EVE Search - Sticky:CSM 11 Summit 1 Minutes

All Channels

Assembly Hall

Sticky:CSM 11 Summit 1 Minutes

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)

CCP Logibro C C P C C P Alliance 1506	Posted - 2016.09.30 15:20:35 - [1] - Quote The minutes for CSM 11 Summit 1 are now released, and can be found here: http://cdn1.eveonline.com/community/csm/Meetings/summit/CSM11-S1.pdf Please keep any discussion regarding the minutes to this thread. CCP Logibro // EVE Universe Community Team // Distributor of Nanites // Patron Saint of Logistics @CCP_Logibro

Nashh Kadavr Sniggerdly 204	Posted - 2016.09.30 15:31:11 - [2] - Quote I aprove this service and / or product #EVE_NT website; www.eve-nt.uk Blog; http://nashh-blog.pvp101.net
Scotsman Howard The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 155	Posted - 2016.09.30 15:47:39 - [3] - Quote I tried to click on the first link for the store - got Rick-Rolled - laughed - Boss noticed and I had to go back to work. Thanks CCP, now I have to work instead of reading the minutes lol. (on lunch break now so that is why I posted here).
Nyjil Lizaru Aideron Robotics 47	Posted - 2016.09.30 16:14:01 - [4] - Quote Two quick things: - Is the rookie ship ganking just cynos getting popped? - Is CCP still blissfully ignorant that some starter schools (Hello CAS!) have actually built real communities despite the 10% tax and lack of support. (re: "There was then some discussion on the retention statistics based on the race and school they choose, with certain schools having higher retention rates.") Nyjil's corollary to Malcanis' Law: -á "Any attempt by CCP to smooth the learning curve of EVE Online will be carried out via the addition of extra factors and 'features' such that there is a net increase in complexity."
NoobMan Hard Knocks Inc. Hard Knocks Citizens 303	Posted - 2016.09.30 16:38:09 - [5] - Quote I killed at the WH meeting. Just saying... Operations Director of Hard K(n)ocks Inc.
Lugh Crow-Slave 3220	Posted - 2016.09.30 16:55:00 - [6] - Quote Quote: This might come alongside a possible change to allow you to tax compression for the love of god please on the part about adding more duel statics idk if that is a good thing when C4s got it WHs were almost killed for us as any seance of isolation was lost. The most intense times i can remember having in eve was in our C4 with a null static and sometimes going weeks w/o any connections to WH or empire. at one point we only manage to get fuel into our tower with 12hrs left to go BLOPS Hauler
Equto Imperium Technologies V. O. I. D. 53	Posted - 2016.09.30 17:44:53 - [7] - Quote I mean, I guess we finally got some sort of confirmation from CCP that jump fatigue isn't working entirely right but at the same time its been nearly 3 years without any major changes regardless of "frequent" passes being promised.
Listrentite Art Of Explosions 404 Hole Not Found 1	Posted - 2016.09.30 18:08:48 - [8] - Quote NoobMan wrote: I killed at the WH meeting. Just saying... You represented WH space very well! Despite that, I'm dissatisfied with the (lack of) responses to the issues/suggestions that were raised. Unless they are hidden behind an NDA wall...
Tipa Riot Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 2953	Posted - 2016.09.30 18:12:12 - [9] - Quote MrHyde: "nerf nullification, buff gatecamps, so people do more camping" ... lol. I'm my own NPC alt.
Skia Aumer Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 345	Posted - 2016.09.30 18:17:02 - [10] - Quote Quote: Jin'taan brought up the issue of time zone locking, and how it makes it painful to use the system. Innominate stated that this was one thing that Starbase reinforcement got right. This is so true. POS vulnerability and timing was (and still is) working perfectly fine. I have no idea why they took it away. Everyone set citadel timers to the weakest TZ for possible attackers. Weaponized boredome at its finest. Furthermore, killing a POS requires 2 engagements - time of the first one is chosen by attacker, time of the second - by defender, which is fair. Now it is - how many? 3? I never even bothered to find out. All of those timers are defined by the defender. Seriously, I can understand forming 1 alarm-clock CTA, but 3 of those to kill even the smallest undefended citadel? And if we're only 15 minutes late - all is in vane. That is hilariously broken.
Skia Aumer Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 345	Posted - 2016.09.30 18:24:01 - [11] - Quote My suggestion for citadel engagement rules: - keepstar is fine as it is - fortizar should be always vulnerable and have 2 timers - shield and armor - astrahus should be always vulnarable and have 1 timer for shield, just like ye olde POS
Skir Skor Stay Frosty. A Band Apart. 38	Posted - 2016.09.30 18:37:08 - [12] - Quote You appear to of forgotten to add minutes from the Lowsec round table.....
Circumstantial Evidence 365	Posted - 2016.09.30 21:05:05 - [13] - Quote Skia Aumer wrote: My suggestion for citadel engagement rules: - keepstar is fine as it is - fortizar should be always vulnerable and have 2 timers - shield and armor - astrahus should be always vulnarable and have 1 timer for shield, just like ye olde POS We're judging an incomplete system; citadels are not what we are "supposed to" be fighting over, they are just... the only piece in place, atm. They are meant to be tough, and this minutes has confirmed that you will get closer to what you want with the isk-making structures. Page 35 wrote: CCP further explained that Engineering Complexes would be weaker than citadels, have longer vulnerability windows
Ralph King-Griffin Devils Rejects 666 The Devil's Warrior Alliance 18382	Posted - 2016.09.30 21:15:28 - [14] - Quote Skia Aumer wrote: My suggestion for citadel engagement rules: - keepstar is fine as it is - fortizar should be always vulnerable and have 2 timers - shield and armor - astrahus should be always vulnarable and have 1 timer for shield, just like ye olde POS Believe me when I say this,the only reason Astra's are Surviving in highsec at all is that they're a massive pain in the arse for a 2bil km Most of the time having a crappy timer is quite literally their only defense because no one will bother defending them. Praposal:Un-F**k Locator Agants =]\|[=
Montgomery Black Exit-Strategy Exit Strategy.. 105	Posted - 2016.09.30 23:49:30 - [15] - Quote Listrentite wrote: NoobMan wrote: I killed at the WH meeting. Just saying... You represented WH space very well! Despite that, I'm dissatisfied with the (lack of) responses to the issues/suggestions that were raised. Unless they are hidden behind an NDA wall... THIS ! Did CCP just say nothing ? WH space is getting very empty (especially in non EU TZs). Alot of that is because of risk and time vs reward. (this applies equally to pvp and pve) WH Merc Services in AU TZ. Citadel defense / offense. More details see forum post - Link
Sabriz Adoudel Move along there is nothing here 5913	Posted - 2016.10.01 00:50:14 - [16] - Quote Ralph King-Griffin wrote: Skia Aumer wrote: My suggestion for citadel engagement rules: - keepstar is fine as it is - fortizar should be always vulnerable and have 2 timers - shield and armor - astrahus should be always vulnarable and have 1 timer for shield, just like ye olde POS Believe me when I say this,the only reason Astra's are Surviving in highsec at all is that they're a massive pain in the arse for a 2bil km Most of the time having a crappy timer is quite literally their only defense because no one will bother defending them. The main reason is that there's no profit to be made in aggressing them. Hit a POS with 30b of stuff in it, you get an average of 15b in drops. Hit a freighter with 30b of stuff - get an average 15b in drops. Hit a Citadel with 30b of stuff - you get a tiny amount of loot from the salvage. I don't agree with the original suggestion - I'm fine with them being fairly safe but there needs to be an incentive to attack them. Asset safety unwrap fees should go to the aggressors, at the least. I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com Sabriz's Rule: "Any time someone argues for a game change claiming it is a quality of life change, the change is actually a game balance change".
Sabriz Adoudel Move along there is nothing here 5913	Posted - 2016.10.01 01:01:54 - [17] - Quote The Team Phenomenon stuff was quite interesting. If it's done in a way where spawns of NPC mining fleets are quite rare, but somewhat lucrative, this would create some interesting gameplay in the quietest areas of space. It would be a huge shot in the arm for lowsec, the region where belts are the quietest and these NPCs could stack up the most - if you go through all the belts in a system and find two of these spawns, blow them up and loot their ore, that might actually be enough to make lowsec mining (with a combat escort fleet) viable in comparison to highsec. I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com Sabriz's Rule: "Any time someone argues for a game change claiming it is a quality of life change, the change is actually a game balance change".
Bienator II madmen of the skies 3585	Posted - 2016.10.01 02:21:30 - [18] - Quote not sure if it is a good idea to recommend FW in the 'new' NPE while having no time to fix FW. (both mentioned in the minutes) how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value
Lugh Crow-Slave 3222	Posted - 2016.10.01 02:39:12 - [19] - Quote Ralph King-Griffin wrote: Skia Aumer wrote: My suggestion for citadel engagement rules: - keepstar is fine as it is - fortizar should be always vulnerable and have 2 timers - shield and armor - astrahus should be always vulnarable and have 1 timer for shield, just like ye olde POS Believe me when I say this,the only reason Astra's are Surviving in highsec at all is that they're a massive pain in the arse for a 2bil km Most of the time having a crappy timer is quite literally their only defense because no one will bother defending them. that's because anyone with the ability to defend a citadel gets a fort BLOPS Hauler
Lugh Crow-Slave 3222	Posted - 2016.10.01 02:40:26 - [20] - Quote Bienator II wrote: not sure if it is a good idea to recommend FW in the 'new' NPE while having no time to fix FW. (both mentioned in the minutes) it would be really nice if they went with the idea from a year or two ago where corps/alliance can support a militia and then members can join or not. I know it would be great for corps like mine that make a point to help all types of new players BLOPS Hauler
Karina Ivanovich Pandemic Horde Inc. Pandemic Horde 220	Posted - 2016.10.01 03:03:34 - [21] - Quote As a New Player Coordinator for Pandemic Horde. (NBI) I find that the skillets for any Alphas that want to try and live in null Strongly disfavor any player that Chooses to play Amarr, and to some extent Galente. The Galente characters have strong ratting potential being able to fly the Vexor, but lack many offensive PvP capabilities. Amarrian pilots are in an even worse shape. Nully in general does not show a strong favoritism for armor doctrines for ships of under BS size. While PH can and will try to work around these limitations, and unfortunately i don't know exactly what could be done to help this situation I just wanted to bring it to attention. Some call me insane. If the universe is sane, then I embrace that label.
Skia Aumer Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 345	Posted - 2016.10.01 10:00:01 - [22] - Quote Sabriz Adoudel wrote: I don't agree with the original suggestion - I'm fine with them [citadels] being fairly safe but there needs to be an incentive to attack them. Asset safety unwrap fees should go to the aggressors, at the least. As for me (and I hope a large portion of ppl in nullsec) it's about the ability to enforce your rules in a space that you live. There is already a serious frustration about those bloody interceptors that zip through any camps. And now we've got the citadels that once anchored are nigh on impossible to remove. The sense of ownership of the space is diluted. In my opinion, that sense is among the strongest initiatives that encourages ppl to live in nullsec. Well I mean those actual alive alliances, not the renters.
Nabu Nezzar Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire 8	Posted - 2016.10.01 21:47:46 - [23] - Quote (new player here) Quote: Instant action - Fafer Press "F" for instant action. That's not what EVE is or what it should strive to be. If I want action, I join a corporation that shoots down players or I do a security mission. That's as far as it should go (I'm having this "dungeon finder" of other MMOs in mind since "raids" was mentioned below that part). The MMOs that have that and offer their players instant action don't last, they never do...because all the fundamentals are missing. Gathering your ships to start a raid, instead of warping to some place, is part of the experience and really important, regardless of whether the player notices this or not. EVE doesn't have to appeal to everyone and that is ok. If you worry about new players, look into reaching the people out there. Define your target groups and actively try to get these people...or make yourself at least known. As a general gamer interested in sci-fi games, I would know about Homeworld Remastered, Elite: Dangerous and Star Citizen, certainly not about EVE because it is only rarely in the media and when it is, it's about a story that happened and which seems so distant to the reader. Getting articles about an ingame-event which actively involves new players + cheaper first few months would have been great (mostly too late at this point thanks to F2P). Doing something like this once a year, preferably shortly before the winter season when people rather stay inside, might have been a good idea. Apart from that, numbers are also lower because MMOs in general are in a decline. Communities on the internet have shifted and now there are hubs