Pages: 1 2 3 [4] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 10 post(s) |
|
CCP Darwin
C C P C C P Alliance
138
|
Posted - 2014.11.01 17:16:01 -
[91] - Quote
Dradis Aulmais wrote:Access to "Jessica" would be awesome.
You don't want unfettered access to Jessica as it is now. Think of it like a combination of a Python shell and raw access to the internal Trinity graphics engine scene graph, down to the tiniest internal detail, plus a huge menu of every random Python script that anyone from the beginning of EVE ever thought might be a good idea.
Unlike a tool like the Starcraft 2 level editor (which is available to players and really awesome, by the way) Jessica exposes details almost all the way down to the metal on the graphics system that you'd never want to see as a player.
Turning Jessica into something suitable for what the community would like to use it for, or making a new tool for that purpose, is all possible, but it would be a major project.
CCP Darwin GÇó Senior Technical Artist, EVE Online GÇó @mark_wilkins
|
|
Flamespar
Pradox One Proficiency V.
1245
|
Posted - 2014.11.02 09:07:58 -
[92] - Quote
Would "being in risk taking mode" include opening a particular door?
Also modular POS with explorable interiors would be amazing.
I want my space bar at the edge of the universe.
Also please add towels and toothbrush to the NeX store
EVE Chronicle: An audio drama set in the EVE universe
http://evechronicle.blogspot.com.au/
https://twitter.com/Flamespar
|
King Fu Hostile
Imperial Collective Unsettled.
205
|
Posted - 2014.11.02 23:24:03 -
[93] - Quote
GJ everyone involved!
I'm extremely happy about the vision for future starbases, it is exactly what I personally hope the starbases will on day be. Castles among the stars. Customisable cities both for micro corps and megacoalitions, together with custom ship skins are features that may appear superficial at first glance, but will create a much stronger emotional connection between the players and New Eden. This kind of personal dimension is exactly what game needs to reach new levels.
There was lots of other good stuff too, along with the abovementioned I got the feeling that CCP has rebuilt the temporarily lost confidence. New release model works incredibly well, and Phoebe shows that the time of bold changes and actual expansions is here :)
Keep up the good work!
|
Dradis Aulmais
Ignite Llc. V.L.A.S.T
9
|
Posted - 2014.11.03 02:49:10 -
[94] - Quote
Jessica sounds like aNightmare to use but since we dropped the expansion videos, have a usable interface for customers to use would make sense. You have basically a program that reached is basic life expectancy now your remonatized it as a customer generated ad content machine. Boom. Customers are happy they can create videos outlining their love for this game and CCP has a cheap source of ad revenue. |
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
102
|
Posted - 2014.11.03 07:54:26 -
[95] - Quote
Quote:CCP Greyscale (about starbases) - Inspirational - They need to look fuc*** awesome, and people need to want them and want to be around them and have them and use them and like them and want them and stuff. I love you man. Anything that won't look like stick with bubble or cheap russian MIR. I just need to figure why i would need that thing.
Bacon tastes so much better when it's marinated in vegan tears.-á
_I am the night. I'm Bantam. _
|
Dwissi
Imperial Shipment Amarr Empire
78
|
Posted - 2014.11.03 10:04:17 -
[96] - Quote
Finally through with the entire thing - what a read.
Many fantastic things in there - good job CSM 9.
2 things i am still concerned about:
The trend to make low sec a pure roaming and pve farming area is kind of scary to me actually. I had hoped for some more activity for making low a habitable area again. It used to be a great 'training&staging' area for corporations and alliances as a first step before trying to go to null sec. Starting to get established away from major market hubs, developing your own market etc - all that is completely missing in there.
POS discussion. An open forum about it would be great. Right now many dont even consider putting any up - so these people will not be included in the POS discussion because the statement says 'collect from people how they use them right now'. Reasons for not having one are plentiful - its too complicated, not cost effective enough .... - you extend that list as you want. But any future changes should really include the people who are not running them right now and not just the ones who do. Especially with the stated possible changes to null sec a large group of players should be involved to avoid another cascade fail for null. POS have a much larger meaning for smaller entities who are not as much represented in null discussions as they didnt have a chance to go there on their own yet. A POS is always a mid-step in between no docking and a full blown station - it seems to be forgotten really in the entire discussion about them right now.
Edit: making a POS a single-player owned structure was one of the worst things that has been mentioned in there
Proud designer of glasses for geeky dovakins
Before someone complains again: grr everyone
Greed is the death of loyalty
|
Arcos Vandymion
White Beast Inc.
76
|
Posted - 2014.11.03 10:35:26 -
[97] - Quote
Above discussion about a messy to use tool not open for everyone to play with right now becomes rather amusing if "Da Tweekaz & In-Phase - Bad Habit" is playing while one skims through it.
Back on topic: so basically what you're telling us is "we couldn't possibly release it as is because we'd be ashamed of ourselves" ? ^^ Because, judging by the effort the community has and does invest into their favourite game, I bet there are quite a few that would come through with a new video even if it's nearly unusable.
Jeremiah Saken wrote:Quote:CCP Greyscale (about starbases) - Inspirational - They need to look fuc*** awesome, and people need to want them and want to be around them and have them and use them and like them and want them and stuff. I love you man. Anything that won't look like stick with bubble or cheap russian MIR. I just need to figure why i would need that thing.
I'd love to see the TEC Argonev-class Starbase as some sort of Caldari Navy Stronghold. It certainly looks, though more plain, better than 4-4. Then one thinks about IP shenanigans that that would cause and hope is crushed under the iron heel of banhammer wielding legalese adjutants. |
Schmata Bastanold
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
2881
|
Posted - 2014.11.03 12:30:44 -
[98] - Quote
Quote:Steve - is there any way to make mining more exciting CCP Fozzie/Petur - we'd love to make this way more sci-fi and procedurally generated. Changes have been made. we have to wait for that to settle down, but there is more we can do.
I'm sorry but exactly what changes have been made to make mining more exciting?
Invalid signature format
|
|
CCP Darwin
C C P C C P Alliance
141
|
Posted - 2014.11.03 16:00:54 -
[99] - Quote
Dradis Aulmais wrote:Jessica sounds like aNightmare to use but since we dropped the expansion videos, have a usable interface for customers to use would make sense. You have basically a program that reached is basic life expectancy now your remonatized it as a customer generated ad content machine. Boom. Customers are happy they can create videos outlining their love for this game and CCP has a cheap source of ad revenue.
A little explanation on why I said this would be a major project:
You're asking for an animation authoring tool, and Jessica is not designed to serve that purpose. It's for making EVE graphics assets. It just happens to provide a somewhat clunky way to do part, not all, of the animation authoring process for our cinematics team. Because of this, a player-suitable tool for authoring animations would require significant reworking.
By the way, we still have a cinematics team and they're still working on trailers. Our release cadence change means they may not be tied to an expansion release, but in the future there will still be EVE trailers. Which makes me happy.
CCP Darwin GÇó Senior Technical Artist, EVE Online GÇó @mark_wilkins
|
|
Erin Crawford
331
|
Posted - 2014.11.03 18:25:34 -
[100] - Quote
I was hoping to have something that allows one to use and create imagery with the EVE assets using it's rendering engine for authenticity purposes - using anything else always looks hacked.
Heck, I would be overjoyed at simply being able to tinker around until I would finally figure out how to create a scene for a still image - forget animation and movies, just creating some still images would be amazing.
It's a pity, but understandable. Thanks anyways.
|
|
|
CCP Darwin
C C P C C P Alliance
147
|
Posted - 2014.11.03 22:27:27 -
[101] - Quote
Erin Crawford wrote: It's a pity, but understandable. Thanks anyways.
Aww! I think it would be awesome to have some kind of public content authoring tool too. Don't worry, we hear you.
CCP Darwin GÇó Senior Technical Artist, EVE Online GÇó @mark_wilkins
|
|
DeMichael Crimson
Republic University Minmatar Republic
33846
|
Posted - 2014.11.04 00:48:30 -
[102] - Quote
Session: Ship and module balancing Page 24: CCP Fozzie - Where meta 4 items are better than T2 we'll be downgrading them so that T2 are always superior. I do not think that having unique faction items is bad or that we will have to do much to them.
Sugar Kyle- Where will COSMOS modules fit in with regards to this? CCP Fozzie - They'll fit in fine with this, and their biggest advantage is that they have among the best fitting requirements. We don't really want to change them too much at this time. Faction stuff that has an advantage probably won't change.
Instead of constantly nerfing stuff, how about buffing those few T2 items that need to have better attribute stats compared to their meta lv 4 counterparts.
Also you guys definitely need to buff Storyline / Cosmos modules, most of them are rated meta lv 6 yet have attribute stats worse than meta lv 4 mods.
DMC
'The Plan' | California Eve Players | Proposal - The Endless Battle
|
Sugar Kyle
Snuff Box
741
|
Posted - 2014.11.04 02:23:25 -
[103] - Quote
Dwissi wrote:Finally through with the entire thing - what a read.
Many fantastic things in there - good job CSM 9.
2 things i am still concerned about:
The trend to make low sec a pure roaming and pve farming area is kind of scary to me actually. I had hoped for some more activity for making low a habitable area again. It used to be a great 'training&staging' area for corporations and alliances as a first step before trying to go to null sec. Starting to get established away from major market hubs, developing your own market etc - all that is completely missing in there.
I do not believe that low sec is a training ground. It is an area with its own unique mechanics and much of its lifestyle is quite different from null. Low sec is not a stepping ground. It is an independent area. If someone wishes to live in low sec, lovely, but it is not about training wheels. Low, like high, null, and wormholes contains players of all ages, abilities and ship types interacting in its unique environment because that is the type of game play the residents enjoy.
I run two market hubs in low sec. They are both successful and profitable. I manufacture and build in low sec. I own POCOs, my corporation owns POS. All of these things are alive and viable.
But yes, I am quite focused on a more dynamic game play where residents do not simply sit but live within an area finding what they need from system to system. I have many wishes for low sec and this is only the start. The fixes for escalations that are coming in excite me. I love the ships out in space, hunting in belts, flying and dying and living in low sec.
Member of CSM9
CSM9 Weekly Updates
|
Dwissi
Imperial Shipment Amarr Empire
79
|
Posted - 2014.11.04 05:02:00 -
[104] - Quote
Sugar Kyle wrote:Dwissi wrote:Finally through with the entire thing - what a read.
Many fantastic things in there - good job CSM 9.
2 things i am still concerned about:
The trend to make low sec a pure roaming and pve farming area is kind of scary to me actually. I had hoped for some more activity for making low a habitable area again. It used to be a great 'training&staging' area for corporations and alliances as a first step before trying to go to null sec. Starting to get established away from major market hubs, developing your own market etc - all that is completely missing in there.
I do not believe that low sec is a training ground. It is an area with its own unique mechanics and much of its lifestyle is quite different from null. Low sec is not a stepping ground. It is an independent area. If someone wishes to live in low sec, lovely, but it is not about training wheels. Low, like high, null, and wormholes contains players of all ages, abilities and ship types interacting in its unique environment because that is the type of game play the residents enjoy. I run two market hubs in low sec. They are both successful and profitable. I manufacture and build in low sec. I own POCOs, my corporation owns POS. All of these things are alive and viable. But yes, I am quite focused on a more dynamic game play where residents do not simply sit but live within an area finding what they need from system to system. I have many wishes for low sec and this is only the start. The fixes for escalations that are coming in excite me. I love the ships out in space, hunting in belts, flying and dying and living in low sec.
Throws lasso at Sugar and calms her down - sshhhht - its all good! :D
Please look at my liitle marks up their - its for the lack for any good wording that i used 'training&staging' for that particular point. And you are very mistaken if you believe i made any generalized direct comparison between null and low - i used to live in low myself long enough to agree in parts to 'unique'. But bottom line is that its nothing but a more hostile empire space due to the lack of concorde and having capitals being allowed. All other empire mechanics apply to low and 'real' inhabitants like you and your group are pretty much an exception and not the rule. I do recall an interview in a blog where you admitted yourself that there is an obvious lack of others doing what you do.
Proud designer of glasses for geeky dovakins
Before someone complains again: grr everyone
Greed is the death of loyalty
|
Dwissi
Imperial Shipment Amarr Empire
79
|
Posted - 2014.11.04 05:02:32 -
[105] - Quote
damned double post - delete
Proud designer of glasses for geeky dovakins
Before someone complains again: grr everyone
Greed is the death of loyalty
|
King Fu Hostile
Imperial Collective Unsettled.
208
|
Posted - 2014.11.04 09:47:08 -
[106] - Quote
Most would argue that hisec is the transition zone to nullsec. Lowsec and w-space attract those with the bloodthirst gene, and L4 mission runners are drawn to the nullsec farming grounds.
Perhaps nullsec becomes more attractive to PVP players in the future?
|
Dwissi
Imperial Shipment Amarr Empire
79
|
Posted - 2014.11.04 10:25:31 -
[107] - Quote
King Fu Hostile wrote:Most would argue that hisec is the transition zone to nullsec. Lowsec and w-space attract those with the bloodthirst gene, and L4 mission runners are drawn to the nullsec farming grounds.
Perhaps nullsec becomes more attractive to PVP players in the future?
That statement was only true for the stagnating null sec era - thats why i phrased 'used to be' which points to before that time. With Phoebe we are basically going back to those times because no more hotdropping across the entire board. People where not settling in low anymore because you would be plumbed and raped by every major player at will - that will not happen anymore(hopefully).
Proud designer of glasses for geeky dovakins
Before someone complains again: grr everyone
Greed is the death of loyalty
|
Arcos Vandymion
White Beast Inc.
77
|
Posted - 2014.11.04 11:36:15 -
[108] - Quote
DeMichael Crimson wrote:Session: Ship and module balancing Page 24: CCP Fozzie - Where meta 4 items are better than T2 we'll be downgrading them so that T2 are always superior. I do not think that having unique faction items is bad or that we will have to do much to them.
Sugar Kyle- Where will COSMOS modules fit in with regards to this? CCP Fozzie - They'll fit in fine with this, and their biggest advantage is that they have among the best fitting requirements. We don't really want to change them too much at this time. Faction stuff that has an advantage probably won't change.
Instead of constantly nerfing stuff, how about buffing those few T2 items that need to have better attribute stats compared to their meta lv 4 counterparts.
Also you guys definitely need to buff Storyline / Cosmos modules, most of them are rated meta lv 6 yet have attribute stats worse than meta lv 4 mods.
DMC
Disagree - for those items where Meta4 is as powerful the problem is clearly with the Meta scaling. T2 is defined as being 20% better. If we take a look at say TPs Meta4 are allready 20% better in the most important stat - signature increase of whatever you choose as your unlucky victim for the electro-optical guidance system. The application stats are equal, the activation cost LOWER as is the FITTING. While lower activation cost and fitting might be understandable it would have had to come at the 16% improved performance that Meta4 should have (unless the T2 items allow for T2 charges which makes Meta4 have the T2 base allowable (see Guns)). |
CaldariCitizen 32453253
Perkone Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 11:31:31 -
[109] - Quote
Lets kill more ways of playing the game : ^ ) |
Scheulagh Santorine
The Math Department
20
|
Posted - 2014.12.06 22:13:57 -
[110] - Quote
CSM & Developers,
I have read some of the minutes focusing on the subject of corporation aggression changes, particularly the Team Five-O sections. I have some questions about what I am reading. In the following exchange (Text 1) it not clear whether CCP means that the confusion associated with being shot by corp mates and Concord does not responding versus Concord does respond when they are in an NPC corp? Considering this rule has been unchanged for over a decade, is a change to this rule less confusing than consistency?
And what, if you would be kind enough to explain, is intended by the term 'old Eve'?
Another exchange (Text 2) seems to equate war declarations and low-sec/worm-hole/0.0 baiting as equivalent play styles to the complex of players and corporations that have emerged in high-sec, working together to expose theft and subversive combat opportunities? Is it your contention, in the last quote, that the aggression flagging mechanics would be too confusing to identify in-corporation aggression versus out-of-corporation aggression?
Thank you for clarification on these issues.
Regards,
S. Santorine
============================== I used to shoot things. Now I do math.
S. Santorine
Writings on some formal methods in EvE-Online: Ship Motion in EVE Online
|
|
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
2829
|
Posted - 2014.12.06 23:58:39 -
[111] - Quote
I have deleted a redundant double post.
ISD Ezwal
Vice Admiral
Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Interstellar Services Department
|
Mike Azariah
DemSal Corporation DemSal Unlimited
2086
|
Posted - 2014.12.07 00:25:04 -
[112] - Quote
Scheulagh Santorine wrote:CSM & Developers, I have read some of the minutes focusing on the subject of corporation aggression changes, particularly the Team Five-O sections. I have some questions about what I am reading. In the following exchange ( Text 1) it is not clear whether CCP means that the confusion associated with being shot by corp mates and Concord does not respond versus Concord does respond when they are in an NPC corp? Considering this rule has been unchanged for over a decade, is a change to this rule less confusing than consistency? And what, if you would be kind enough to explain, is intended by the term 'old Eve'? Another exchange ( Text 2) seems to equate war declarations and low-sec/worm-hole/0.0 baiting as equivalent play styles to the complex of players and corporations that have emerged in high-sec, working together to expose theft and subversive combat opportunities? Is it your contention, in the last quote, that the aggression flagging mechanics would be too confusing to identify in-corporation aggression versus out-of-corporation aggression? Thank you for clarification on these issues. Regards, S. Santorine
As to the first point. It was a nonintuitive rule from the start and the cause of confusion all along. So the change was the right thing to do and not a cause of further confusion.
Old Eve would be the original version with all its bugs and quirks. Each quirk could be argued against, using the grandfather clause of 'that is how it has always been'. The argument doesn't hold water when the newer way is better. If you disagree with this have a scribe calligraphy up your reply as that is how it should be done, none of the newfangled computer or electronics.
One the second point we were saying that there should be a difference between the flagging mechanisms but this has been solved with the changes in intercorp aggression. So I fail to see your point unless it is a convoluted way to bring back an inherently bad mechanic.
m
Mike Azariah-á CSM8 and now CSM9
|
Scheulagh Santorine
The Math Department
20
|
Posted - 2014.12.07 03:04:54 -
[113] - Quote
Mike Azariah wrote:
As to the first point. It was a nonintuitive rule from the start and the cause of confusion all along. So the change was the right thing to do and not a cause of further confusion.
Old Eve would be the original version with all its bugs and quirks. Each quirk could be argued against, using the grandfather clause of 'that is how it has always been'. The argument doesn't hold water when the newer way is better. If you disagree with this have a scribe calligraphy up your reply as that is how it should be done, none of the newfangled computer or electronics.
One the second point we were saying that there should be a difference between the flagging mechanisms but this has been solved with the changes in intercorp aggression. So I fail to see your point unless it is a convoluted way to bring back an inherently bad mechanic.
m
Your response to the first point about the existing mechanic being confusing repeats the reason that one of the developers cited for the reason to make the change. Did the committee consider that there are many 'complicated' mechanics in EVE as with many other games. If complexity is the issue, why was there no proposal considered to streamline corp aggression mechanics instead of making a drastic change? My suspicion on the lack of diverse discussion on this point is in part that there exists some misunderstanding of the impact of these changes. This view was reinforced with my interaction with Xander Phoena.
I'm going to ignore your second paragraph as it is unrelated to this discussion -- we're talking about a successful computer game whose rules should only change if there is a good reason.
On the questions I asked about the second Text link, I agree that there are a lot of flagging states that players need to learn so perhaps there is some friction there. On the other hand, there does not seem to be a response to the larger question. I'll ask it again directly:
- What equivalence does the CSM and developers see between war declarations and baiting tactics as equivalent play styles to the complex of players and corporations that have emerged in high-sec, working together to expose theft and subversive combat opportunities?
Regards,
S. Santorine
============================== I used to shoot things. Now I do math.
S. Santorine
Writings on some formal methods in EvE-Online: Ship Motion in EVE Online
|
Mike Azariah
DemSal Corporation DemSal Unlimited
2086
|
Posted - 2014.12.07 03:20:24 -
[114] - Quote
Scheulagh Santorine wrote: If complexity is the issue, why was there no proposal considered to streamline corp aggression mechanics instead of making a drastic change? My suspicion on the lack of diverse discussion on this point is in part that there exists some misunderstanding of the impact of these changes. This view was reinforced with my interaction with Xander Phoena.
I'm going to ignore your second paragraph as it is unrelated to this discussion -- we're talking about a successful computer game whose rules should only change if there is a good reason.
On the questions I asked about the second Text link, I agree that there are a lot of flagging states that players need to learn so perhaps there is some friction there. On the other hand, there does not seem to be a response to the larger question. I'll ask it again directly: [list]
What equivalence does the CSM and developers see between war declarations and baiting tactics as equivalent play styles to the complex of players and corporations that have emerged in high-sec, working together to expose theft and subversive combat opportunities?
I didn't say complex, I said counter intuitive . . . or dumb. The ability to shoot a corp mate out of the blue in hisec with no legal repercussions was a dumb rule and lasted waaaaay too long in the game.
There was a good reason to change it, so we did.
I do not answer for all the CSM nor CCP. But if you want my answer as a CSM member (and candidate) there are connections but not equivalence. War decs and baiting are the offence, the other is the defense. Equivalence? No.
m
Mike Azariah-á CSM8 and now CSM9
|
Scheulagh Santorine
The Math Department
20
|
Posted - 2014.12.10 17:32:37 -
[115] - Quote
Mike Azariah wrote: I didn't say complex, I said counter intuitive . . . or dumb. The ability to shoot a corp mate out of the blue in hisec with no legal repercussions was a dumb rule and lasted waaaaay too long in the game.
There was a good reason to change it, so we did.
I do not answer for all the CSM nor CCP. But if you want my answer as a CSM member (and candidate) there are connections but not equivalence. War decs and baiting are the offence, the other is the defense. Equivalence? No.
m
There are many counter-intuitive rules in EVE. If you are interested in a list I can provide one, starting with the rules of combat and ship motion in the game of which I have dedicated considerable study. These counter-intuitive rules have made for rich interaction, and their long-standing does not qualify them necessarily for change.
As for having 'good' reasons to make this change, I've gone back to the text of the minutes and identified this section (Text3) which seems to outline CCP's real motivation for the changes. The fact that the corp aggression rules have created emergent game play is being trumped by the concerns over how some players respond to adversity. While my anecdotal experiences with being the victim of corporate intrigues in my first months of play does not apply to all players, most people have the grit to stick with the game.
On the other hand, my recent experiences with the high-sec groups who exploit aggression mechanics, while brief, was a genuinely refreshing way for a veteran to experience the game and meet new people. It is my sincere hope that developers will consider giving something back to this community.
Regards,
S. Santorine
============================== I used to shoot things. Now I do math.
S. Santorine
Writings on some formal methods in EvE-Online: Ship Motion in EVE Online
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |