These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Jita Park Speakers Corner

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

EVE Online Development Strategy (CSM Public)

First post First post
Author
Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#41 - 2012-11-19 02:09:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Poetic Stanziel
Mara Rinn wrote:
I can see that no one in the CSM is actively involved in industry. Super yield mining? Create incentives for miners in null by increasing yield? Create incentives for miners in null by breaking mineral compression? Your super capital fleet addiction is showing.
It was stated a couple months ago that all the mineral compression numbers were being spreadsheeted by Kelduum and that he was looking for a solution in this regard to nullsec industry. Who better qualified to do that than the CEO of EVE University?
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#42 - 2012-11-19 02:10:34 UTC
Snow Axe, the issue is basic diplomacy, not the NDA.
Snow Axe
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#43 - 2012-11-19 02:13:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Snow Axe
N/M, thread's too valuable to derail with garbage

"Look any reason why you need to talk like that? I have now reported you. I dont need to listen to your bad tone. If you cant have a grown up conversation then leave the thread["

Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#44 - 2012-11-19 02:17:06 UTC
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
Mara Rinn wrote:
I can see that no one in the CSM is actively involved in industry. Super yield mining? Create incentives for miners in null by increasing yield? Create incentives for miners in null by breaking mineral compression? Your super capital fleet addiction is showing.
It was stated a couple months ago that all the mineral compression numbers were being spreadsheeting by Kelduum and that he was looking for a solution in this regard to nullsec industry. Who better qualified to do that than the CEO of EVE University?


How involved is Kelduun with the process of mining, refining, T1 manufacture, invention, T2 materials acquisition, T2 production, T3 materials acquisition, reactions, and the limitations of storage and production facilities?

Mineral compression is one tiny part of a much larger puzzle. Changing mineral compressions will impact other areas such as ammunition capacity for spaceships, for example. I look forward to Kelduun's findings.
Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#45 - 2012-11-19 02:31:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Poetic Stanziel
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:
Snow Axe wrote:
So yeah, that's why it would have been a hell of a lot better to share this (or even a draft of this) with the players before submitting this to CCP.

This was simply not possible due to both the timeframe and the NDA.
Your own wishlist on where you all think EVE should be heading is under NDA?

I'd better be careful posting about what I'd like to see out of EVE in the future. I could be sued.
Aleks challenged me to find an instance of him using the NDA disingenuously, as an excuse for lack of communication with the playerbase. I offer up his reason for not coming to the players first, because of the NDA, as a good example of just that. Even though the NDA has no bearing on this document at all. Unless CCP actually can claim ownership of his (and the CSMs) ideas.

https://twitter.com/grrusso/status/270352348612808704

I look forward to my PLEX, Aleks.
Alekseyev Karrde
Capitalist Army
Streamfleet
#46 - 2012-11-19 02:36:51 UTC
CCP's strategic planning process is by its nature proprietary. This document was released without any NDA edits as soon as CCP gave us the time they were "done."

I look forward to you engaging on the substance of the document instead of derailing this thread and attacking my character.

Alek the Kidnapper, Hero of the CSM

GeeShizzle MacCloud
#47 - 2012-11-19 02:38:37 UTC
okay i think i understand where you guys are coming from. Its a case of supply and demand. if the supply isnt there in say local null then manufacturers will import regardless, and if the 'rug' that allows them to do so is perpetually pulled from under them (compression) then regardless of some special case compression where they are, the compression on nothing is still nothing.

Null sec mining does need to be remedied prior to any screwing around with compression, i get that.

The point i was trying to put across is the total removal of compression would hurt null manufacturing even with a healthy supply of minerals as movement is an important and necessary factor of the process. Albeit not as much as it is currently, but thats only because null sec doesnt have a healthy supply side of the formula.

What needs to be taken into account is that in order to not create an unfair artificial barrier of entry for industry in null sec the removal of compression would make industry in small recently established null sec entities much more difficult and taxing, meaning itd only really occur in strong established alliances and coalitions.

The smaller alliances more often then not do not have the pick of the available systems in null so they have to make a series of less desirable systems work for them. The removal of compression altogether would make this even harder.
Snow Axe
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#48 - 2012-11-19 02:46:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Snow Axe
GeeShizzle MacCloud wrote:
okay i think i understand where you guys are coming from. Its a case of supply and demand.

...


The smaller alliances more often then not do not have the pick of the available systems in null so they have to make a series of less desirable systems work for them. The removal of compression altogether would make this even harder.


Yeah, we're basically on the same page. You're right about the removal of compression potentially being a bad thing even post-null fixes. I think the key we should all take away from this is that even discussing compression before nullsec industry is given non-joke status is giving it way too much importance on its own.

"Look any reason why you need to talk like that? I have now reported you. I dont need to listen to your bad tone. If you cant have a grown up conversation then leave the thread["

corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
Goonswarm Federation
#49 - 2012-11-19 02:47:26 UTC  |  Edited by: corestwo
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
It was stated a couple months ago that all the mineral compression numbers were being spreadsheeted by Kelduum and that he was looking for a solution in this regard to nullsec industry. Who better qualified to do that than the CEO of EVE University?

Someone who knows what they're talking about, has done it. Bonus points for having done it at multiple points throughout Eve's history, both before and after jump freighters were introduced.

*coughs*

Anyway.

Snow Axe wrote:

Aleks posted earlier in the thread something along the lines of "when, and only when nullsec industry is fixed, then compression should be removed". What we're saying is that once nullsec industry is "fixed", you won't even need to remove compression as it won't be done anymore


Snow Axe scores the point on the tl;dr.

Here's the long and the short of it when it comes to nullsec industry and logistics: When given the choice, we will do whatever is most convenient, even if it costs us more to do it.

Now, early in the game, there was no choice. If we wanted battleships in nullsec, we either flew them individually in convoys, imported them in freighter ops, or stuffed a carrier's bays full of compressed minerals, jumped them to our build point, refined them, very carefully freightered them to a build station, built, and (if necessary) freightered them to a sale station. Convenience factor goes to the compressed minerals - only one person has to suffer, everyone else who wants a battleship merely pays the (oftentimes hefty) markup.

At some point later, jump freighters were introduced. Huge cost? Worth it! If nothing else they represented a massive increase in the amount of compressed minerals we could import. Score! Of course, as is the case today, we quickly figured out that we'd much rather do ten times as many jump freighter trips (and pay the associated 10x fuel bill) shipping finished hulls than we would shipping compressed minerals if it meant we got to not do nullsec freighter work. Heck, seeing as a round trip of a jump freighter is faster than a round trip between factory and refinery in nullsec and that I wouldn't have to do as many freighter trips in empire (as finished hulls are more compressed than minerals themselves), I'm even saving my time.

As an aside, we literally ran the invasion of scalding pass, the destruction of Lokta Volterra, and much of the invasion of BoB controlled space on the backs of a couple of guys with carriers and (later) a mothership. So if anyone tries to tell me that Jump Freighters are somehow why empires these days are so big, I laugh in their face at their ignorance.

Back to the topic. If you give me the means to acquire my minerals locally, via buy orders located in the improved station in which I can build and those miners selling me minerals can refine, you bet I'll take that option, provided that mining volume can supply me with what I need. No freighter work, no jump freighter work, and paying miners Jita buy prices for the minerals will be a bargain to them - they'd get less after shipping. Win win all around.

So that's the end result, the tl;dr from Snow Axe's statement, the first argument against nerfing compression. Give me the means to do get minerals locally, and I won't bother doing compression anymore, because I won't have to.

But, there's a catch there, and that catch is the second argument against nerfing compression. "If I can get what I need." Can (or will) miners supply the war machine? Who knows. Maybe not. Perhaps nullsec demand is simply too high to run locally. If CCP is absolutely determined to nerf compression, then I'd argue that they leave it in after implementing meaningful local supply, just to make sure that removing it isn't going to break and kill nullsec. They can always remove it at a later patch.

Third argument? Give players the choice. If they want to pay the premium in fuel to import finished hulls, maybe because they're bad at forward planning and need them now, let them. If they are good at forward planning, are able to setup the buy orders and source their supplies locally, let them. And, if they don't want to deal a smaller mineral volume than Jita can deliver, - or are launching an invasion or for other reasons do not have or cannot wait for miners - and so would rather import compressed minerals, let them. Eve is a sandbox game, and unless there's a damn good reason for it, player choice should not be restricted.

Which, brings me to my final argument. That "damn good reason" thing. I know that Aleks, at least, has a bit of an axe to grind regarding super. Compression needs to be nerfed, he argues, because the rate of proliferation is too high. To him, it is a damn good reason.

Obviously, I disagree. I've partially addressed that already. CCP's nerfs to supercarriers and then titans significantly dropped the rate at which they were built. It may even be lower now - my numbers were from May and so are nearly six months old at this point. Nerfing compression to nerf supercap proliferation is the wrong approach. First, as I very plainly stated above, players will get around it. If we have to pay more to do it, we will. But second, it's attacking the wrong problem. Nerfing proliferation does nothing to the thousands of supercaps already in existence, does nothing to fix the fact that they almost never die. Take care of that problem - by giving players even more reasons to make war on each other, by nerfing their defensive capabilities, by adding a supercap sized focused warp disruptor module so that supercaps themselves can tackle other supercaps, any or all of the above, even ideas I haven't suggested at all, I don't really care - and the vastly diminished proliferation rate will stop being an issue.

Out of letters. here. ~fin~

This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.

fofofo

corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
Goonswarm Federation
#50 - 2012-11-19 02:50:37 UTC
Also, since I just ran myself out of room in that last post:

I call on CCP to respond to this. These are incredibly important subjects to a very large portion of your playerbase. We would like to hear from you on it.

This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.

fofofo

Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#51 - 2012-11-19 02:56:04 UTC
Mara Rinn wrote:
Mineral compression is one tiny part of a much larger puzzle. Changing mineral compressions will impact other areas such as ammunition capacity for spaceships, for example.


And with all changes that have unintended side effects beyond the problem they are trying to solve, mineral compression isn't something to be undertaken lightly. I'm not personally sold on the idea that this needs to be a priority, I'd much rather CCP look at the issue of mineral distribution in lowsec first before nerfing the supply to a region that already has trouble supporting itself, during the time we're trying to make that region of space attractive to live in the first place.

The minute you delve into the details about each topic touched upon in the document, you'll start seeing difference in how each of us as individual representatives would tackle the problem. Keep in mind the purpose of the document was not to prescribe explicit solutions (we can have more focused discussions on the individual topics in separate threads) as much it was to help CCP realize that 1.) They need to tackle some key economic issues next year and not be afraid of major undertakings and 2.) They don't have to give up on either iterations OR the need to showcase new features if they adopt a holistic approach to their expansion-building efforts.

Snow Axe wrote:
Also, another question for clarification: Who came up with the idea for this document? Aleks' OP says that the CSM proposed creating it, while the header of the document seems to say that CCP Ripley requested it.


Both are correct. During a meeting where CCP indicated that they were beginning the process of zeroing in on the scope of the expansion content to be tackled in the coming year, we offered to share feedback about what we were hearing from the players in terms of both the big issues to be worked on as well as the expressing the restlessness many of you have described regarding CCP's struggle with hitting the "sweet spot" between Jesus Features and more iterative patch-like expansions in the style of Crucible, Inferno, and Retribution. CCP Ripley said she was interested and gave us a window of time to get a statement together, which we than spent the weekend working on. The result is what is linked in the OP.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary

Arydanika
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#52 - 2012-11-19 03:05:24 UTC
Kudos to the CSM for the transparency. Efforts like this have been asked for time and time again by the community. It's great to see CSM 7 delivering what you promised. Just don't get too complacent. I'm sure this document will create many questions. Luckly for all involved the CSM Town Hall meeting is coming soon™ and that is the perfect forum for those questions to be answered.

When I first saw this, I was worried about reading an "open letter" and I'm glad this is not that. It's good to know CCP is soliciting feedback from the CSM. It's also good to know what the CSM is advising CCP of. Some positive points about the document are the designation of player interest groups and balancing the impact of expansions. The CSM seems to have a fairly decent handle on what the players are asking for. The true test will come if and when CCP takes this document in to considersation when going forward with their plans.

The portions on game design I can't really comment on. I'm no game developer and have no idea what's truly right for Eve. I can say with some assurity, these items are all something I've personally heard players comment on and they all desired a change for the better. I don't think the CSM is far off on what they feel are key community conserns. That said, I'm not sure how all of this fits in to what CCP had planned or in production.

Still, great to see this kind of transparency and communication. I certainly hope this keeps up.

Runner of Voices from the Void podcast, Eve Online Pod Pack & DJ on eve-radio.com Sundays at 1800.  Organizer of the ATX Eve Online Meet. ♥

Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#53 - 2012-11-19 03:11:40 UTC
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:
Snow Axe wrote:
So yeah, that's why it would have been a hell of a lot better to share this (or even a draft of this) with the players before submitting this to CCP.

This was simply not possible due to both the timeframe and the NDA.
Your own wishlist on where you all think EVE should be heading is under NDA?

I'd better be careful posting about what I'd like to see out of EVE in the future. I could be sued.
Aleks challenged me to find an instance of him using the NDA disingenuously, as an excuse for lack of communication with the playerbase. I offer up his reason for not coming to the players first, because of the NDA, as a good example of just that. Even though the NDA has no bearing on this document at all. Unless CCP actually can claim ownership of his (and the CSMs) ideas.

https://twitter.com/grrusso/status/270352348612808704

I look forward to my PLEX, Aleks.


To second Two Step, this whole NDA obsession is peripheral to this document and this situation. What is covered by NDA is exactly which meetings we have with CCP, and when, and about which topics. That NDA is lifted when CCP makes that information known themselves, or allows us to, or once the terms of our NDA contract expire.

What we specifically say to CCP, in terms of a document like this, is not. Aleks is correct in that announcing to the players "We've had this meeting with management about these issues and they're interested in these topics" does risk NDA violation even if we still retain ownership of our own advice to CCP.

Thankfully, we're talking about a very short timeframe here that the players weren't aware such a conversation existed, and what is important here is that we were able to move on an opportunity to share high-level advice with CCP management in a timely fashion before they outline their own plans for next year. There is still plenty of time to fine tune specific topic advice in the weeks ahead according to the summit topics schedule, which should be announced sometime this week.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary

corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
Goonswarm Federation
#54 - 2012-11-19 03:18:52 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
To second Two Step, this whole NDA obsession is peripheral to this document and this situation. What is covered by NDA is exactly which meetings we have with CCP, and when, and about which topics. That NDA is lifted when CCP makes that information known themselves, or allows us to, or once the terms of our NDA contract expire.


Going to echo this. There is a time and a place to castigate the CSM for any failures, perceived or otherwise. This thread, one that we'd very much like CCP to comment on, and comment on in a positive light rather than a "what are you children squabbling about", isn't it.

You in particular, Poe, have a blog. Do it there. Blink

This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.

fofofo

GeeShizzle MacCloud
#55 - 2012-11-19 03:46:02 UTC  |  Edited by: GeeShizzle MacCloud
corestwo wrote:
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
To second Two Step, this whole NDA obsession is peripheral to this document and this situation. What is covered by NDA is exactly which meetings we have with CCP, and when, and about which topics. That NDA is lifted when CCP makes that information known themselves, or allows us to, or once the terms of our NDA contract expire.


Going to echo this. There is a time and a place to castigate the CSM for any failures, perceived or otherwise. This thread, one that we'd very much like CCP to comment on, and comment on in a positive light rather than a "what are you children squabbling about", isn't it.

You in particular, Poe, have a blog. Do it there. Blink


Well said corestwo, and of course you too Hans!

+1
Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#56 - 2012-11-19 04:10:57 UTC
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:
CCP's strategic planning process is by its nature proprietary.
You could have released the document without ever having run it by CCP ... and you would have not been in any legal trouble for having done so. There was no requirement to submit the document first into CCP's "proprietary" planning process.
None ofthe Above
#57 - 2012-11-19 04:49:06 UTC
I appreciate the disclosure of the document and the conversations that it is spawning.

It must have been an interesting couple of weeks so I won't second guess the CSM as to the process. It seems reasonable to tread lightly for a short period of time. Thank you for getting it out there.

I understand how, even if it is too late to shape the document before it goes to CCP, that their strategic thinking can still benefit for the wider conversation here. So kudos for taking advantage of the opportunity but still including the community.

On a strategic level I have to admit, the document makes some good points, but seems to me to be stating the blindingly obvious. Perhaps it was something that needed to be said though.

Of course CCP needs to strike a balance between iteration (little things and big fixes) and innovation. Pointing out the player age is a good characteristic. I would go further and point out that it needs to be matrixed by role: Missioners, Industrialists, Null sec empire builders, High Sec pirates, Fashionistas, Explorers, Faction Warriors, Worm Hole Dwellers, Etc. Each need at least little attention over the releases or they start feeling neglected and forgotten, particularly if there are large broken systems afflicting them. (Although some, particular wormholers, might not like attention and shakeups if the changes are not well thought out, so some caution advised.)

Likewise, the game needs the shakeups and the new features, just can't put everything else on hold while they are doing it.

I like the foundation and deliver suggestion, although not sure that wasn't what they where doing anyway.

I might suggest a short term iteration and maintenance team and a long term team. Those could even potentially swap every year and let the long term team switch to maintaining and tweaking their creation. Maybe that is overly simplistic but that dual focus is what is needed.

On the more tactical level, Twocores gives a pretty good analysis on the problems with calling out compression without fixing the underlying nullsec industry problem. Thanks to you and Snowaxe for piping up, and giving really good detail beyond the obvious. That shows how important it was to get this document out to a wider audience.

The only end-game content in EVE Online is the crap that makes you rage quit.

Seleene
Body Count Inc.
Mercenary Coalition
#58 - 2012-11-19 05:43:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Seleene
None ofthe Above wrote:
On a strategic level I have to admit, the document makes some good points, but seems to me to be stating the blindingly obvious. Perhaps it was something that needed to be said though.


You pretty much nailed it. In the context of the discussions we've been having with CCP, this document highlights what the CSM considers to be the, "Hey, FOCUS!" topics for CCP in the coming months. It is now up to we the players to help CCP understand that focusing on these areas is a good thing.

A word on getting lost in the weeds - debating the finer points of the specifics of this document (mineral compression, etc...) is all well and good, but you could literally create a forum thread for each one. We are not wedded to any particular WAY of accomplishing said points, we just want to see CCP address these points and put resources into fixing / finishing them. Smile

2004-2008: Mercenary Coalition Boss

2007-2010: CCP Game Designer | 2011-2013: CSM6 Delegate & CSM7 Chairman

2011-2015: Pandemic Legionnaire

2015- : Mercenary Coalition Boss

Follow Seleene on Twitter!

Kelduum Revaan
The Ebon Hawk
The Ebon Hawk.
#59 - 2012-11-19 06:04:14 UTC
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:
CCP's strategic planning process is by its nature proprietary.
You could have released the document without ever having run it by CCP ...
Well, there's a simple solution to that: Poetic Stanziel for CSM8!
Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#60 - 2012-11-19 06:11:28 UTC
Kelduum Revaan wrote:
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:
CCP's strategic planning process is by its nature proprietary.
You could have released the document without ever having run it by CCP ...
Well, there's a simple solution to that: Poetic Stanziel for CSM8!
We all look forward to Kelduum for CSM8, because silence is golden.