
Mara Rinn wrote: I wonder if the real reason that supercapitals aren't dying is simply that there are no fights important enough to win that they're worth sacrificing super-expensive ships for? Or is the reason more likely to be that noone wants to escalate a supercapital fight because the only people currently using supercapitals have such vastly superior numbers that anyone else using supercapitals is going to have their supercapitals effortlessly removed from space?
A recent (within the past month, I'm having trouble finding news coverage) fight between SOLAR and RA that escalated to include HBC and others joining in on both sides featured over a hundred supers on the field and many hundreds of other players on both sides.
A total of 7 supers died, and for that type of engagement that's actually exceptional. This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
fofofo |
|
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3886
|
Posted - 2012.11.20 22:52:00 -
[181] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote: So we can already tackle capitals and supercapitals with HICs, and HICs can be repaired (when they don't have their infinite point active), why do we need (super)capitals to be able to tackle supercapitals? Is this just a wish from dreadnought pilots wanting to have something worthwhile to do with their dreadnoughts?
Supercaps and caps being able to tackle other supercaps means once two supercap fleets are committed to battle you can't clear tackle and escape: you have to actually kill enough of the other side (and/or leave your tackled friends to die) to escape. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3886
|
Posted - 2012.11.20 22:58:00 -
[182] - Quote
really, if you couldn't clear tackle and escape once two supercap fleets committed to battle like half would be dead, every single time a major supercap fleet gets pinned down the vast majority escapes. |
CataCourier
Asha' Man Corp
11
|
Posted - 2012.11.20 23:11:00 -
[183] - Quote
Something that I'd like to see added (perhaps in a future document) are some potential solutions to the ISK surplus in the game- that is, the amount of ISK entering the economy vs the amount leaving.
One suggestion that is to change the way that insurance payouts work.
Right now, players sink ISK to insure their ship. This is already functioning as a sink in some cases, where insurance expires without having a claim- which is OK.
The issue with insurance (related to ISK surplus) is that when insurance pays out on a claim, it is netting the player ISK in return for Minerals that are destroyed. Therefore, minerals leave the market, while ISK continually flows into the market. Not only does this mean that players net ISK to purchase more minerals (ships), but this is compounding the demand for minerals for a fixed amount of ISK.
Below is an example. The numbers are completely arbitrary and I'm ignoring manufacturing profit and mods. -Player budgets 100 million ISK for a ship hull for PVP -Player purchases ship for 80 mil, spends 20 mil on insurance (80 mil worth of minerals total). -Ship blows up, player receives approximately 80 million as a payout. -Player then purchases ship for 65 mil, spends 15 mil on insurance (140 mil worth of minerals total) -Ship blows up, player receives approximately 65 million as a payout. -Player then purchases a ship for 65 mil and forgets to purchase insurance (205 mil worth of minerals total) -Ship blows up, player receives approximately 15 million as a payout.
To summarize the above (based on completely arbitrary and innacurate numbers to make a point): -Player has a net loss of 85 million ISK -Player sank 35 million ISK into Insurance -Insurance paid out 160 million -Player caused the destruction of 205 mil worth of minerals
Therefore- A total of 125 million ISK entered the economy, and 205 million worth of minerals left the economy- all from the initial budget of 100 million.
My suggestion is to change the payout from ISK to a non-currency item or LP. Ideally, when insurance is purchased, the insured should be able to choose whether they want (Minerals?) or Loyalty Points for a faction that they have standings with (or some other form of non-currency credits). If this were changed, Insurance would no longer contribute to the ISK surplus in the game (and could help stabilize mineral prices!). |
Trebor Daehdoow
Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Squad.
2350
|
Posted - 2012.11.20 23:17:00 -
[184] - Quote
None ofthe Above wrote:I direct you to this section: Quote:Examples for Consideration The following examples, in alphabetical order, are included to provide concrete illustrations of a pillar-based approach in practice. These examples center on themes and concepts widely considered by existing subscribers as significantly broken and would likely need to be spread out over two expansions/12 months. Each area is a significant problem taking money out of CCPGÇÖs pocket through lost or missed subscriptions. They are not wish-lists, but rather illustrations of how new features and iteration can be weaved into powerful, themed expansions with broad demographic appeal. Yep, exactly. There was some debate as to whether or not to include the examples at all.
Quote:Its all very fine to use it as a spring board for more conversation (and there has been some excellent examples of that in this thread) but please stop pulling your hair out. That never did me any good. After 2.5 years on CSM, I am now totally bald. True story.
The Sarcasm is Strong with Me GÇó Member of CSM 5-7 GÇó Blog |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
3345
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 01:58:00 -
[185] - Quote
Laerise wrote: Lowsec, and especially faction warfare lowsec, is actually much more dangerous than the average nullbears system deep in the sea of NAP fested blue. There is no way to reliably cynojam a system, there is no way of reliably controlling who enters a system and there is much more hostile traffic around at all times of the day.
To be frank, nullbears may be the loudest part of EVE on the forums, but the most broken part of EVE with the most broken risk/reward situation is still lowsec - and especially non FW lowsec. There is no sane reason to live in non FW lowsec, except maybe the very few level 5 mission agent areas. Lowsec has all the problems listed in the document but none of the advantages of nullsec.
Especially damning is the fact that you put features like "Group PVE for Miners aka "Ring Mining" (New Feature)" into nullsec, where it should be "more common and lucrative".
What is your reason to put the most "lucrative" PVE mining content into nullsec again, except but to appease the nullbears who want to reap all the benefits of this new system without the (true) risk of lowsec? Again, putting high yield content into nullsec because nullsec is "the most dangerous" is fallacious because it's actually not.
This is an important question, one worthy of further elaboration. A warning though - I'm not really going to go into the "nullbear" bullshit - arguments about this group or that group complaining the most are almost always extremely subjective - and I struggle with whether to have a serious discussion with someone who clearly wants to stereotype and dismiss tens of thousands of paying customers to begin with.
But to talk specifically about safety levels in 0.0 is something we can do objectively, without all the "those people" nonsense. You are correct - 0.0 is, in many places, unpopulated and relatively safe. This is very much to be expected - it should be of little surprise that a moderate reward, high risk (from a strictly mechanical perspective - how easy it is for other players to trap you and kill you) area of space will less desirable to live in that has high reward (Faction Warfare rewards being the current winner) but low risk (again, from a mechanical perspective). It is very easy in lowsec to protect your assets if you dont want to lose them - you are guaranteed 100% access to anything you stash in a station (NPC alts can always dock, everywhere) and travel is much, much safer without bubbles. Gatecamps exist - but are still trivial to bypass using a variety of methods, if your true intention is to not get killed.
Thus, we end up a system where 0.0 is practically safer, although not mechanically safer. This is an important point of distinction - because you are actually advocating worsening a major problem with the game by basing your recommendations off of the bad side effects of the current situation. It's circular logic - saying we shouldn't fix 0.0 because no one lives there, when the reason no one lives there is because its not in a healthy enough place begin with. And yes, of course I'm exaggerating when I'm saying "no one", there are obviously MANY citizens of 0.0 - but as you've already pointed out, not nearly populated enough to become fiercely competitive and dangerous, especially for smaller entities. We will never see that level of individual risk unless CCP makes it worth pursuing wealth out there when compared to what one can earn in Empire space.
Say whatever you want about my loyalties, but I'm easily the most smug CSM member when it comes to what Retribution is delivering for "my people". New ships, massive rebalancing, a completely revamped Crimewatch, bounty hunting, wardec fixes, and Faction Warfare iterations - its a low sec resident's wet dream of an expansion compared to just about every release since well, before I started playing the game. I literally couldn't be more excited about a feature set to have direct input on. But those of us that live in low sec still form a small fraction of the overall playerbase, whose interests I am also obligated to defend to CCP regardless of who elected me. Vote however you like in the future with that in mind, won't bother me a bit either way. Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
3345
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 02:03:00 -
[186] - Quote
Trebor Daehdoow wrote: After 2.5 years on CSM, I am now totally bald. True story.
Updated avatar I see? Now now, Trebor - you're not fooling anyone. Just because the new portrait more accurately renders your current hair situation, doesn't mean we're going to believe that you're suddenly 10 years younger.
Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
Kropotkin
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 04:19:00 -
[187] - Quote
Bravo to CSM and CCP for publishing the framework they are using to discuss the future of EVE!
Putting the framework on the table makes it much easier for players to comment constructively.
In 2002, John Mashey reprised a talk he first gave in 1977, "Small is Beautiful and Other Thoughts on Programming Strategies".
One thing Mashey discusses is "Creeping Featurism", from which EVE-online suffers greatly.
Iceland's maritime heritage should help CCP understand the two approaches to dealing with this affliction:
The Lifeboat Rule: Once you reach the point where adding another passenger to the lifeboat will swamp it and kill everyone, the only way you can let a new passenger aboard is first to throw an old passenger overboard to the sharks.
The Sinking Lifeboat Rule: If the lifeboat has a leak, you may have to throw a passenger overboard from time to time, without letting anyone new come aboard.
The framework lacks any provision for identifying existing content and features to eliminate.
|
Theodoric Darkwind
PonyWaffe Test Alliance Please Ignore
194
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 04:32:00 -
[188] - Quote
Poetic Stanziel wrote:Mara Rinn wrote:I can see that no one in the CSM is actively involved in industry. Super yield mining? Create incentives for miners in null by increasing yield? Create incentives for miners in null by breaking mineral compression? Your super capital fleet addiction is showing. It was stated a couple months ago that all the mineral compression numbers were being spreadsheeted by Kelduum and that he was looking for a solution in this regard to nullsec industry. Who better qualified to do that than the CEO of EVE University?
Dovinian, Seleene and Elise come to mind, as they have all dealt with alliance and coalition level logistical issues.
about the only industry that I see working swimmingly in nullsec (as in you can source basically everything locally at a profit) is drug manufacturing. |
Sinzor Aumer
Atlas Research Group Aerodyne Collective
25
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 04:48:00 -
[189] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Sinzor Aumer wrote: You just need to impose maintenance costs for the owner of a supercapital ship, these costs should be considerable and comparable to the production costs. I'll present the draft of this mechanics, but I dont insist it should be exactly as I say - just to give a general idea. You say this as if $15 or 600 million for a PLEX every month isn't a high enough maintenance cost. Is 600 mil/month enough? Let's estimate. If we agree 1% per day sounds reasonable, then it should be about 1 bil ISK per day for a Titan. Nowhere even close to 20 mil/day for plexing.
I'm not trying to convince anyone that we should reduce the number of supers in the game, not in this thread. Instead, I'd like to see opinions of people who are actually involved in sov. warfare about proliferation. But if you folks agree there is an issue with it - here is the remedy. |
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
888
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 07:52:00 -
[190] - Quote
Sinzor Aumer wrote:Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Sinzor Aumer wrote: You just need to impose maintenance costs for the owner of a supercapital ship, these costs should be considerable and comparable to the production costs. I'll present the draft of this mechanics, but I dont insist it should be exactly as I say - just to give a general idea. You say this as if $15 or 600 million for a PLEX every month isn't a high enough maintenance cost. Is 600 mil/month enough? Let's estimate. If we agree 1% per day sounds reasonable, then it should be about 1 bil ISK per day for a Titan. Nowhere even close to 20 mil/day for plexing. I'm not trying to convince anyone that we should reduce the number of supers in the game, not in this thread. Instead, I'd like to see opinions of people who are actually involved in sov. warfare about proliferation. But if you folks agree there is an issue with it - here is the remedy. I am personally against Titans but 1 bil a day, you already have your alt stored in a coffin. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
|
GizzyBoy
Old Spice Syndicate Sailors of the Sacred Spice
21
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 10:07:00 -
[191] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:corestwo wrote:Players love flying overpowered ships, who knew. I'm shocked you would suggest such a thing! ;p Supers already have a maintenance cost atm: PLEX. Because the character cant leave that ship, using a super on your "main" is rare indeed. So 600m/month. Now if you COULD leave it safely maybe some kind of in-game upkeep would make sense
Friend bought sc on his main, Officer fit t2 rigs, super shiney,
Logged out of eve on all chars, never logged back in. |
Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange Nabaal Syndicate
8
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 20:07:00 -
[192] - Quote
Poetic Stanziel wrote:Herschel Yamamoto wrote:The goal of the CSM is not to remain in compliance with the letter of their legal agreements, their goal is to get CCP to make a better game. You don't do that by spitting at them. I'm perfectly willing to see a document a day or two later if it means that any would-be ruffled feathers get smoothed down and the CSM has a better chance of actually making a positive contribution to the future of Eve. Just because being a **** is legal doesn't mean it's a good idea. These guys are too concerned with potentially upsetting their new besties. The Mittani, last year, brought the issue of Monocles, the in-game demonstrations, and the failures of Walking in Stations straight to the gaming press, very likely to the consternation of CCP. He was less worried about his besties and more concerned about correcting the course of CCP development on EVE Online. Given all that, I don't think his relationship with CCP was hurt all that much. (His fanfest gaffe is beside the point.) The CSM is more concerned with keeping CCP happy than the playerbase, because they live in fear of being denied access if they upset their keepers. Now this document speaks to correcting development course as well. But it's certainly not time sensitive. CCP won't be roadmapping their next expansion, deciding upon features, until January or February, so there was time to discuss on a public forum first, then they could draft their document. What we have here is a roadmap that the CSM is already firmly behind (only five or six of them had any legitimate input on the document), and we're meant to accept its direction, more or less, as is. Given that you don't see much discussion happening in this thread, just the CSM defending their stance, speaks to that.
I agree with you more than you might think. It's important for the CSM to be able to kick up a fuss when there's a need for it. But the thing about kicking up a fuss is, it doesn't work if you do it all the time. Someone who cries when something's wrong is respected, someone who cries for the sake of crying is an infant. Diplomacy isn't actually about being nice, it's about picking the right time and place to be mean. Too little mean and you're a walkover, too much mean and you're a belligerent jerk. Do you really think that spreading around a basically uncontroversial document like this one a couple days early is the right time to stick a knife in?
Sinzor Aumer wrote:Is 600 mil/month enough? Let's estimate. If we agree 1% per day sounds reasonable, then it should be about 1 bil ISK per day for a Titan.
Well then isn't it a good thing that we don't agree that 1%/day is the right number? |
Dramaticus
Goonswarm Federation
328
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 23:00:00 -
[193] - Quote
The time for the supercap proliferation argument was 5 years ago. Stop beating this dead horse. bring back images |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
3358
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 23:35:00 -
[194] - Quote
Dramaticus wrote:The time for the supercap proliferation argument was 5 years ago. Stop beating this dead horse.
What drives me nuts is that everyone's knee-jerk reaction to the idea of supercap proliferation issue is to attack the supply end. How boring is that? The problem with supercaps is that they're not dying fast enough.
This is a video game, folks. It's about having fun, not doing more work. There are two ways to make less supercaps exist - make them take longer to build (boring) or make them die faster (ridiculously fun).
Call me crazy, but I really think it's really that simple. Make these ships risky, but fun as hell, and USEFUL as hell - and they'll die. Titans and Supers both suffer from lackluster battlefield roles due to several years of responsive nerfs without a cohesive design direction.
If this were me, "solving the supercap issue" would start with the Supercap ships themselves. We've got TOP MEN at CCP in the middle of a pretty pro balancing effort, give em a break from logi frigs and dessies and let them loose on capitals for an expansion cycle. I think we can implement a supercap proliferation fix that has the side effect of Lulz and Youtube videos and stories to tell while drinking together....not an extra 15 jump freighter trips.
Issler Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
Poetic Stanziel
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
1452
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 23:53:00 -
[195] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Call me crazy, but I really think it's really that simple. Make these ships risky, but fun as hell, and USEFUL as hell - and they'll die. Titans and Supers both suffer from lackluster battlefield roles due to several years of responsive nerfs without a cohesive design direction. They'd have to be cheaper before people look at it that way. Which would then lead to more proliferation.
It has to be tackled from both ends, probably.
Amarr Militia |
Noisrevbus
289
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 23:55:00 -
[196] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Dramaticus wrote:The time for the supercap proliferation argument was 5 years ago. Stop beating this dead horse. What drives me nuts is that everyone's knee-jerk reaction to the idea of supercap proliferation issue is to attack the supply end. How boring is that? The problem with supercaps is that they're not dying fast enough.
It just need to be pointed out over and over: The reason for that Hans, is not because they are too difficult to kill, the reason is that they simply do not get used enough because of the deeper rooted problems of resource balance in the game.
There should be an incentive to use them, use them in challenging situations and taking risks. Today, such behaviour is not rewarded on any level, so it can't be expected with regard to Supers either.
The current direction of game design highly discourages taking risks with any form of valuable assets. Not only any mistakes done at the conception of Supers, but the still ongoing direction today. The very thing you are setting out to discuss here.
Clobber this by the thick skulls as they keep making more ships that are pointless to kill because they have no sink, so we refrain from using ships that actually have sinks without (expected-) guarantee.
|
Zaine Maltis
Innsmouth Enterprises
33
|
Posted - 2012.11.22 00:16:00 -
[197] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Dramaticus wrote:The time for the supercap proliferation argument was 5 years ago. Stop beating this dead horse. (snip) Issler
Er... are you channelling Issler Dainze, or have they just stolen your login? Innsmouth Enterprises
|
Issler Dainze
Tadakastu-Obata Corporation The Honda Accord
2199
|
Posted - 2012.11.22 00:18:00 -
[198] - Quote
Zaine Maltis wrote:Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Dramaticus wrote:The time for the supercap proliferation argument was 5 years ago. Stop beating this dead horse. (snip) Issler Er... are you channelling Issler Dainze, or have they just stolen your login?
All the cool kids sign their posts "Issler"
Issler |
Snow Axe
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
572
|
Posted - 2012.11.22 00:25:00 -
[199] - 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 |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor Cosmic Consortium
2099
|
Posted - 2012.11.22 02:02:00 -
[200] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:Supercaps and caps being able to tackle other supercaps means once two supercap fleets are committed to battle you can't clear tackle and escape: you have to actually kill enough of the other side (and/or leave your tackled friends to die) to escape.
What is the difference between being tackled by HICs versus dreadnoughts that would prevent ships escaping once they have cleared tacklers?
Day 0 advice for new players: Day 0 Advice for New Players |
|
Sinzor Aumer
Atlas Research Group Aerodyne Collective
25
|
Posted - 2012.11.22 02:43:00 -
[201] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:This is a video game, folks. It's about having fun, not doing more work. There are two ways to make less supercaps exist - make them take longer to build (boring) or make them die faster (ridiculously fun). FYI production can be fun, mining can be fun. If it's not appealing to you personally - doesnt mean it's not for me as well. And this point stands regardless of supercapitals. |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
3360
|
Posted - 2012.11.22 02:57:00 -
[202] - Quote
Sinzor Aumer wrote: FYI production can be fun, mining can be fun. If it's not appealing to you personally - doesnt mean it's not for me as well. And this point stands regardless of supercapitals.
Well yes. My point wasn't that mining and industry is inherently unfun (I mine highsec ice, make POS fuel, and cook drugs), but rather that increasing build times through various means isn't exactly doing anything to make that process more fun. That will only come through a true overhaul of manufacturing processes. Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange Nabaal Syndicate
9
|
Posted - 2012.11.22 03:32:00 -
[203] - Quote
Re industry changes, make sure that you propose mechanics that will eliminate bottlenecks inherently, instead of trying to balance them by hand. A good system is one like T1 minerals, where the supplies of the various minerals are basically uncorrelated, and people can supply more of whatever's short. A painfully bad system is one like T3 salvage, where players have zero control over production ratios, and where literally every ship/subsystems combination uses literally identical salvage(which is, of course, why T3 salvage has been entirely dependant on a single bottleneck ever since it was created). Ensure variety of supply and variety of demand, and market forces will clean up bottlenecks for you.
Mara Rinn wrote:Weaselior wrote:Supercaps and caps being able to tackle other supercaps means once two supercap fleets are committed to battle you can't clear tackle and escape: you have to actually kill enough of the other side (and/or leave your tackled friends to die) to escape. What is the difference between being tackled by HICs versus dreadnoughts that would prevent ships escaping once they have cleared tacklers?
The obvious difference is that titans are harder to kill(not dreads, which are actually pretty easy for a titan fleet to down, but this was proposed as a supercap module and not merely a capital one) |
Poetic Stanziel
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
1454
|
Posted - 2012.11.22 03:47:00 -
[204] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Sinzor Aumer wrote: FYI production can be fun, mining can be fun. If it's not appealing to you personally - doesnt mean it's not for me as well. And this point stands regardless of supercapitals. Well yes. My point wasn't that mining and industry is inherently unfun (I mine highsec ice, make POS fuel, and cook drugs), but rather that increasing build times through various means isn't exactly doing anything to make that process more fun. That will only come through a true overhaul of manufacturing processes. Backpedaling!
Classic, Hans! Don't want to alienate any potential CSM8 voters.
Amarr Militia |
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
891
|
Posted - 2012.11.22 04:05:00 -
[205] - Quote
Poetic Stanziel wrote:Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Sinzor Aumer wrote: FYI production can be fun, mining can be fun. If it's not appealing to you personally - doesnt mean it's not for me as well. And this point stands regardless of supercapitals. Well yes. My point wasn't that mining and industry is inherently unfun (I mine highsec ice, make POS fuel, and cook drugs), but rather that increasing build times through various means isn't exactly doing anything to make that process more fun. That will only come through a true overhaul of manufacturing processes. Backpedaling!Classic, Hans! Don't want to alienate any potential CSM8 voters. You should try the other thread https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2210786#post2210786 Where he uses the line "Do you think its responsible for CCP to spend an entire year working on something that affects a small portion of the population, when they could be fixing an area of space that affects multiple times that many players and subcriptions and potential subscriptions? " as a justification for fixing Null but totally misses the point that he is actually giving better reasons for spending more resources on Hi-sec and not Null. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Issler Dainze
Tadakastu-Obata Corporation The Honda Accord
2199
|
Posted - 2012.11.22 04:09:00 -
[206] - Quote
Snow Axe wrote:Zaine Maltis wrote:Er... are you channelling Issler Dainze, or have they just stolen your login? It's custom to repeatedly mock anyone who signs their own posts on a forum when their name is literally attached to the content already written. Issler
So it must be even cooler to mock someone who signs someone else's name to their posts.
So when you right a letter or email to someone do you sign it? In both cases you can see where they come from.
Snow Axe
OK, actually Issler |
Poetic Stanziel
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
1454
|
Posted - 2012.11.22 04:17:00 -
[207] - Quote
Is it just me, or is it kinda hilarious that the CSM reps who are weighing in most heavily on nullsec issues are not particularly knowledgeable about nullsec? Hans. Issler. And to a lesser extent, Aleks.
(Aleks is probably the closest we have here to a CSM representative who understands anything about nullsec.)
Hell, Kelduum should start weighing in now.
(Aren't there some actual nullsec representatives?) Amarr Militia |
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
891
|
Posted - 2012.11.22 04:27:00 -
[208] - Quote
Poetic Stanziel wrote:Is it just me, or is it kinda hilarious that the CSM reps who are weighing in most heavily on nullsec issues are not particularly knowledgeable about nullsec? Hans. Issler. And to a lesser extent, Aleks.
(Aleks is probably the closest we have here to a CSM representative who understands anything about nullsec.)
Hell, Kelduum should start weighing in now.
(Aren't there some actual nullsec representatives?) But then again, can we argue if some of them get dribble on the paperwork or don't understand that liquid paper does not work on monitors?
Lets face it they could not be mentally well adjusted or be too intelligent, if they are happy to give out their full names to a bunch of wierdos sitting at computers. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
853
|
Posted - 2012.11.22 04:47:00 -
[209] - Quote
Poetic Stanziel wrote:Is it just me, or is it kinda hilarious that the CSM reps who are weighing in most heavily on nullsec issues are not particularly knowledgeable about nullsec? Hans. Issler. And to a lesser extent, Aleks.
(Aleks is probably the closest we have here to a CSM representative who understands anything about nullsec.)
Hell, Kelduum should start weighing in now.
(Aren't there some actual nullsec representatives?)
Null sec residents are all dicks. Their representatives are just continuing that tradition for taking the icelandic trip then doing nothing. Just to be a ****, just to be a null sec resident representative.
Who cares about null sec anyhow? They don't care, why should we? I'm not shitposting. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
5184
|
Posted - 2012.11.22 07:31:00 -
[210] - Quote
rodyas wrote:Poetic Stanziel wrote:Is it just me, or is it kinda hilarious that the CSM reps who are weighing in most heavily on nullsec issues are not particularly knowledgeable about nullsec? Hans. Issler. And to a lesser extent, Aleks.
(Aleks is probably the closest we have here to a CSM representative who understands anything about nullsec.)
Hell, Kelduum should start weighing in now.
(Aren't there some actual nullsec representatives?) Null sec residents are all dicks. Their representatives are just continuing that tradition for taking the icelandic trip then doing nothing. Just to be a ****, just to be a null sec resident representative. Who cares about null sec anyhow? They don't care, why should we?
There's something you should read. MatrixSkye Mk2: "Remember: You consent to unconsensual PVP the moment you press the "Undock" button." |
|
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
854
|
Posted - 2012.11.22 07:55:00 -
[211] - Quote
^ So we need each other?
You do know, the goons denounce and try to burn freeports right? As well as other groups probably would as well.
Perhaps, the idea of improving things is a bit wishy washy with how many players support burning stations and totally **** ******* other people in null. I'm not shitposting. |
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1035
|
Posted - 2012.11.22 13:53:00 -
[212] - Quote
If you want to nerf supercaps, do it by buffing Dictors and Hictors (or their bubbles, at least). The problem with letting supercaps tackle supercaps is that it further marginalises sub-cap involvement in supercap-level combat and turns it into a 2010-era 'check who has the most, side with less stands down' blueballfest since the only way to extract your tackled supercaps is the one dimensional DPS vs EHP numbers-game of killing the hostile tackling supercaps.
(Not that this thread is really a supercap nerf thread, nor that we needed another one, but here we are) Titans were never meant to be "cost effective", its a huge ****.-á- CCP Oveur, 2006
~If you want a picture of the future of WiS, imagine a spaceship, stamping on an avatar's face. Forever. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
5190
|
Posted - 2012.11.22 14:06:00 -
[213] - Quote
rodyas wrote:^ So we need each other?
You do know, the goons denounce and try to burn freeports right? As well as other groups probably would as well.
Perhaps, the idea of improving things is a bit wishy washy with how many players support burning stations and totally **** ******* other people in null.
I support "burning stations". But I even more support stations worth building in the first place. MatrixSkye Mk2: "Remember: You consent to unconsensual PVP the moment you press the "Undock" button." |
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1038
|
Posted - 2012.11.22 15:32:00 -
[214] - Quote
Whilst I'm late to the party (another week til I get broadband installed in my new place :( ) this is exactly the sort of thing that we need to see more of from the CSM. Whilst a lot of the content seems to be common sense, common sense is a currency that has sometimes seemed to be in short supply in CCP, and sometimes even stating the obvious helps to keep the right people on the right track by reminding them what the obvious is. I'd be interested in seeing other 'critical issues' bought up using the same template as was used here by anyone who thinks they can make a worthwhile case for them (and to be honest, maybe the specific 0.0 / industry / POS discussions could be split awway into seperate discussions)
Perhaps the CSM or a CCPer could drop in here and update us on whether there has been a favourable response to this? Titans were never meant to be "cost effective", its a huge ****.-á- CCP Oveur, 2006
~If you want a picture of the future of WiS, imagine a spaceship, stamping on an avatar's face. Forever. |
LoRDa RaMOs
The Dark Space Initiative
22
|
Posted - 2012.11.22 15:40:00 -
[215] - Quote
Posting to support these suggestions from our costumer elected sounding board with stakeholder status
Only one comment: Although it would be somewhat against our best interests of seeing a shiny new EVE, it doesn't really take big features to have my satisfaction. I, for one, would like to see more work on existing features (eg. UI, feature corification) and somewhat forgotten professions (e.g. hacking, analysing) and fixing/swatting away useless stuff (e.g. Zainou 'Snapshot' Defender Missiles DM-806). |
Seleene
Body Count Inc. Pandemic Legion
2026
|
Posted - 2012.11.22 16:35:00 -
[216] - Quote
Scatim Helicon wrote:Perhaps the CSM or a CCPer could drop in here and update us on whether there has been a favourable response within the company to this?
Believe me, we are very much looking forward to talking about everything that led to this document, how it was received and the resultant changes that may or may not have taken place because of it. The past few weeks have been extremely active between the CSM and CCP and I suspect that will continue up until the December summit.
The dates for the summit are 12-14 December, BTW.
Due to CCP's heavy planning right now, it's not our place to talk just yet about what they have in the pipe for 2013. I suspect we will get an even clearer picture at the summit. We are going to work very hard to get the summit minutes out, as well as release any and all information we can, ASAP. CSM 7 Chairman My Blog - Where I say stuff Follow Seleene on Twitter! |
corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
927
|
Posted - 2012.11.22 22:28:00 -
[217] - Quote
Sinzor Aumer wrote:Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:This is a video game, folks. It's about having fun, not doing more work. There are two ways to make less supercaps exist - make them take longer to build (boring) or make them die faster (ridiculously fun). FYI production can be fun, mining can be fun. If it's not appealing to you personally - doesnt mean it's not for me as well. And this point stands regardless of supercapitals.
Do you, personally, mine?
If so, do you personally sit there monitoring your ship the entire time? Are you using a hulk to maximize your yield, or a mackinaw to make it easier?
If the answers to those questions are "No" and "mackinaw" then no, you do not find mining fun.
Poetic Stanziel wrote:Is it just me, or is it kinda hilarious that the CSM reps who are weighing in most heavily on nullsec issues are not particularly knowledgeable about nullsec? Hans. Issler. And to a lesser extent, Aleks.
You get your panties in a twist over the mere idea that Hans takes his marching orders regarding the game from Susan Black. Who's to say he's not taking marching orders - or, to be less insanely paranoid and hyperbolic, simply getting input - from players who are "in the know" about nullsec? This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
fofofo |
Gevlin
SMANews.net SpaceMonkey's Alliance
195
|
Posted - 2012.11.23 00:59:00 -
[218] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:Snow Axe wrote:
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".
I'm sorry too ;p Frankly, the way you keep on it suggests to me YOU dont know why mineral compression exists. It exists because way way way way back at the dawn of EVE (before cap ships, let along outposts and supers) CCP made Magic Modules that refine for a larger volume of minerals than the item itself. Today, players take advantage of this by buying these modules in empire and jumping them out to 0.0 where they are refined and reused for things that can't be purchased from empire (supercaps, for instance) as well as to fill in gaps in producing common daily needs (ammo) because there is no incentive to mine low end minerals in 0.0. This gap exists because CCP has neglected 0.0 broadly and its industrial self sufficiency in particular. You seem to be under the impression Magic Modules were intentionally put in by CCP to support 0.0 industry. Rather it was just a lack of foresight that players have been taking advantage of to compensate for the lack of 0.0 industrial capacity and viable 0.0 low end mining. If 0.0 had viable, high-volume sources of low end minerals that players would WANT to mine (which is exactly what the example which references mineral compression includes as its headline feature) there's really no reason for Magic Modules to continue to exist. As significant a portion of the player base would like compression removed for one reason or another as want it to stay; if the reason why 0.0 players "need" it were to finally get addressed, both groups could have their concerns laid to rest. This supports the approach/theme reinforced throughout the entire document: finally commit to addressing long standing sucking chest-wound level problems with EVE's core mechanics, and do so in a way that appeals to mutliple sections of the playerbase (both in activity area and demographic).It's unfortunate that message was lost in your attachment to a small part of one of three examples included to illustrate what that approach could look like in an actual EVE Online expansion. I am, however, thankful for your feedback and the feedback of the rest of the players on both the approach advocated and on the merits of specific recommendations. I would like to reinforce the points made by corestwo and Seleene that if a serious response from CCP is desired, keeping the discussion constructive and somewhat focused on forest vs the trees is important.
FINALLY! This has issue of mineral compression and the lack of bulk low end materials have made local mining of minerals for T1 ships impossible! This is a major barrier to entry for small alliances with a young industry back bone from entering into the nulsec life If some thing like this goes through PVPers will see more juicy targets to shoot at as the role of mineral supply is moved from the 1 man with a jump freighter and cyno alts to individual miners and multi box mining lovers.
I agree with this direction. --now to add my dream. I have always loved the idea of null sec being a place where minerals and Ore is Plenty, but since the riches are plenty in Null sec, refining is not common nor necessary. (deeper null sec rating has a negative effect on processing)(positive amount on ores amounts)
If any mineral compression would be from Null sec to High sec. Though more likely in the form of Ore Compression. As bulk ore is compress and jumped to High sec for better refining rates to sell the goods. Since the Refining of components would suck in Null sec, the export of completed ships would be coming out of empire vs random components.
Some day I will have the internet and be able to play again. |
Poetic Stanziel
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
1457
|
Posted - 2012.11.23 01:12:00 -
[219] - Quote
corestwo wrote:e: To put that in a somewhat more general sense, the ability and willingness of a CSM member to listen to the community is, to me, far more important than their individual knowledge of an aspect about the game (even if that's what gets them elected). You don't think that The Mittani, who's effectiveness on the CSM cannot be questioned, personally knew everything about every topic the CSM addressed, do you? I do not think he knew about every area of the game.
But he would flat out say "I don't know about this, nor do I care about it." He didn't try to be johnny-on-the-spot in areas of the game he didn't know much about, or had little stake in.
Amarr Militia |
corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
929
|
Posted - 2012.11.23 02:58:00 -
[220] - Quote
Poetic Stanziel wrote:corestwo wrote:e: To put that in a somewhat more general sense, the ability and willingness of a CSM member to listen to the community is, to me, far more important than their individual knowledge of an aspect about the game (even if that's what gets them elected). You don't think that The Mittani, who's effectiveness on the CSM cannot be questioned, personally knew everything about every topic the CSM addressed, do you? I do not think he knew about every area of the game. But he would flat out say "I don't know about this, nor do I care about it." He didn't try to be johnny-on-the-spot in areas of the game he didn't know much about, or had little stake in. You and I seem to know very different versions of Hans then. This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
fofofo |
|
Poetic Stanziel
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
1457
|
Posted - 2012.11.23 03:07:00 -
[221] - Quote
corestwo wrote:Poetic Stanziel wrote:corestwo wrote:e: To put that in a somewhat more general sense, the ability and willingness of a CSM member to listen to the community is, to me, far more important than their individual knowledge of an aspect about the game (even if that's what gets them elected). You don't think that The Mittani, who's effectiveness on the CSM cannot be questioned, personally knew everything about every topic the CSM addressed, do you? I do not think he knew about every area of the game. But he would flat out say "I don't know about this, nor do I care about it." He didn't try to be johnny-on-the-spot in areas of the game he didn't know much about, or had little stake in. You and I seem to know very different versions of Hans then. I was referring to your question on The Mittani ... the last sentence of the paragraph I quoted.
Amarr Militia |
Kropotkin
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2012.11.23 03:56:00 -
[222] - Quote
Lord Maldoror's comments on recent User Interface design changes, starting around time 1:09:10 of Declarations of War Episode 38, raise an important point, to wit:
If it is true that player-created videos like the Rooks-and-Kings productions are important for attracting new players, then it is important that the health-of-enemy-ships, health-of-friendly-ships and health-of-own-ship displays be easy for not-yet-players to understand, without explanation, no matter how easy it would be for players-already to learn to understand those displays.
We need not-yet-players to see our videos and understand them well enough to decide, "Yeah! That's neat! I wanna try that!" |
Sinzor Aumer
Atlas Research Group Aerodyne Collective
25
|
Posted - 2012.11.23 05:22:00 -
[223] - Quote
corestwo wrote:Do you, personally, mine? If so, do you personally sit there monitoring your ship the entire time? Are you using a hulk to maximize your yield, or a mackinaw to make it easier? Didn't want to answer, as we're going to personalities. Still, I do mine, I mine rocks - thus cant be afk, I use Mack and T1 strips, and I enjoy it. But you missed the crucial point in your interrogation: I mine in a fleet, cause if you dont - you're doing it wrong.
Yet the reason of my post is to highlight the issue with fleet mining. We dont have a tool to estimate participation of each member. While some folks mine purely for fun and donate the mined ore for corp needs, others (including new members, first of all!) make it for ISK. It would be really nice to give them a fair share of total mined ore. Could you, CSM comrades, bring it to devs attention? I suppose this could be important for social adaptation of new members.
As an idea of technical implementation, it could be logs of items that people put (and take) to/from Orca fleet hangar. These logs should be accessible via API. Then I hope we could forge an application, that calculates cubic meters mined by a specific player, and thus his share. |
corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
930
|
Posted - 2012.11.23 21:38:00 -
[224] - Quote
Sinzor Aumer wrote:corestwo wrote:Do you, personally, mine? If so, do you personally sit there monitoring your ship the entire time? Are you using a hulk to maximize your yield, or a mackinaw to make it easier? Didn't want to answer, as we're going to personalities. Still, I do mine, I mine rocks - thus cant be afk, I use Mack and T1 strips, and I enjoy it. But you missed the crucial point in your interrogation: I mine in a fleet, cause if you dont - you're doing it wrong. Yet the reason of my post is to highlight the issue with fleet mining. We dont have a tool to estimate participation of each member. While some folks mine purely for fun and donate the mined ore for corp needs, others (including new members, first of all!) make it for ISK. It would be really nice to give them a fair share of total mined ore. Could you, CSM comrades, bring it to devs attention? I suppose this could be important for social adaptation of new members. As an idea of technical implementation, it could be logs of items that people put (and take) to/from Orca fleet hangar. These logs should be accessible via API. Then I hope we could forge an application, that calculates cubic meters mined by a specific player, and thus his share.
You're weird. And I mean that in the best way possible, as rarely do people say that they "enjoy" mining. But from the sound of it, maybe you're not so weird. To me it sounds like what you actually enjoy is an excuse to hang out with your buddies in corp shooting the ****, while (like most miners) being as hands-off as possible about the actual mining.
In your specific case, maybe I'm right, maybe I'm wrong, but that seems to be what may be the biggest problem with mining, and the point I was attempting to make - it is not, on its own, particularly fun or engaging, thus people opt to do it in a way that lets them be as AFK as possible so they can do other things. This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
fofofo |
Gevlin
SMANews.net SpaceMonkey's Alliance
195
|
Posted - 2012.11.24 08:17:00 -
[225] - Quote
Structure Grind Can I get a further explanation of GÇ£The structure GrindGÇ¥?
I personally found the way the current grind is made, A blob of Dreads can kill anything in under 5 min jump to the next object and blow the next item in a matter of minutes. Then on the other hand for the small alliance to go after a small weak POS it takes 30 mins with 4 dreads.
Rewarding Blobbing with short easy grinds and punishing small group Structure shoots with increasingly long boring grinds.
I am afraid that GÇ£simply removing the grindGÇ¥ will turn eve into those flavor of the month mmo where content is just spoon fed, or may end up with a flip flop of Sovereignty Like in the old days
I am wondering if hate :towards a grindGÇ¥ is a more of a case an extreme number of people required to grind. From my experience in as a Null sec miner and structure repairer. A hand full of people working on a grind is tolerable, but when you get a group over 10 players (20+ accounts) an activity over 30 mins with out Major Dynamic action, the experience turns sour.
Would switching the structure shoots to requiring different play styles to be used in combo to provide an easier end result, where simple blobbing 1 activity results little reward beyond the first few ships. And that there is a decreasing returns on effect when more people are piled on attacking one structure vs splitting the group and attacking several structures simultaneously.
Brainstorming.....
Phase 1 dropping an exposed DCU much like current, except Defender of the systems. disrupted/destroy the DCU with ongoing damage over a period of time. This time can be shorten by several factors, Damage, Damage type, Special Module application on the DCU. A dreadknot or two. But having more than 20 people working on Destroying the DCU will have little effect on speed up the process. Phase 2 DCU Drop Successful Phase 2 Much like current timer before the Ihub comes out susceptible to attack. (The Aggressor towards the sovereignty) Starts a Sustained Damage over time, a base 1 dread two hours shoot can be reduced to 20 mins seeking a perfect balance Damage, Damage type, Special Module application on the DCU and A DreadKnot or 5.
Perfect Balance= Ship with Shield Destabalizer stops Structure Natural Regen Dread Knot Sized Weapons for ship 1 Does 100% Effect requiring to Cover a Set Damage over time to reduce the timing metre (set aside for Dreads) Dread Knot Sized Weapons for ship 2 Does 80% Dread Knot Sized Weapons for ship 3 Does 50% Dread Knot Sized Weapons for ship 4 Does 20% Dread Knot Sized Weapons for ship 5 Does 5% Battle Ship Sized Weapons for ship 1 Does 100% Effect requiring to Cover a Set Damage over time to reduce the timing metre (set aside for Battles Ship size weapons) Battle Ship Sized Weapons for ship 2 Does 80% (20% spill over to Dread Damage requirement) Battle Ship Sized Weapons for ship 3 Does 50% (50% spill over to Dread Damage requirement) Battle Ship Sized Weapons for ship 4 Does 20% (80% spill over to Dread Damage requirement) Etc Cruiser ship Sized Weapons for ship 1 Does 100% Effect requiring to Cover a Set Damage over time to reduce the timing metre (set aside for Cruiser Ship size weapons) Cruiser Ship Sized Weapons for ship 2 Does 80% (20% spill over to Larger Ship damage requirement) Cruiser Ship Sized Weapons for ship 3 Does 50% (50% spill over to Larger Ship Damage requirement) Cruiser Ship Sized Weapons for ship 4 Does 20% (80% spill over to Larger Ship Damage requirement) etc Frigate ship Sized Weapons for ship 1 Does 100% Effect requiring to Cover a Set Damage over time to reduce the timing metre (set aside for Frigate Ship size weapons) Frigate Ship Sized Weapons for ship 2 Does 80% (20% spill over to Larger Ship damage requirement) Frigate Ship Sized Weapons for ship 3 Does 50% (50% spill over to Larger Ship Damage requirement) Frigate Ship Sized Weapons for ship 4 Does 20% (80% spill over to Larger Ship Damage requirement) etc Placing Electronic warfare modules of each type will also reduce the sustained Damage over time duration, requiring the used of the Electronic warfare ships to be deployed for best effect.
So essentially having more than 30 people doing the structure grind won't produce additional effect. Leaving those other people of the alliance to guard or suppress the the opponent will the task is complete. For large scale conquest an invading force would have to, at the same time, take several groups of 30 to take out I hubs, working at the same time in multiple systems to conquest quickly though a campaign. On the other hand this opens up fights for the opponent who will try to save a few Ihub with hit and run attacks while the Conquering Alliance must shut down these hit and run attacks.
In the course of a night a Structure shoot crew 30 may end up hitting mayby... 2 hubs taking 2 hours in total (30mins involved in shooting for each site). Feeling tension during the entire time because they don't have the Blob to protect them as the blob is protecting 10 other location, (each having their own structure shoots) from attack from other hit and run defenders. On the other hand the Defender can blob, being able to save a few structures but loosing others because there were taken over by a handful of players left uncontested.
(oh.... I hope that brainstorming made sense) Some day I will have the internet and be able to play again. |
Poetic Stanziel
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
1458
|
Posted - 2012.11.24 09:10:00 -
[226] - Quote
Rastafarian Attack Ship
Amarr Militia |
Poetic Stanziel
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
1458
|
Posted - 2012.11.24 09:16:00 -
[227] - Quote
A couple critical comments ... and where have Hans and Aleks disappeared to? Shame. I had no idea they were that frail and delicate. Amarr Militia |
Milton Middleson
Rifterlings Damu'Khonde
166
|
Posted - 2012.11.24 10:04:00 -
[228] - Quote
I heard there was a major American holiday recently. |
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
898
|
Posted - 2012.11.24 10:34:00 -
[229] - Quote
Oh you changed your post, I liked the frail and delicate one
Edit: In all honesty they are probably starting work on the summit notes with it being only a couple of weeks away Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Poetic Stanziel
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
1458
|
Posted - 2012.11.24 11:07:00 -
[230] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:Oh you changed your post, I liked the frail and delicate one [:lol: I keep forgetting that Americans have Thanksgiving this close to Christmas. It's kinda ********. No point trolling if they're all on holiday.
Amarr Militia |
|
Public Outcry
Ultra Right Wing Nutjobs
0
|
Posted - 2012.11.24 16:42:00 -
[231] - Quote
keep on trolling stanny boy. all you are doing is marginalizing yourself and that garbage blog of yours. now thats poetic justice |
Poetic Stanziel
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
1459
|
Posted - 2012.11.24 18:38:00 -
[232] - Quote
Public Outcry wrote:Keep on trolling, stanny boy. All you are doing is marginalizing yourself and that garbage blog of your's. Now that is poetic justice. You keep dreaming.
Amarr Militia |
mkint
921
|
Posted - 2012.11.25 02:44:00 -
[233] - Quote
I just want to throw this out there... consider what difference it would make if the ideal social entity in nullsec was about 400 people strong instead of thousands strong. If an alliance tended to fall apart out of sheer unweildly size. Consider as well if when an alliance fell apart that it's members were free to do as they will, politically, without losing assets such as real estate an such. What if, instead of an increased focus on entrenching and empowering incumbent alliances, incentives were given to their member corps to routinely backstab their greedy overlords?
I would propose that such a scenario would promote vast amounts of nullsec content, as well as interesting, subscription increasing stories. Maxim 34: If you're leaving scorch-marks, you need a bigger gun. |
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
802
|
Posted - 2012.11.25 05:22:00 -
[234] - Quote
Liked a Poetic post. "Alekseyev Karrde: mercenary of my heart."-á -Arydanika, Voices from the Void
CSM7 rep, CSM 4 vet Noir./Noir. Academy Recruiting: www.noirmercs.com |
fukier
Flatline.
164
|
Posted - 2012.11.25 17:40:00 -
[235] - Quote
me too... At the end of the game both the pawn and the Queen go in the same box. |
Gevlin
SMANews.net SpaceMonkey's Alliance
195
|
Posted - 2012.11.26 05:25:00 -
[236] - Quote
my spelling really sucks. sorry Some day I will have the internet and be able to play again. |
Ruareve
Applied Creations The Fendahlian Collective
88
|
Posted - 2012.11.26 18:10:00 -
[237] - Quote
I like a lot of the ideas they proposed, but I see a serious issue with the attitude towards devaluing high sec in favor of forcing people into null.
Even after two years of having characters subscribed I still don't understand why some people think everyone should have to go to null sec in order have an effective income stream.
I have no problems with null sec being more valuable and in fact I think the best way to attract subscribers into null is to ensure it stays the richest segment of the game. The CSM mention risk vs. reward but how much risk is truly in null sec for the huge alliances? You can't sit there and tell me someone who's 10 systems deep has to worry about getting ganked or attacked.
Rather than continue with pushing people out of high sec, which will more than likely just push them out of the game, the CSM should instead work on ways to get more population overall. Make PVE more fun and interesting. Make high sec safer for people that prefer PVE instead of PVP. At the same time make null sec more appealing to small alliances and new groups trying to carve out a niche.
The biggest detractor keeping me out of null sec is the fact I don't want to join a zerg force of thousands and be another mindless, buzzing drone following the queens orders. I want to be in a small group where I can make a difference.
I think the solution has something to do with making some systems in null incredibly difficult to attack, some which offer good rewards for those willing to fight for them, and some that are just used for large scale fights. Having some kind of home system which a small alliance can defend, resource systems with high returns but easy to attack, and having travel routes linking them all together would be a good way to go. Travel routes for skirmishes, resource systems for constant fighting, home systems which are pretty much immune as long as there are defenders to protect.
That puts some real risk vs. reward into null sec while still making Eve appealing to the people who prefer PVE. Yet another blog about Eve- http://ruar-eve.blogspot.com/ |
Mr John Smith
State War Academy Caldari State
4
|
Posted - 2012.11.26 20:04:00 -
[238] - Quote
Quote:Modular Starbases (New Feature): Currently, POSes touch huge numbers of players over every conceivable demographic and leave them disappointed or worse, making this one of the most consistently requested and broadly supported updates to EVE. As one of EVE's unique selling points is the player-driven nature of the world, allowing players to own a tiny little part of space is hugely important. Modular Starbases can empower players and organizations to address PVP, industrial, and residency needs in a personal, scalable way. This feature will help unlock player economic power, develop infrastructure, express identity, and create new PVP and social opportunities for players of all ages.
This, more than anything else on the list, this needs to be a priority. Starbases effect every aspect of EVE and are so important to pretty much any kind of serious production you can think of; and yet they are so crappy to use and work with. Modular starbases would give us, the players, a place truly our own to call home. From changes and improvements to starbase mechanics CCP could gather behind themselves such momentum that I don't think we can really imagine what could come after.
As a citizen of newedan I call on the CSM to push this for the next expansion as hard as they can. |
Public Outcry
Ultra Right Wing Nutjobs
3
|
Posted - 2012.12.23 15:03:00 -
[239] - Quote
It is pretty sad to see that CCP is content to let this post just quietly die. Even sadder is the fact that the subscribers are complacent enough to let it happen. |
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1177
|
Posted - 2012.12.23 18:51:00 -
[240] - Quote
What are you expecting CCP to do with it, exactly? Titans were never meant to be "cost effective", its a huge ****.-á- CCP Oveur, 2006
~If you want a picture of the future of WiS, imagine a spaceship, stamping on an avatar's face. Forever. |
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
6878
|
Posted - 2012.12.23 19:34:00 -
[241] - Quote
Scatim Helicon wrote:What are you expecting CCP to do with it, exactly?
Forum posts = attention = activity = everyting is perfect forever MatrixSkye Mk2: "Remember: You consent to unconsensual PVP the moment you press the "Undock" button." |
Orakkus
Providence Directorate Kraken.
91
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 16:08:00 -
[242] - Quote
I know we are to have a set of new minutes coming from the December meeting, but is there anything you can tell us right now (without tromping over the NDA, while not being vague at the same time) regarding the thoughts of the original document, and what was learned regarding it in December? |
Hakan MacTrew
Caledonian Heavy Industries Sick N' Twisted
206
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 16:26:00 -
[243] - Quote
Orakkus wrote:I know we are to have a set of new minutes coming from the December meeting, but is there anything you can tell us right now (without tromping over the NDA, while not being vague at the same time) regarding the thoughts of the original document, and what was learned regarding it in December? Seconded.
Also, is there an approximate ETA on the minutes? MODULAR DRONES
MORE ORE SHIPS |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
3736
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 17:19:00 -
[244] - Quote
Orakkus wrote:I know we are to have a set of new minutes coming from the December meeting, but is there anything you can tell us right now (without tromping over the NDA, while not being vague at the same time) regarding the thoughts of the original document, and what was learned regarding it in December?
Its pretty clear from what we've seen at the summit that CCP has taken our design strategy and iterated upon it to build their own slightly more nuanced version that will be used to guide their expansions moving forward, starting with the summer release. They should have a dev blog out that will accompany or precede the minutes release that will give a better description of not only how they plan to approach their development efforts from this point onward, but also who they've chosen to put in charge of EVE to oversee this (they've made another staff shift since we approached them with all of this, one we're very pleased about).
Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
Orakkus
Providence Directorate Kraken.
92
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 18:15:00 -
[245] - Quote
Good deal. One other question: Will we see some major features like Ring Mining, POS changes (I know they have been discussed already in this thread), and/or Walking In Stations be more than just discussed in 2013? |
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1354
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 18:25:00 -
[246] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Its pretty clear from what we've seen at the summit that CCP has taken our design strategy and iterated upon it to build their own slightly more nuanced version that will be used to guide their expansions moving forward, starting with the summer release. So you're saying that CCP have iterated on Iterating on Iteration? Titans were never meant to be "cost effective", its a huge ****.-á- CCP Oveur, 2006
~If you want a picture of the future of WiS, imagine a spaceship, stamping on an avatar's face. Forever. |
Hakan MacTrew
Caledonian Heavy Industries Sick N' Twisted
206
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 18:27:00 -
[247] - Quote
Awesome!
Also, thanks for the fast response time, (if not an answer to when we might see the minutes.)
We'll just have to be patient I guess. MODULAR DRONES
MORE ORE SHIPS |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
3737
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 18:34:00 -
[248] - Quote
Orakkus wrote:Good deal. One other question: Will we see some major features like Ring Mining, POS changes (I know they have been discussed already in this thread), and/or Walking In Stations be more than just discussed in 2013?
Walking in Stations is permanently iced from everything we can see. Nothing planned for 2013, or ever, until CCP changes their mindset about the feature. The rest is undecided yet (the dev blog and minutes will elaborate on this, basically CCP wants to start including the CSM in the early planning stages and will be doing this for summer in the coming month, with room for public input as well), but due to the revamped development approach, i don't think anyone should take it for granted that Feature X or Feature Y is for sure coming this year (including POS's).
That being said, what CCP shares in common with our design strategy is both the need and desire to reach beyond the "patch"-style expansions that have comprised Crucible, Inferno, and Retribution. They definitely want to tackle bigger features, which ones those will be and in what order is still up in the air. Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
3737
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 18:37:00 -
[249] - Quote
Scatim Helicon wrote:Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Its pretty clear from what we've seen at the summit that CCP has taken our design strategy and iterated upon it to build their own slightly more nuanced version that will be used to guide their expansions moving forward, starting with the summer release. So you're saying that CCP have iterated on Iterating on Iteration?
Indeed. Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
3737
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 18:38:00 -
[250] - Quote
Hakan MacTrew wrote:Awesome!
Also, thanks for the fast response time, (if not an answer to when we might see the minutes.)
We'll just have to be patient I guess.
It's in CCP's hands now. End of this week? Early next week? Wish I could say. Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
|
Orakkus
Providence Directorate Kraken.
92
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 18:38:00 -
[251] - Quote
Alright, thanks! |
Hakan MacTrew
Caledonian Heavy Industries Sick N' Twisted
206
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 18:45:00 -
[252] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Hakan MacTrew wrote:Awesome!
Also, thanks for the fast response time, (if not an answer to when we might see the minutes.)
We'll just have to be patient I guess. It's in CCP's hands now. End of this week? Early next week? Wish I could say. Soon (tm) Ah well...
But hey, you answered, so thank you. MODULAR DRONES
MORE ORE SHIPS |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 :: [one page] |