If CCP would ask you to choose one part of UI they should tweak / fix / improve / revamp ASAP what would you say? And why that one?

Ack, nasty nasty question. So potentially loaded.

I will take it as a compliment :)

I agree with you on module cycle timers, they need to be brought in line and improved to properly function in nowadays Eve environment. Not to mention cool down timers on mods like cloaks or MJD. Click to check is not exactly great UI.

I know nothing about industry but I can see very often complains about UI almost working against you instead of for you so I guess it is not only your selfish POV.

Would you say that industry should be revamped as a whole to make it more attractive to players that now don't really feel, let's say "desire" towards it? Or you think any change to make more players go into that activity would just end up with equivalent of "exploration" pushing sites into our faces, loot spew and other silly things that would stripped veil of exclusiveness out of it and plummet income of those who can bear current inconveniences and problems?

Cloaks. AFK cloaking is bad gameplay. I'd like to see the ability to shut down your ship, and fall off scan, but if you just cloak, you can be, with effort, traced and decloaked at range. If you're there, you can move to avoid it. If you're not, you're at risk. Don't want to be found? Turn your ship 'off', to become a whole in space, with no chance of being scanned down. Do it with a cloak, in a place you expect people to turn up, and you can set up a hot drop.

Cloaks =/= AFK cloaking

Anyway what do you think about changes to power projection ?
Also further nerf of afk gameplay similar to drone assist nerf, that would be changing the "anchoring" mechanic ?

what is your stance on

I'm entirely against it. People who are for it are idiots who should be neutered for the sake of humanity.

CCP looks to be concentrating on industry somewhat this year, so you have my vote again this year.

If I could ask one thing: I've done invention enough to realize that the user interface was designed to build SQL statements to traverse a set of tables. In other words, the user interface isn't designed at all, it's just an extension of the model. I know that you can't ~demand~ anything, but can you urge CCP to allow the UI designers free reign in actually designing the interface from a user perspective, and leave any translation to the database to the controller which (presumably!) sits between the model and the view?

Failing that, could you politely insist that they implement MVC? ;-)

Thanks, and good luck!

Nice reading so far. I don't agree in all points, but in general it sounds good.

If you would be in charge, how would you design a bpo-api?

And which ways do you see how we researchers could benefit from CREST?

What is your view on CCP's Carbon framework, is it a success or a failure ?

Compared to other game engines out there, it seems to hardly be impressive or even do it's job well.

How do you think you as a future CSM member can influence the allocation of resources by CCP's upper management concerning this ?

There are two APIs I can see being useful for blueprints.


The first is a variation of the assets API, just for blueprints, with attributes for ML, PL, runs, and a flag for if it's a copy or not. This would have to be an authenticated API. Either CREST or the older style would be fine.

The other would be similar to user provided details, as a public CREST endpoint providing blueprint details.
Similar to https://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/blueprints/xml/16229/75/5

It's a lot less important, as all the details are provided via static data extract and can be provided by people like yours truly. Nice to have, but that's it. Static data doesn't need it anywhere near so much.


As for CREST, I'm in two minds about using it for research. If it allows for jobs to be put in without user intervention (if it can be automated, it would be. And any write can be automated) then it would massively affect industry. in POS, for example, all jobs would be single run to reduce liability (Unless there are changes made to disadvantage short runs)

Part of me says: automate and be damned.
But the more considered part days that would screw up newbies. You shouldn't need to use a third party tool, to be competitive.

YES! This!

So far I had to force one of our corp members to enter all the ME information to the database manually. Which was tedious. So I had to pay him some ISK.

And it's in sync only as long as no new BPOs are bought and researched. API solution would be perfect!

@FuzzySteve for CSM9!

Fuzzwork has been a staple among my Eve websites for a long while, and the third party community definitely needs the love. You 100% have my vote, and I will desperately try to convince everyone else I play with of the same. Good luck sir. o7

On another note, I've always wanted CREST to include a standings setup. Being able to display/manage/update personal/corporate/alliance standings from a custom application or webpage would make administrating it so much easier, especially when you need those standings standardized, or updated en-mass (such as war-dec watch lists and the like).

Another AFK cloaking whiner? Meh.

If he's AFK, there is no issue.

If he's AFK, there is no issue.

What is your point of view about lowsec and force projection in general?

Your website and tools have helped me a lot, thank you.

If the voting system is akin to STV, you'll have my second vote :)

7o

I'm not sure I will be able to spare the votes (depends on 0.0 candidates as that's a priority) but if I can, it'll likely be you.
Since I got involved a little bit in industry I seen you're very active in S&I forum and your site comes up in pretty much any kind of industry google searches.

I hope hisec industrialists (or any serious industrialists) will consider you. Listened to some random dude's interview with you and had no bad surprises from you so I still like you... :)

I'm not a developer myself but you mentioning the crest api is really interesting. Could indeed give some very valuable, if not game changing tools.

I'm looking forward to voting for a former Frog (assuming I remember correctly).

Roughly speaking, how do your views on end game content and the future of EVE compare with Ripard Teg's? Your general position on other issues that Ripard has taken a public stance on? No need to get super detailed. Generalities are fine. Let me know if I need to be more specific.

There are many small and nice passed issues from former CSM rounds. Whats your opinion especially on the following:

https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/BPO_locking_changes_(CSM)
https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Modular_Starbase_(CSM) (personally I think most of us can imagine which way CCP will go in the next time)
https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Public_POS_arrays_(CSM)

The core of Mining shouldn't change. The 'Target an asteroid, and let the mining lasers cycle' isn't a bad mechanic at its core. Not particularly fun, but sometimes relaxing to let run, much like ship spinning.

To be frank, respawning asteroid belts offend me. I'd like to see some kind of prospecting mechanism to find a good asteroid field to mine

What about lowsec, nullsec and wormhole mining where you can't sit back and relax?


I've for a long time thought Eve should also be more dynamic.
No one is accepting your missions? You'd probably increase the reward until people do. No one touching an asteroid belt? It would probably slowly grow bigger until someone found and mined it.
Imagine this: Amamake has been untouched for months and the asteroids belts are huge with a high mineral concentration. A scout with a survey scanner estimated the ISK/h to be 400m/h, so his mining corporation hire a mercenary group for protection and make a huge mining op. You now have mining ships trying to mine as much as possible while pirates try to kill them and mercenaries try to keep them alive.

Mining is fine in highsec because you have a very great ISK/attention which balance out the terrible ISK/h. In lowsec, nullsec and W-space you need full attention but you still have terrible ISK/h and often more risk than missions and signatures that must be probed down. How would you fix this?

With difficulty.

Higher yields tend to come with lower prices, as the market for the minerals is only so large.

This might be a bad idea but.. Would reworking the mineral composition in ores and following that a redistribution of ores across different kinds of space or different approaches of mining be a sensible approach?
There could be a unique mineral in wspace.. Or a unique mineral only if you do a special kind of mining (minigame?) that still leaves the other minerals to those mining in the current way.
The difficulty of hauling ores to refineries and minerals to production places should be accounted for via the respective ore / mineral volume.

W-Space already has unique harvestable materials in the form of the gasses.

Now, it might make sense to increase the places where these materials can be used, but I'd need to look at the figures for harvesting and use to tell.

Additional unique materials doesn't sit right.

This might be a bad idea but.. Would reworking the mineral composition in ores and following that a redistribution of ores across different kinds of space or different approaches of mining be a sensible approach?
There could be a unique mineral in wspace.. Or a unique mineral only if you do a special kind of mining (minigame?) that still leaves the other minerals to those mining in the current way.
The difficulty of hauling ores to refineries and minerals to production places should be accounted for via the respective ore / mineral volume.

Third party developers need representation, and Steve is the candidate for that!

Your proposed game design changes are a bit too far outside the box, especially in the areas where you have little experience, but I won't hold that against you

id like some changes to mining other than miners being a target, i know the macros have to be fought but not every miner is a macro. I myself have quit industry for change in more lucrative jobs. Moving asteroids belts is an ok idea but that's the same as the hidden belts that are no longer hidden and are now primary gankfest.

So my question is how do you cut back the ganking while keeping people interested in mining? Ive seen brand new players get ganked in ventures and quit the game or be forced to move on to something else.

I don't like jump bridges. The ship should always go through. So, I think Carriers, super carrier and titans should be able to carry other ships with them when they jump. No 'open bridge, bye bye boys, have fun storming the castle'

I had this idea a while ago, sounds like a similar idea

And for a question:

Since Eve has such a huge focus on interacting with other players, I feel that the tutorial system feels inadequate to truly introduce a player to Eve. Do you think the current tutorial system is sufficient for helping new players get on their feet? If not, what would you propose as a potential mission goal when designing a new tutorial?

The current system is far from perfect, but for getting people to work together, it's problematic to do through an automated system. You don't want to have random people having to depends on other random people to geth through the tutorial. That's just asking for trouble.

(Don't really feel like you answered the question)

I agree, putting people together in the tutorial seems like it would backfire. However, there are a lot of things that could be monitored during the players time with the tutorial, and feedback that the player could give to aura in a fairly consistent manner that would then be able to direct the player further down their path in Eve.

A minor thought I had included Aura asking for feedback after some select missions querying the player for how much they enjoyed doing the tasks in that tutorial. Based on the responses and the players playtime patterns, suggestions could be provided for continuing to play Eve. A recruitment tab popup could be automatically configured based on feedback responses and playtimes, more Arcs like the SOE (for new players) could be created that could also be suggested.

The exclusiveness of industry shouldn't be down to fighting with the interface. It's down to the logistics. Running the numbers to make sure that what you're doing is profitable, and a good use of your time.

Post on your website when the election is, I'm unsubbed from now until then and won't be reading the forums..

Steve, I think you already know you have my vote(s) but I'd like to pose a bit of a philosophical question. You know you're outside of your depth and experience in several areas, including some that are close to my heart (in particular low sec balancing). If elected, how do you plan to react to proposals and ideas on those topics? Are you more inclined to react based on your limited knowledge and experience, follow other members of the CSM, or poll the community as a whole through some informal mechanism? Or, more broadly, if elected to the CSM what do you consider to be the appropriate balance of supporting your own positions versus actively working with your constituents to get their concerns voiced even if you disagree with them?

Also: you're horribly, horribly wrong about AFK cloaking. Just so you know .

Good luck out there. Let's hope this is your year.

I just listened to Steve's interview with Tyrant, and as a result I've added him to my voting list.

The CSM urgently requires a member with good links to and knowledge of the 3rd partly developer community. This will be a big topic for CSM9, and we really, really want someone who knows what they're talking about on the CSM team.

Great work with the new market data. The tool is still very work in progress it seems. Allot of the items have incomplete data for the area you select.

Additionally as those of us who choose to live in a wormhole, are industrially minded and have to deal with the UI, the logistics and a myriad other issues - ANY improvement to the industrial side of EVE is greatly supported.

I would be interested in your thoughts on anything wormhole related.

I have read Steve and appreciate his approach and will actively encourage others to support his bid for CSM.

you mean for days with no entries?

Can you give an example?

If it's something that's low turn over, there's nothing reported for the days nothing was sold on.

If you just start searching the examples that pop up in the search it gives red errors and the dates show up that are out of range.

Its not linked on your main site yet either unless i am looking in the wrong place.
A blank data set resets to 1970 which i think is funny but it locks the date range until you reset the page. the redraw option does not work.

does the area change effect anything? A short list of where the 5 market systems are would work better and get you more traffic or a greying out of the areas and items with few data points.

but I am side tracking this thread.

Its working better now thanks and then stopped pulling data.

Base data set is Plex with out a header its just confusing.

Back on topic.

I think manufacturing is to hard for new player to get in to. While the manufacturing screens can be streamlined and clearer.

The fact that I cant search for a type of rock on the map and it wont show me where in space it shows up. That i cant click on a piece of NPC trash and it wont show me what i can manufacture with it, turns off new players from knowing what they can work toward.

Some of that can be alleviated by third party apps. But I get your point.

I could see the addition of a tab to show info, for anything used in manufacturing, to have it show what blueprints use it. I've got something on my site to do it, and I know the SQL isn't hard. Though I'm not sure how that would translate into the game.

I'd like to see the 'this kind of ore in this factions highsec, that kind in that factions' go away. But that's a larger concern.

Salvage calculator is nice needs a better name though. I was surprised there was so few items you could create using salvage.

I was actually meaning the materials DB https://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/materials/

Wormholes are far from a speciality, with me being nothing but a day tripper into them (at a lower frequency than lowsec)

I haven't heard any /specific/ complaints about them, other than the pain involved in living out of POS. And now the pain created by the Ore sites now being anomalies (so no warning of inbound people, in the way of probes)

Something that came up in another conversation I was having with someone was the potential created by an alternate system to find Ore. The ability to sometimes find large asteroids which could be converted into living space.

You see them sometimes in missions, and asteroid based dwellings come up in Sci-Fi all the time. Would be nice to have something similar (and it lends itself to the colonization idea)

Get an asteroid, and have slots in it to stick habitation modules and so on. High EHP, but no repair possible. Just relocation to a new one.

If there's anything specific you'd like a response on, please ask. I'd appreciate it.

"Wormholes are far from a speciality" I'm curious about this statement, Steve. If you make a day trip over to the wormhole subforms, you'd quickly discover some /specific/ complaints, issues, concerns, ideas and all sorts of discussion on the topic.

Those of us from the wormhole community, tend to agree that the gravimetric issue in wormholes is broken. I'd also like to see this resolved and simply making it require probing again seems like a quick fix to this particular issue.

Not sure about the asteroid living space idea, but could you elaborate for the sake of discussion? Also, I think you are an ideal CSM candidate for the industrial and third-party integration. Look forward to continue following your campaign. Met you at Eve Vegas last year, and you still have a spot on my ballot and the ballot recommendations I forward out to friends.

Good luck, bud :)

Being a highsec industrialist, what are your views on Highsec POSs?

Mainly, the acquiring standings part. Do you think something should be done to allow corps with lower standings place POSs in highsec?
For example: Having 1.0 - 2.0 standing with X allows small POSs to be anchored, 2.0 - 3.0 medium, 3.0 - 5 large.

About abandoned POSs, should people be able to use the Hacking "minigame" to hijack or steal them?

I agree that POSs should be deployed to wherever you damn well feel. But, the code forbids it!

With the new deployable stuffs, its a possibility!

With the hijacking POSs, there's several ways to approach this idea.

-edit-

Side note, where in highsec can you toss up POSs?

Right now, any moon in 0.7 and below.

But the corporation has to have faction standing equal to 10 times the security level.

so 5 for 0.5, 6 for 0.6 and 7 for 0.7.

Get a newbie in corp, and you may not be able to anchor your pos without kicking everyone.

I meant personally, like you! Where can you toss up a POS?

I infer that he is alluding to the shortage of unused moons in hi-sec

Hello Steve Ronuken,

I only have 1 short, pointed question, so this should be a pretty easy "yes" or "no" answer.
Everyone has their own reasoning / logic, so I don't want to know why, just a clear answer to whether or not you support a ban.

Do you support banning players, for actions, like Erotica 1 ?

I have removed a rule breaking post and those quoting them.

The Rules:
10. Discussion of warnings and bans is prohibited.

Such matters shall remain private between CCP and the involved user. Questions or comments concerning warnings and bans will be conveyed through email or private messaging. CCP respect the right of our players to privacy and as such you are not permitted to publicize private correspondence (including petition responses and emails) received from any of the aforementioned parties.

Hello.

Currently the Serpentis are the only pirate faction in the game that don't have a rated 6/10 and 9/10 DED complex available to be run. These sites have been on the "coming soon" list for quite a few years, but no further news or information has been released. Would you be willing to request that CCP introduce these sites to the game so that areas like syndicate that rely on running sites as the main form of income can continue to grow and prosper?

Mr Ronuken,

As I've stated in passing on the twitters you are rather high on my vote ballot. I gave you serious consideration last year. This time it was a no brainer to pen you in almost a month ago when I started my list. I strongly believe that your services will be required very soon, considering the upcoming expansion/s appear to have an industrial inclination and current CSM representatives have hinted that your expertise will be in demand shortly.

A main focus of mine has been the CSM outwardly communicating with the player base. All things considered NDAs are a constant obstacle where outward communication is concerned. However I feel that CSM8 has raised the bar on interacting with the players in a variety of ways (town halls, blogs, podcasts, twitter, google hangouts, etc). I would hate to see that particular sandcastle knocked over in the coming term. As someone who has been campaigning and getting his message across long before this election month, I don't think you're one to worry about in this regard Mr Ronuken.

I'm interested in your opinion about how CSM9 will communicate with the players even more effectively than CSM8. They set an excellent example, but what can they do better? Which groups of players are still isolated and how can you and the rest of the council go about creating new communication lines with them?

I'm also curious about your take on Planetary Interaction. Do you think it's in a good place? What do you think about the state of the in-game PI tutorial and the new player experience with PI? What would you like to see considering the potential for the Dust514 - PI connection?

Thank you in advance for your time.

Steve, apologies if this was answered already, I had a scan and couldn't find it.

When you talk about your mining concept, prospecting & claiming belts, I have a few questions about your concept design.

How long should a player spend prospecting before expecting to find a reasonable site, and what kind of game play do you envisage this being.
How long should a 'reasonable site' take a single miner to complete
What kind of isk/hr assuming the current market do you see them making, once you take the prospecting time into account.

And with regards to the claiming mechanic, what kind of idea do you have in your head to stop a ganker corp from claiming all the prospects first then not mining them and just lying in wait till someone goes suspect, since trial account alts will be able to keep watch easily enough for targets making a large area very easy to cover.

Just to get an idea of how your design process works when suggesting concept designs to CCP for future development.

I would like to see Steve branch out this year to other areas of space, and expanded types of play. IGÇÖd like to see him put together a third-party app that had a level of renown among part of the playerbase, to give himself something specific to point to (be the next developer of an Aura-like, EVE Central-like, etc. tool and trumpet it) GÇô he has loads of industry tools publicly posted on his site that I suspect could be rolled together into an impressive toolset and promoted by him. I think he could be a contender in future years, but I donGÇÖt see it this year.

Cloaks. AFK cloaking is bad gameplay. I'd like to see the ability to shut down your ship, and fall off scan, but if you just cloak, you can be, with effort, traced and decloaked at range. If you're there, you can move to avoid it. If you're not, you're at risk. Don't want to be found? Turn your ship 'off', to become a whole in space, with no chance of being scanned down. Do it with a cloak, in a place you expect people to turn up, and you can set up a hot drop.

Here's the only thing holding me back.

Can you provide clarification for this? As I scan the rest of the thread, it looks more like you're concerned about hotdrops than about cloaking. Would you restate this position in your OP to be about power projection rather than cloaks? If cloaking really is your issue, would you add time frames and methods (I realize you aren't a game developer, but I need to understand the level of mechanic you think of when you say this - time frames, tools, do you support the fuel approach, a time approach, or something else). My position on cloaking and Local can be found here for reference if you want something to compare and contrast to in your response. Thanks.

besides some potential changes to pos's, jump bridge removal and ofc your stance on 3rd party programs these 3 aspects have got my attention however......

the proposed mining changes that you'd like to possibly bring into the game with claiming roid's opens up miners to another form of harassment and also sub contracting ore to npc mining corporations where they'd take a cut, what would you propose to be the point of sub contracting to them especially with the mining refinery changes incoming, would it be for something like standings or possibly for contracting them so much ore that you get a blueprint of a custom mining laser / upgrade?

with regards to the rest of the industry side, are there other aspects you'd also like to look at changing or updating to make things different or more interesting than they are today?

in addition, if ccp planed to introduce a change or update to the game that would be a complete waste of their time where they could be putting that effort in other places which are more needed and desired, would you step forward and tell them?

I assume you're meaning the idea 'gankers claim everything, and then kill everyone that mine'? I'd thought of that. Which is why I was thinking that the prospecting mechanic spawns the sites when you do it. So it's not possible for other people to claim everything.

The sub-contracting basically would be: Don't have to prospect, as you can just taking mining missions to get places to mine. Which would then include proper ore. Not as effective as doing everything yourself (or having someone else in your corp do bits), but not a lot worse. So you'd get paid for the ore they need (isk and lp) and be able to mine some on the side.

Industry needs a lot of work from a UI perspective. The clicking isn't the fun (or difficult) bit, just the dull bit. So streamlining that away would help.

The 'problem' with an AFK cloaker is power projection. That lone person can very quickly become a lot of people, right on top of you. Being able to, eventually, track that person down would mitigate the risk a bit. Right now, there's no way to mitigate it other than staying docked up or in POS. I'll update the wording in my op about it.
[...]

The fix is /relatively/ simple.
Cloaks no longer remove you from D-Scan and combat probes. They make it hard to localise you, and impossible to identify. 'Cloaked Ship' would be what appears. If you use combat probes to locate a cloaked ship, you don't land on top of them, instead landing somewhere within 30km (ish) of them.

D-Scan could give you a vector towards them (if you're good with it), but no distance. So working with multiple ships, you can find a stationary target, or one travelling in a predictable fashion.

Don't let your future WH CSM colleagues hear that! Having a cloaky appear on d-scan in wspace is a terrible idea, and a bad idea in kspace still. While the later has local, you still get the advantage of knowing that the guy is within your dscan range. Cloaked piloting is a lot about sneaking up on people, and with your proposal someone can set his dscan to 400 kms to check if I'm on grid with him.

Essentially you are trying to fix power projection by breaking cloaking (as we know it) even tho cynos are only one of several uses. Why not fix the power projection?

[...]
industry UI system in general I don't really have a problem with even the multiple clicks when doing invention with decryptors, however I can understand the issue with that when people want to do it fast so they can get back to doing other things. I was thinking more of things like when build jobs are in progress having a screen pop up with a monitor view showing someone building the ship and based on the time frame. say roughly 2hrs 40mins for building 1 ship and the current time left on the ship build when you check progress is at 40mins remaining and that window opens you see 75% of the ship already built. I was hoping for something similar in the past when they first setup for walking on stations and how you could possibly walk along the gantry to the building area to watch them build the ship.

will you be pursuing ccp to do something else with R&D agents so that the research points gained could be used for other things too, since almost every tom **** and harry pretty much has a few datacore agents collecting to either sell or collect to cut invention costs?

do you have any thoughts on improving the pve content too?

PvE, in general, needs to be more dynamic.

How could CREST replace the corporate beta-level programming? Give me an example, say in the area of corporate manufacturing.

]CREST has the potential to be very useful when it comes to management of the corporations. Like automation of SRP payouts, management of contacts, renting programs, and so on. More for control, rather than things which directly create value.

Sounds exciting. currently the only way i can make all BPOs available to early corp members is to have 'view only' hangars ('other' access setting) of the blueprints, with one 'take+view' hangar (division 7 hangar) for input/output.
obviously, i have to deal with the annoying 'lockdown' mechanic to boot.
It's a pretty cool system that can get fledgling industrialists access to upgraded blueprints to copy to their hearts content.

It would be nice if this CREST idea of yours means i can have an alternative...or are we talking about two different things here?

My Twitter question wasn't worthwhile enough to get answered. :'(

I tweeted to ask you, if elected, how much interaction would you expect or like to have with the CPM?

https://twitter.com/ocdtrekkie/status/453654796528918528

Anyway: I'd say, in general, not that much interaction? But that's mostly because flying in space, and running on the ground are very different topics.

Where the two worlds come together (FW. possibly Sov. The market. possibly manufacturing. Molden Heath) then collaboration is very important so that both games get something useful and meaningful out of it.

Of course, CSM is EVE stuff, and CPM is DUST stuff, but any hope of a further link will require both working together. My concern is that last year, several candidates noted support for DUST integration. However, a CPM member did tell me that nobody from CSM8 ever personally reached out to them. So apart from a single summit session on DUST, which CCP has still not seen fit to release the minutes for, there has been no or almost no interaction.

Your information is inaccurate. There is a dedicated CSM:CPM channel on skype; we're all in it and we regularly talk to each other in there.

As a highsec trader and producer i am fully aware of the risks. Highsec isnt as save as it used to be. Mostly due
to the now virtually risk free ganking of freighters and miningships, sure CONCORD jumps in and shoots the gankers which then gets a slap on the hand, standing wise.
But when you the next moment can dock up at a station and turn in some tag to restore a negative standing i think it has gone to far.

What good is a standing system if you can just buy your way into good standing?

What is your stance on this?

I am keeping an eye on the industry changes.

Just mostly withholding comment until we have them all, as we can't really comment coherently, until we see all of what CCP want to do.

I have some concerns, but these may be mitigated by later blogs.