Jita Park Speakers Corner

Comments

1. The Disclaimer
Almost every document that involve CCP communication come with the disclaimer that CCP do not commit to implement ideas presented by the community. That is understandable, as a company they can not and should not simply do as told. The issue is that they don't communicate. When the community ask for communication or commitment from CCP, what we want them to commit to is the discussion. We want them to explain and motivate their decisions. We want them to enter into argument with us and stand for the position they take on important matters.

Giving us the decision and motivating their own decisions are two different things. We don't expect the former.

The CSM should strongly remind CCP of this. Do not let the former be a caveat for the latter.

We want CCP to talk to us (through CSM or elsewhere), explain why, motivate the choices they make, accept criticism and respond to it - we don't want them to simply do as told (by a majority or otherwise). Progression through conflict.


2. Farms & Fields - IS - EVE
It's down right frightening reading that "a revamp of 0.0 is low on the list at the moment". That would equate to saying that EVE is low on the list for EVE-development. Issues that relate to the Farms & Fields initiative deal with the interaction and progression of the game. To me, it's a development strategy that both ensure piecing a fractured game together again and lowering total workload by focusing on content that affect everyone, rather than reaching out to a fractured community one by one. That is why F&F is important and why a "Nullsec revamp" is so important beyond what the word Nullsec entail. It affects everyone, it's there to create content for everyone in all regions of the game. The CSM must be able to clobber that message by thick skulls.

If you look at the list of items in the document, several other passages pertain to F&F in some way: The POS-revamp have F&F concerns (aka. scalability concerns, because that is what F&F is; Farms and Fields each represent one scale or scaling, meant to illustrate how content in the game should have the full spectrum to include- or appeal to all players). It should be independent of where you are or how you choose to play, so it can be used everywhere by everyone. The small scale objectives item is part of the same discussion, in a way, so is Ring Mining. It's a question of scaling and progressing mining from Empire and out, driving complexity and reward from one scale to another. That's how it should appeal to Empire as much as it should anyone in Sovnull. The very notion of "X does not pertain to me since i am a Y-player" should signal that something is wrong, within a reasonable span.

The reason small scale get multiple mention have to do with small scale objectives (the impact, or impression they have) sorely lacking, while large scale objectives do not lack - they just rest on unappealing mechanics. The important connection to development strategies here is that: Any change to one should include both, as with the POS revamp. You can't create specific "small gang content" and leave larger objectives to fester. The smaller scale content should provide alternatives alongside differently scaled content. There should be multiple ways to interact with a mechanic, multiple means to the same end so different groups can interact with each other.

Anyone who belive that F&F is "only for existing nullsec players" have completely misunderstood the point. It's just as much meant to be appealing for you to go live there and give you content there when you visit.

The problem with Sovnull now is that there is essentially just large-scale content for large-scale groups, which drive smaller-scale organisations away from that area and away from interacting with large groups. That situation is what feed many of the shallow issues the playerbase raise: "space bushido", "wormhole CSM candidates" and "empire only players" are all results of alienation, which stem from poor interactivity in mechanics and continued game-design. The development strategies employed: theme-parking, which is the direct opposite of a sandbox.

You can't say sandbox and do themepark.


3. NPE Mathematics and terminology
Old content = new content for a new player

The introduction listing new players as being interested in new shinies baffles me. If you have not played the game and experienced the content it has to offer - how can you be interested in completely new features?

Are you aware of what iteration and shiny actually imply? If you have trouble defining the terms, you will have trouble entering into a discussion that involve them.

The continued discussion suffer from just that, where you try to attribute values to different player groups. If you look at what i wrote above regarding F&F i think you should at least stop to consider how you present this information segment. It has tendence of all the very issues i raise regarding a fractured game and Themepark-design. What makes you think that "iteration" does not appeal to a new player? A new player afterall experience alot of things for a first time with an open mind, and can often see quite clearly what we need to iterate upon.

If the CSM have trouble defining their own terminology, how can you expect CCP to do so based on your document?

It may be a case of loss in translation, but i think the CSM should consider how they communicate that important tidbit.

It comes out as unecessarily complicated and fractured. It comes out as designing specific content for specific groups, which goes against the entire F&F ideal you claim to subscribe to. Those are opposites. You need tangle out that mess before you can present any concrete and unified front toward development strategies.


Possibly more to come...

Looks great, yall are doing a great job CSM-ing I supposed Issler didn't do jack but that is a good thing or it'd be about how dudes can emote each other. This is important stuff, how/why we live and fight.

I'm not going to re-iterate on the discussion in the Farms and Fields thread.. but I'm going to make the same observation on this document that I did in regards to the orginal Farms and Fields thread ..
The document was put together by a group of people with a vesteted interest in mainting the status quo of the amorphus blob concept of EVE. There is nothing for the small scale enterprenur or casual player. Driving them out of High Sec, which appears to be the intent, will just drive them out of the game. I think the analyss of the player grouping completely missed looking at the demographics of existing Corporation size and why they are the way they are.
Whether I continue to play still remains to be seen. Making it impossible to support my play style by forcing me out of high sec definately will force me out of the game (expecting to be flamed by the amorphus blob trolls that predate the foruns).

Considering this document and all feedback associated with it greatly involve everyone playing the game; shouldn't this thread be in general discussion forum so it has a better chance of being seen?

I would love to hear what CCP thought of the contents of this.
Tech moons need to be replaced with moon goo in belts you should have to spend time and effort and risk to get such immense rewards.
No mention of fixing the mercenary contracts/high sec war release it was only half completed at best when released.
And industry clearly needs a lot of attention as well as mining content.
And i can't believe incursions are still going on i mean sansha lost and the content is still the same boring repetitive frigate grinding with battleships which is odd as we all know battleships aren't good at killing frigs.

Ah, yes, risk and effort. It takes 250 people between 1 and 3 hours to capture (or defend) a tech moon. Tech moons are surprisingly well defended by their owners when they come out of reinforced. All in all, you're spending 750 man hours' effort, combined with risking a substantial subcap or capital fleet.

You also appear to be under the (distressingly common) illusion that nullsec logistics is done by pixies and involves no risk or effort to keep the tower fuelled or to harvest the sweet, sweet goo it produces.

One can make 80 million ISK an hour while ratting relatively easily. If you assume that a tower is attacked once every six months, would you like to run the numbers and work out where the break-even figure on tech capturing versus going ratting is?

Buffing super capitals will not encourage players to blow them up anymore than they do now. If a super is tackled people come out of the woodwork to kill it. No one stops for a moment to ponder if the ship is balanced, recently buffed or what kind of damage bonus it gets to fighter bombers or resistance to armor.

If anything supers carriers need their bonuses changed a bit to define them more as anti-capital and structure killers. For instance:
1. Remove the range bonus on remote modules. That just encourages spider tanking/logistics within its own ship class which means they are not obligated to bring logistics to support them.
2. Remove or redefine the remote ECM burst module. With enough super carriers in a fleet they can effectively neuter a ton of incoming dps from enemy non-capital ships and drastically increasing their ability to escape.
3. Change the number of fighter/fighter bombers deployed per level from 3 to 1. In addition provide a bonus to fitting drone control units so each one fit allows 3 instead of 1. This is so supers have to make a real choice on how to fit their high slots. Currently the default on super carriers is a couple smart bombs, couple neuts, remote rep and a cloak. The entire high slot rack for killing bubbles, neuting out hics and a cloak for complete safety. All the while dishing out a majority of its potential damage. With this change super carriers can still do the safety dance on the top rack, but at half the damage they do now.
4. Which brings me to the last change that would affect super capitals exit strategy. Currently the only thing super capitals need to ensure a safe exit is find a safe spot, cloak up and wait for enough cap to jump out. What needs to happen is all non-covert ops cloaks to stop a capacitor from recharging while cloaked. This will encourage supers to bring a proper support fleet for the ENTIRE duration of it being in hostile territory.
5. Also opening a cyno should cancel and prevent self destructing. Which is a popular trick supers use to travel around without a support fleet. I could go in more detail, but I'll leave it at that.

Make those changes and you will see more super capitals die while the ones with a proper support fleet be fine.

+1
A big step in the right direction!

Read and had a few points might want to bring to CCP.

1. In regards to the mineral compression thing, rather then having completely doing away with mineral compression, how about we allow Rorqual or an equivalent version to be allowed in High Sec. This would allow for low-end minerals to be compressed and shipped to null sec for production, rather then the other way around. Seems to me that if they allow Jump Freighters to use gates and be in high sec, then there shouldn't be a problem allowing Rorquals there either. This to me seems like the logical step. You mine the low-end ore....compress it...and jump it down to null sec all in one ship. The current system of mining high end ore, compressing it, jumping to high sec, build ships, then jump those back into null....its a little backwards.

2. I couldn't agree more about the way PoS and Corp Hangers in general work. Could they not allow for a Personal Corp Hanger bay to allow for more secure research/construction to be performed? The main reason I see a lot of one-man corps is due to the inability of the current system to protect members assets that are in corp hangers. I know a lot of industrial corp face this problem when members want to be industrialist but don't want to risk losing BPO that are very valuable to corp thief because everyone has to share the same hanger for research, while it can be somewhat controlled, still allows for a lot of corp security issues. A simple addition of a personal corp hanger that would allow research/copying/invention/production to be performed without worrying about thief could solve this. Of course this hanger would follow the member no matter what corp he joins/leave. So if you leave your corp and move to an NPC corp, all the items would still be in that personal corp hanger....untouchable by anyone other then yourself. Or just allow these jobs to be performed at your personal hanger rather then the corp hanger....there are plenty of ways to solve this.

3. PI is something as well I was glad that was being touched on, as I believe that the current tax rate is too high. I know that some will argue that you just increase your prices, which is fine. I am talking more along the lines of having to be taxed multiple times when trying to perform PI to make higher lvl production items. *Insert whatever troll comment you want here*

4. Industrial Ship Revamp or Addition- So need this on so many levels. We need a tier system put in place that allows for a larger amount of cargo space rather then....t1 indy with no defense and decent hauling or t2 great defense....tiny cargo hold. Maybe the addition of a mini-freighter ship....rather then going from 20k m3 straight to 850k m3.....there is a lot of room here to work with.

5. Lastly goes out to the common tactic of bumping.....Bumping ships to me seems like the bumper should be taking some damage. I been in war decs were the common tactic used has having an out of corp alt bumping my industrial ship over and over using a frigate with MWD while allowing the war targets more time to get to me. Along with the whole bumping of Titans and Freighters. I'm sorry but if we want to be realistic here, we need to acknowledge the fact that when 2 ships ram each other....both ships are going to take damage....and in all reality, a frigate ramming a BS/Freighter is going to cause the the frigate to explode....*insert troll comment after here*

Oh well said my peace...

Can of worms that does not need to be opened.

People being concorded on the Jita undock due to unintentional bumps.