like reddit, facebook etc. "Infiltrating" groups associated with sci-fi and RPing on these media and advertising your product there could be worth a try. Magazines have been in heavy decline for years and where are people going to read about your product? It's these hubs and media coverage that doesn't immediately show this game's hardcore side like the coverage of the stories that I mentioned. And obviously don't just stick to English/international places, different countries with different hubs are worth catering to. VK (Russia), Nico-¦ (Japan), Sina Weibo/Youku (China) + streaming sites. Breaking into the large Korean market could be worth it (they have Afreeca for streaming)...or the Brazilian one (they actually do play a lot of PC games since consoles are still expensive + 200 million people isn't nothing). India might be worth something as well in a couple of years. What I'm basically saying, potential does exist - the gaming market is constantly getting bigger and bigger but most of that is concentrated in areas where they are getting better and better access. WoW is losing numbers too but their mistake is making the game easier and easier (to appeal to new, lazy players which doesn't work, as stated above) while trying to live on its legacy. EVE has a huge advantage since we can write our own stories, so it should definitely survive WoW. Quote: Better experience after the first week - Innominate I agree with this...or rather, it is somewhat hard for new players to find into the game. This game is overwhelming and you have the forum, the rookie help channel and the wiki to get answers. That isn't necessarily enough though. The forum is a good place for guides and such but usually I have several questions and a new one pops into my mind but I won't ask everything(well, rather anything) here because I don't want to spam a thread...just imagine if everyone did that. Apart from that, these days not everyone uses forums. The rookie help channel is usually overcrowded (even with the "apparent lack" of new players), so it's hard to get your answers or only read every fifth line since that one is addressed to you. I find myself mostly googling and getting the appropriate answer from both wikis and forums. Not everyone does that though and it also doesn't help you decide what you want to do. In that case, you need someone to talk to and corporations would be one such an idea. The ones you start in, for instance, could be used to help the players more individually as it shares the load. (Speaking for myself, I actually want to know what outfits best to use for X ship or what ships are good for this and that and etc, talking to someone experienced who knows about PVP (or PvE for other people) You can't do that in the rookie channel since the answers aren't short.) The tutorial missions are great to see what you do in each but after that, you usually want answers about how much money each category brings, what you can do where and how to progress from your current point. The problem here is the different languages as people would probably all write in a single chat...unless it's possible to add several ones for starter corporations. And from there you could go out into the wide, wide universe. Also something which could help with player retention: Overview of (public) chat channels. Create an ingame-overview with all the public channels available, under different categories, with the current numbers of chatters displayed. (I believe) Most of the channels are player-generated, so make the creators administrators and let it work like an IRC-channel. This buffs the social aspect of the game, creates bonds and that helps in keeping players in the game (well, with F2P they could just use that, instead of subscribing). This also helps with the downtime when you are piloting through several systems. Basically, these channels make it possible to connect to a completely different player which otherwise I would probably never meet (unless I would also play in the same corporation/alliance or fly through similar space). After one month of non-usage of a channel, these could be auto-deleted to make the name available again. (Well, reaching character limit...I haven't read past page 6, so some issues might be addressed later in the document.)
Lugh Crow-Slave 3227	Posted - 2016.10.02 00:06:52 - [24] - Quote Sabriz Adoudel wrote: I don't agree with the original suggestion - I'm fine with them [citadels] being fairly safe but there needs to be an incentive to attack them. Asset safety unwrap fees should go to the aggressors, at the least. there shouldn't need to be an artificial reason to attack one of these BLOPS Hauler
Tipa Riot Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 2965	Posted - 2016.10.02 16:32:50 - [25] - Quote Anyone understood the point with the NPC belt miners? I'm my own NPC alt.
Amarisen Gream Divine Demise 292	Posted - 2016.10.03 00:19:22 - [26] - Quote My view for the purpose of the scope network would be the system that replaces our current mission system. I've already spoken in the F&I about it. But it would be a system by system feed for combat, mining etc. provide through the scope network for players to take missions from the NPC factions. "The Lord loosed upon them his fierce anger All of his fury and rage. He dispatched against them a band of Avenging Angels" - The Scriptures, Book II, Apocalypse 10:1 DIDE- is open to new members
Amarisen Gream Divine Demise 292	Posted - 2016.10.03 00:20:14 - [27] - Quote Tipa Riot wrote: Anyone understood the point with the NPC belt miners? to add more life to the game. it is mostly visual with some fun game play mechanics behind it. gives players more stuff to do instead of just looking at lasers. "The Lord loosed upon them his fierce anger All of his fury and rage. He dispatched against them a band of Avenging Angels" - The Scriptures, Book II, Apocalypse 10:1 DIDE- is open to new members
Mara Rinn Cosmic Goo Convertor 5896	Posted - 2016.10.03 11:39:13 - [28] - Quote Tipa Riot wrote: Anyone understood the point with the NPC belt miners? Introducing a new NPC spawning system, where encounters are generated "procedurally" (i.e.: there are smarts behind the spawning process to produce a variety of spawns, with spawn altered based on number of players involved and other factors). Day 0 Advice for New Players
Mara Rinn Cosmic Goo Convertor 5896	Posted - 2016.10.03 11:42:08 - [29] - Quote Quote: CCP Larrikin asked about what the CSM thought about balance between the various spawns, with the CSM suggesting that the rewards for a particular spawn type should increase the less it's killed. This just means the lower value spawns will become more abundant! Then again GÇª be careful what you wish for :D Day 0 Advice for New Players
Mara Rinn Cosmic Goo Convertor 5896	Posted - 2016.10.03 13:53:43 - [30] - Quote Quote: CCP [asked] what the CSM thought of making it that you can't be tethered for an amount of time once they jump from a cyno. What if you couldn't light a cyno or interact with a cyno while within 1000km of an anchored object? Day 0 Advice for New Players
Skia Aumer Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 345	Posted - 2016.10.03 15:48:24 - [31] - Quote Mara Rinn wrote: Quote: CCP [asked] what the CSM thought of making it that you can't be tethered for an amount of time once they jump from a cyno. What if you couldn't light a cyno or interact with a cyno while within 1000km of an anchored object? There are gazillion ways to nerf everything: cynos, capships, citadels. The challenge is to find a solution that would generate content rather than deny it. If traveling gets too easy, capital hunters will never bother - content denied. But if capship pilots feel it's too dangerous, they never login their caps - content denied again. So it's a tricky one. The risk vs reward should feel just about right for both parties. Delayed tethering seems way too harsh. You get scrambled and you're done: no tethering, no docking. Guaranteed death unless you get reinforcements really really fast. Why do I even want to light cyno on a citadel then? Lighting it on a spot seems a lot safer. I have another idea, which may work. Citadels will give free tethering only to a proper ship size (that can dock). You can still get tethering for a larger ship if you activate a special module on that ship. On top of that, this module may or may not provide a boost to your ship's mass to help it against bumpers. You cannot safe-logoff with any module active, same for this case. Basically, want a safe travel - build proper citadels. Otherwise, you only have a "panic button". If tackled, push it and get reinforcements. You will have a fight on your citadel, which gives you advantage. Lose that fight - lose those capship too. Sounds fair for me.
Steve Ronuken Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM 6201	Posted - 2016.10.03 16:56:41 - [32] - Quote Mara Rinn wrote: Quote: CCP [asked] what the CSM thought of making it that you can't be tethered for an amount of time once they jump from a cyno. What if you couldn't light a cyno or interact with a cyno while within 1000km of an anchored object? Jump freighter pilots would murder you. Woo! CSM XI! Fuzzwork Enterprises Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
SniffleBum KissyLips EVE INDUSTIAL MINING TRINITY GOLD MINER CORP INC. 15	Posted - 2016.10.03 20:41:25 - [33] - Quote Skia Aumer wrote: Quote: Jin'taan brought up the issue of time zone locking, and how it makes it painful to use the system. Innominate stated that this was one thing that Starbase reinforcement got right. This is so true. POS vulnerability and timing was (and still is) working perfectly fine. I have no idea why they took it away. Everyone set citadel timers to the weakest TZ for possible attackers. Weaponized boredome at its finest. Furthermore, killing a POS requires 2 engagements - time of the first one is chosen by attacker, time of the second - by defender, which is fair. Now it is - how many? 3? I never even bothered to find out. All of those timers are defined by the defender. Seriously, I can understand forming 1 alarm-clock CTA, but 3 of those to kill even the smallest undefended citadel? And if we're only 15 minutes late - all is in vane. That is hilariously broken. Because god-forbid you show up a little bit early and risk a short wait to gain control of the grid, complete the objective, etc, when you could just time it to show up at the last minute, and then rage on the forums that the timers are too short, right?
Arronicus Fusion Enterprises Ltd Badfellas Inc. 1514	Posted - 2016.10.03 20:43:16 - [34] - Quote Steve Ronuken wrote: Mara Rinn wrote: Quote: CCP [asked] what the CSM thought of making it that you can't be tethered for an amount of time once they jump from a cyno. What if you couldn't light a cyno or interact with a cyno while within 1000km of an anchored object? Jump freighter pilots would murder you. Jump freighter pilots wouldn't do anything of the sort. They simply wouldn't do anything. Any jumps. Any hauling. We'd be fine for the first week or two, then **** would rapidly start seizing up, and CCP would see protests that make monoclegate look like it was nothing. But hey, at least the problem of completely defenseless ships having some degree of relative safety would be fixed, right?
Skia Aumer Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 345	Posted - 2016.10.03 21:01:16 - [35] - Quote SniffleBum KissyLips wrote: Skia Aumer wrote: POS vulnerability and timing was (and still is) working perfectly fine. I have no idea why they took it away. Everyone set citadel timers to the weakest TZ for possible attackers. Weaponized boredome at its finest. Furthermore, killing a POS requires 2 engagements - time of the first one is chosen by attacker, time of the second - by defender, which is fair. Now it is - how many? 3? I never even bothered to find out. All of those timers are defined by the defender. Seriously, I can understand forming 1 alarm-clock CTA, but 3 of those to kill even the smallest undefended citadel? And if we're only 15 minutes late - all is in vane. That is hilariously broken. Because god-forbid you show up a little bit early and risk a short wait to gain control of the grid, complete the objective, etc, when you could just time it to show up at the last minute, and then rage on the forums that the timers are too short, right? You have a rich experience of leading fleets at 4 am, do you?
Mara Rinn Cosmic Goo Convertor 5896	Posted - 2016.10.03 22:11:32 - [36] - Quote Arronicus wrote: But hey, at least the problem of completely defenseless ships having some degree of relative safety would be fixed, right? Heaven forbid that PVP would happen in a PVP game! Why should jump freighters be able to jump from Jita into the safety of a citadel with no risk of suicide ganking in hisec? It's a pleasure that every freighter pilot enjoys when travelling to/from Jita, why should the lowsec/nullsec folks miss out? You are denying content to other players. There are adaptation paths available: use undock bookmarks use stasis webifiers to accelerate entry into warp on arrival do not jump into systems with neutrals/hostiles around have combat support available Miners have to put up with suicide ganking, AFK cloakers, and GÇö come November GÇö having boosters on-grid. Why should jump freighter pilots miss out on the ~~content generation opportunities~~ fun? Day 0 Advice for New Players
Mara Rinn Cosmic Goo Convertor 5896	Posted - 2016.10.03 22:21:06 - [37] - Quote CSM Minutes wrote: Aryth added that the size of the wormhole doesn't necessarily need to be balanced around a return trip as often fleets return by a different route to what they left through. Having wormholes collapsing behind you should be part of life in wormhole space. I wonder if there's opportunity for "fluxing wormholes" which can fit only a handful of ships (i.e.: a fixed number of transits, rather than mass-based limits), or "trap door" wormholes which collapse a short time after the first transit, and once used the "other end" can no longer be entered (signature X444 since 4 is an unlucky number for the Chinese)? Though for trap doors, I'd prefer to see the transiting ship dumped in a random location, since kill-boxing a "trap door" exit node would be far too easy. These might catch inexperienced wormhole spelunkers by surprise, but surely there needs to be room in the game for expensive mistakes? Day 0 Advice for New Players
Ijlja Synner Inc 0	Posted - 2016.10.12 05:06:51 - [38] - Quote I'm missing a lot of feedback or questions about the significant difference in fuel costs for a POS vs even a high sec engineering platform. There's a 10+% difference in fuel blocks required to run an engineering platform with the 3 high sec options, compared to a current large POS. I'm wondering if the representation at the CSM is taking smaller corps and alliances into account when discussing these changes. The abilities of even a small POS, versus the 3 services you can put into a medium engineering array, don't match up. From a large POS, to a medium engineering array signifies a very large los of functionality for a small corp / alliance, yet has in increased fuel cost associated with it. Could CCP / the CSM please comment on this point and if it was discussed? I obviously wasn't able to raise this before the CSM summit, as the numbers, sizes and setups were not available before hand and I had hoped wouldn't be as staggering a difference for a small corp as ourselves. This is making me want to petition to maintain the ability to use a POS for smaller corps, as at this rate, a citadel is unaffordable. Thanks, Ijlja
Amarisen Gream Divine Demise 294	Posted - 2016.10.12 11:46:44 - [39] - Quote Ijlja wrote: I'm missing a lot of feedback or questions about the significant difference in fuel costs for a POS vs even a high sec engineering platform. There's a 10+% difference in fuel blocks required to run an engineering platform with the 3 high sec options, compared to a current large POS. I'm wondering if the representation at the CSM is taking smaller corps and alliances into account when discussing these changes. The abilities of even a small POS, versus the 3 services you can put into a medium engineering array, don't match up. From a large POS, to a medium engineering array signifies a very large los of functionality for a small corp / alliance, yet has in increased fuel cost associated with it. Could CCP / the CSM please comment on this point and if it was discussed? I obviously wasn't able to raise this before the CSM summit, as the numbers, sizes and setups were not available before hand and I had hoped wouldn't be as staggering a difference for a small corp as ourselves. This is making me want to petition to maintain the ability to use a POS for smaller corps, as at this rate, a citadel is unaffordable. Thanks, Ijlja The cost are/can be hard on a small corp of a only a few members. Me personally, I am okay with cost. One of the worst features I find in New Eden is how easy it is for people to make corporations. We need fewer one man corps and more small corps -20 to 100 members. The issue is the corp controls suck dinosaur nuggets - yet so much is tied to the piece of shat structures in space that CCP can't give us the Corp/Alliance control system we should have. So we sit and rot in these small corps of less than 20 people (most are alts) and ***** because we can't compete with, on a individual level with the large and mega-corps that have a lot more man power and finance option. So in the long run I am happy for the feedback you provide, but we need to adapt to the changes and most won't survive the changes. So make some friends, merge corps and go from there. Right now, I have the system worked out for managing the numbers, I just need to get more people to join my corp. Yet, I am also not going to kid myself with keeping a small corp. If I can't get the numbers I am looking for by the new year (or close to), I will happily close my corp and join a larger one. I am just waiting on CCP to upgrade their corp/alliance controls and inventory management systems. I hope this didn't come across harsh. I had no intention for it to if it did. "The Lord loosed upon them his fierce anger All of his fury and rage. He dispatched against them a band of Avenging Angels" - The Scriptures, Book II, Apocalypse 10:1 DIDE- is open to new members
Elsia Browne Aliastra Gallente Federation 13	Posted - 2016.11.02 22:05:53 - [40] - Quote Mara Rinn wrote: Arronicus wrote: But hey, at least the problem of completely defenseless ships having some degree of relative safety would be fixed, right? Heaven forbid that PVP would happen in a PVP game! Why should jump freighters be able to jump from Jita into the safety of a citadel with no risk of suicide ganking in hisec? It's a pleasure that every freighter pilot enjoys when travelling to/from Jita, why should the lowsec/nullsec folks miss out? You are denying content to other players. There are adaptation paths available: use undock bookmarks use stasis webifiers to accelerate entry into warp on arrival do not jump into systems with neutrals/hostiles around have combat support available Miners have to put up with suicide ganking, AFK cloakers, and GÇö come November GÇö having boosters on-grid. Why should jump freighter pilots miss out on the ~~content generation opportunities~~ fun? I believe they rendered undock bookmarks practically useless when they allowed you to see everyone with in 8000km if not further. Also I believe they fixed the whole stasis web exploit a while back. Lots of systems with no neutrals and hostiles around but then again proper triggers and watching of jump lanes would render that strategy useless. Combat support don't think I've ever jumped a freighter with out it, not that it does much good when the attackers are prepared. Hey, conflict is good for the economy right. Seems to be working great with the Mass War dec spamming taking place on the high sec trade lanes. LETS DO IT!

Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.