Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 32 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
11198
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 19:15:00 -
[1] - Quote
Hello everyone! With the CSM Summer(ish) summit fast approaching we wanted to post a thread to set the stage for some of our nullsec discussions, since we expect that 0.0 space will feature prominently in this summitGÇÖs CCP-CSM discussions.
Why should I care about the CSM and the Summit? The feedback provided by the CSM is a key part of our development process for EVE. We involve them at many stages of the design and development pipeline, and thanks to their NDA we rely heavily on them to provide us player feedback for concepts that are not ready to present to the wider community yet. Nullsec and sovereignty design has been an area that the institution of the CSM has been heavily engaged with for years, and they have provided very valuable feedback in the past.
I believe that the Winter 2012 CSM summit is an instructive example for looking at how CSM discussion has helped us focus our nullsec changes over time. This particular summit is one that sticks in my mind as the first one that I was able to participate in as a relatively new CCP game designer (after years of closely following the CSM process from the player perspective). The minutes for this summit can be found here and the nullsec section of the minutes is split into two meetings.
IGÇÖll be the first to admit that we didn't come into that meeting with as much preparation as we should have. The fact that Soundwave, Greyscale, Unifex, Ytterbium and myself entered that meeting without a clear and focused agenda definitely contributed to some of the frustration from CSM members about the scattered nature of the first meeting that clearly comes across in the minutes. This is a mistake that we have been endeavoring to avoid since, and is part of the reason that we are putting so much preparation into the upcoming summit discussions.
That being said, the meeting did eventually generate some very valuable discussion and after that first meeting we decided that the CSM and nullsec deserved a second meeting, on the final day. These two meetings were extremely valuable in setting the agenda for how we approached nullsec design in the two years since. The biggest takeaway from the meetings was that we needed to prioritize the economic side of nullsec gameplay, which at the time represented a lot of the most serious problems with the feature.
Over the next few years we were able to make some great strides in improving resource collection, income sources and industrial activity in nullsec, through the changes made in Odyssey, Rubicon and Crius. Thanks to the agenda set in that Winter summit, nullsec mining and ratting are more popular than they have ever been, alliance income relies more heavily on players being in space, and local industry has begun its renaissance. Obviously there are still many improvements to nullsec economics to be made in the future, but we are standing on a stronger foundation than ever before and we have been turning our main focus to other aspects of gameplay in this space.
What is CCP working on? Those of you who watched the Fanfest presentations or the recent Alliance Tournament will remember that we have formed a targeted GÇ£Nullsec Working GroupGÇ¥ back in April of this year to lead the way towards our next major round of changes to zero security space. This group consists of CCP Bettik, CCP Delegate Zero, CCP Greyscale, CCP Masterplan, CCP Rise, CCP Scarpia, CCP Ytterbium and myself. We have been working on re-evaluating the high level goals for nullsec and sovereignty, surveying and learning from the EVE communityGÇÖs extensive discussions on the issues, and designing and prototyping potential changes to improve nullsec gameplay.
The working group recently held an extended offsite design and discussion session on September 5th, in which we discussed many of the player-written proposals about Nullsec, clarified our collective position on several issues and made a lot of progress in preparation for the CSM Summit.
For this upcoming CSM summit we are planning to discuss in detail a set of significant, specific and targeted changes that we hope to release in late 2014, as well as the concepts and prototypes that we are developing for more far-reaching changes in 2015. The CSM has already proven an invaluable resource for bringing us feedback and analysis on the current state of nullsec as well as the communityGÇÖs desires for the future. We are confident that the multiple nullsec sessions that we have scheduled for this summit will be extremely valuable.
Our current plan is to bring the late 2014 designs to the wider community for feedback very soon after the summit, independently of the minutes.
How can I get my feedback to CCP? The short answer is: keep talking and weGÇÖll keep listening. We are continuing to read everything we can of the community nullsec discussions, whether it takes the form of forum posts in this section, blogs, or ideas passed through the CSM. We highly recommend all players that care about nullsec talk to the CSM representatives (any and all of them) and help them provide the best possible feedback to us. We have asked the CSM to pass along player blogs, posts and other content to us to help ensure that we donGÇÖt miss them.
When we're ready to move beyond the CSM-exclusive feedback stage on designs, rest assured that we will communicate them widely and loudly to the community, since we will be looking for all the constructive feedback we can get.
Thanks for reading, and a special thanks to everyone who has voted and contributed to the CSM process. We are in full preparation mode for the CSM summit here in Reykjavik and we are confident that this will be one of the most productive summits yet. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
Ocih
Space Mermaids Somethin Awfull Forums
733
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 19:19:00 -
[2] - Quote
first?
*jaw hits floor
Grandfather in skill books tied to Sov as well as PI claims.
Map control is a very powerful player tool and is one of the few things you guys don't throttle. |
BadAssMcKill
ElitistOps
851
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 19:37:00 -
[3] - Quote
Sov rebalance 2020 . |
Lauresh Thellere
SUNDERING Goonswarm Federation
16
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 19:40:00 -
[4] - Quote
As long as CCP shake up nullsec to make it fun and engaging while allowing the little guys to grab some space for themselves then I'll be happy and for the love of god no more grinding structures! |
Adrie Atticus
The Shadow Plague The Bastion
306
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 19:43:00 -
[5] - Quote
In b4 "GRR GOONS". |
WarFireV
Blackwater USA Inc. Pandemic Legion
371
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 19:58:00 -
[6] - Quote
As long as we can finally get some sort of changes to the actual sov system. Not just changes that kind of maybe sort of have something to do with nullsec. |
Harrigan VonStudly
Osmosis Inc The Bastion
107
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 20:06:00 -
[7] - Quote
It's time for a Mike Azariah story post. |
HVAC Repairman
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
842
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 20:11:00 -
[8] - Quote
out of my cold dead hands will you take dominion sov away from me Follow me on twitter |
Dunk Dinkle
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
58
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 20:13:00 -
[9] - Quote
Several months ago, I help organize a logi pilot community discussion.
The results were posted publicly and circulated to the CSM. I hope you get a chance to discuss some the ideas briefly.
You can view the presentation here: http://www.slideshare.net/cruftbox/eve-online-logi-love-ideas-survey
Or if you prefer, download it here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/tfscut4a33wcpcx/Logi_Love_Presentation%20-%20v.3.pptx
Thanks for listening. |
Zappity
SUPREME MATHEMATICS
1324
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 20:26:00 -
[10] - Quote
What was the purpose of the OP? There have been so many threads and discussions. I think you need to provide at least some specifics about your goals if you want meaningful feedback beyond what has already been said. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |
|
Sala Cameron
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
188
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 20:26:00 -
[11] - Quote
I believe in u guyz @sala_cameron |
Sigras
Conglomo
860
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 20:33:00 -
[12] - Quote
I used to think that the way to get small entities involved in null sec was to make sov more defensible allowing a smaller group to really dig in their heels and stand up against a large group.
I know see that the exact opposite is true... the large HP numbers on sov structures actually provide a minimum barrier to entry while not effecting larger entities at all.
think about it, if you multiply the HP on all sov structures by 30x, the only people who could realistically do sov warfare would be N3, PL, and the CFC; nobody else could bring a relevant amount of damage.
TL;DR instead of making sov harder to take, make it easier |
Kismeteer
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
615
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 20:35:00 -
[13] - Quote
Fix POS. Fix Null sec sov system. Fix the corporate management stuff.
This is beyond my scope and control, I just want eve to be stable. But consider firing more management that made bad investments that nearly made CCP go bankrupt. |
ShadowandLight
Black Aces Against ALL Authorities
269
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 20:38:00 -
[14] - Quote
Please fix the POS Bumping exploits and ban those who abused the already announced mechanic. http://eveservers.info/index.php?topic=123.msg126#new A fully functional Server platform dedicated to your Corp / Alliances IT needs!
|
Kismeteer
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
615
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 20:38:00 -
[15] - Quote
I mean, imagine if you had like 10 more developers working on fixing the POS problem. You know, like 1/10th the teams that you fired. |
Altirius Saldiaro
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
109
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 20:39:00 -
[16] - Quote
I hope sov is based on system activity and population. Should have to live in your space to own it. |
Harrigan VonStudly
Osmosis Inc The Bastion
107
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 20:46:00 -
[17] - Quote
Should also add: In b4 CCP Masterplan heads over to Riot games too |
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
8151
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 20:56:00 -
[18] - Quote
Good luck with everything, It will be interesting to see what comes out of this.
I only have 2 suggestions, about the discussion not about sov:
#1. Read this article...
Quote:In his TED Talk on spaghetti sauces, Malcolm Gladwell argues that the food industry made a big mistake asking people about their preferences and conducting focus groups. Gladwell says that GÇ£The mind knows not what the tongue wants. [GǪ] If I asked all of you, for example, in this room, what you want in a coffee, you know what youGÇÖd say? Every one of you would say GÇÿI want a dark, rich, hearty roast.GÇÖ ItGÇÖs what people always say when you ask them what they want in a coffee. What do you like? Dark, rich, hearty roast! What percentage of you actually like a dark, rich, hearty roast? According to Howard, somewhere between 25 and 27 percent of you. Most of you like milky, weak coffee. But you will never, ever say to someone who asks you what you want GÇö that GÇÿI want a milky, weak coffee.GÇÖGÇ¥
People always think they know what they want, but many times people are just being idealistic about themselves. What they say they want (and what would be fun) and what players will actually play are 2 different things.
Consider actual human nature during your summit (one thing to consi9der, as in rela life, so in game: people don't fight over tings they can just buy). Look at the past, see what people REALLY do vs what they say or think they will do.
#2. Do not over-react to the current situation! . Understand it, sure, but don't think there is any easy fix. You will hear a lot of "fix this one thing and everything will be fine" talk. Don't believe it lol.
Years ago I played a game called mechwarrior 3. it was cool, but because it was based on a board game's theory of balance, certain weapons (when put in a real time situation_ were insanely overpowered (like small laser and short ranged missiles lol). So the developers of Mech4 prenerfed the unbalanced things in their game, cauing a vicious swing to imbalance the other way around (snipers, snipers and more snipers).
This is relevant here because in this thread you are going to get a LOT of thinking based on hatred of Goons, Big alliances, Coalitions, the 'blue donut', Capital and Super Capital ships, power projection and all the (truly or falsely percieved) problems of current null. The risk is that over-reacting to these percieved problems might end up making things even worse, in the way that (Super lame and Grindy) Dominion SOV ended up being an over-reaction to the (super lame actually less grindy grindy) system it replaced.
Again, good luck with the summit. |
Mike Azariah
DemSal Corporation DemSal Unlimited
1471
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 20:59:00 -
[19] - Quote
HVAC Repairman wrote:out of my cold dead hands will you take dominion sov away from me
those terms are acceptable
m
Mike Azariah-á CSM8 and now CSM9 |
Gilbaron
Free-Space-Ranger Nulli Secunda
1517
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 20:59:00 -
[20] - Quote
Can you please make nullsec more ... pssssssshhhhhhh? Build your empire ! Start today ! Rent Space in Perrigen Falls and Feythabolis Contact me for details :)
|
|
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
8151
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 21:03:00 -
[21] - Quote
Sigras wrote:I used to think that the way to get small entities involved in null sec was to make sov more defensible allowing a smaller group to really dig in their heels and stand up against a large group.
I know see that the exact opposite is true... the large HP numbers on sov structures actually provide a minimum barrier to entry while not effecting larger entities at all.
think about it, if you multiply the HP on all sov structures by 30x, the only people who could realistically do sov warfare would be N3, PL, and the CFC; nobody else could bring a relevant amount of damage.
TL;DR instead of making sov harder to take, make it easier
This is what happened pre-Dominion. All the talk was about "small group objectives" and "small groups being able to compete", but the realty was a territial version of Malcanis' law, the big got bigger and the small got lowsec/wormholes lol.
This is why looking at the actual past and actual data is paramount in this discussion.
Also to CCP and the CSM, don't think that this kind of thing will ever work, this contributed to the current problems. |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
800
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 21:06:00 -
[22] - Quote
when are you fixing links |
PotatoOverdose
Handsome Millionaire Playboys Mordus Angels
2090
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 21:06:00 -
[23] - Quote
Make sure to knock down the ehp of any sov structure that continue to exist post overhaul by a lot. |
Schmata Bastanold
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
2724
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 21:10:00 -
[24] - Quote
New deployables incoming in 3... 2... 1... Invalid signature format |
Circumstantial Evidence
138
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 21:13:00 -
[25] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:alliance income relies more heavily on players being in space This may be true, but its in the form of vast rental empires. Smaller groups that would like to see their name on the SOV map without paying up, still feel left out. Which leads to many ideas asking for new counters to capital blobs and/or nerfs to force projection. |
SFM Hobb3s
Wrecking Shots Black Legion.
129
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 21:15:00 -
[26] - Quote
It's like going to work when you know there's some huge project sitting there that you have to get done, but you know just how many headaches you will have doing it.
Hats off to CCP for letting us know they are about to step off the deep end. Keep that Advil handy! |
Cherry Yeyo
81
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 21:30:00 -
[27] - Quote
Find a way to do away with the renter model. Conquering the galaxy with your super blob than renting it out and unsubbing is dumb and bad gameplay. CCP Rise>Sentry drones have enormous downsides |
flatterpillo
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 21:32:00 -
[28] - Quote
Four words ; Apex Force. |
Angry Mustache
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
183
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 21:37:00 -
[29] - Quote
Just saying seeing Rise on the focus group about sov null makes me nervous. An official Member of the Goonswarm Federation Complaints Department.
vote Angry Mustache for CSM9-áhttps://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=326509&find=unread |
Align Planet1
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
40
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 21:39:00 -
[30] - Quote
If you're going to reconsider the high level goals of the sov mechanics, it would be enormously helpful to have a discussion on what the justifications are for having de jure sovereignty in the first place.
If 0.0 is supposed to be "lawless" space, ownership by fiat (i.e. arbitrary game mechanics) seems to contradict that principle. All of the actual benefits of controlling a system -- and the mechanics that enable it -- could remain in place without the contrivance of a Territorial Claim Unit. In other words, perhaps player groups should be able to build infrastructure hubs, CSAA's, jump bridges, etc., or even plant a pretty flag, in any system at any time. The only requirement for keeping those structures and reaping the benefits would be the ability of owners to defend them. That would be the purest expression of occupancy-based sov.
Just to be clear, this isn't about "fixing" the current sov mechanics. I'm questioning whether they should exist at all. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 32 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |