These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#181 - 2012-11-20 22:52:15 UTC
Mara Rinn wrote:

So we can already tackle capitals and supercapitals with HICs, and HICs can be repaired (when they don't have their infinite point active), why do we need (super)capitals to be able to tackle supercapitals? Is this just a wish from dreadnought pilots wanting to have something worthwhile to do with their dreadnoughts?

Supercaps and caps being able to tackle other supercaps means once two supercap fleets are committed to battle you can't clear tackle and escape: you have to actually kill enough of the other side (and/or leave your tackled friends to die) to escape.

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.

Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#182 - 2012-11-20 22:58:05 UTC
really, if you couldn't clear tackle and escape once two supercap fleets committed to battle like half would be dead, every single time a major supercap fleet gets pinned down the vast majority escapes.

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.

CataCourier
Gordon Industries
#183 - 2012-11-20 23:11:18 UTC
Something that I'd like to see added (perhaps in a future document) are some potential solutions to the ISK surplus in the game- that is, the amount of ISK entering the economy vs the amount leaving.

One suggestion that is to change the way that insurance payouts work.

Right now, players sink ISK to insure their ship. This is already functioning as a sink in some cases, where insurance expires without having a claim- which is OK.

The issue with insurance (related to ISK surplus) is that when insurance pays out on a claim, it is netting the player ISK in return for Minerals that are destroyed. Therefore, minerals leave the market, while ISK continually flows into the market. Not only does this mean that players net ISK to purchase more minerals (ships), but this is compounding the demand for minerals for a fixed amount of ISK.

Below is an example. The numbers are completely arbitrary and I'm ignoring manufacturing profit and mods.
-Player budgets 100 million ISK for a ship hull for PVP
-Player purchases ship for 80 mil, spends 20 mil on insurance (80 mil worth of minerals total).
-Ship blows up, player receives approximately 80 million as a payout.
-Player then purchases ship for 65 mil, spends 15 mil on insurance (140 mil worth of minerals total)
-Ship blows up, player receives approximately 65 million as a payout.
-Player then purchases a ship for 65 mil and forgets to purchase insurance (205 mil worth of minerals total)
-Ship blows up, player receives approximately 15 million as a payout.

To summarize the above (based on completely arbitrary and innacurate numbers to make a point):
-Player has a net loss of 85 million ISK
-Player sank 35 million ISK into Insurance
-Insurance paid out 160 million
-Player caused the destruction of 205 mil worth of minerals

Therefore- A total of 125 million ISK entered the economy, and 205 million worth of minerals left the economy- all from the initial budget of 100 million.

My suggestion is to change the payout from ISK to a non-currency item or LP. Ideally, when insurance is purchased, the insured should be able to choose whether they want (Minerals?) or Loyalty Points for a faction that they have standings with (or some other form of non-currency credits). If this were changed, Insurance would no longer contribute to the ISK surplus in the game (and could help stabilize mineral prices!).
Trebor Daehdoow
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#184 - 2012-11-20 23:17:45 UTC
None ofthe Above wrote:
I direct you to this section:

Quote:
Examples for Consideration
The following examples, in alphabetical order, are included to provide concrete illustrations of a pillar-based approach in practice. These examples center on themes and concepts widely considered by existing subscribers as significantly broken and would likely need to be spread out over two expansions/12 months. Each area is a significant problem taking money out of CCP’s pocket through lost or missed subscriptions. They are not wish-lists, but rather illustrations of how new features and iteration can be weaved into powerful, themed expansions with broad demographic appeal.


Yep, exactly. There was some debate as to whether or not to include the examples at all.

Quote:
Its all very fine to use it as a spring board for more conversation (and there has been some excellent examples of that in this thread) but please stop pulling your hair out. That never did me any good.

After 2.5 years on CSM, I am now totally bald. True story.

Private Citizen • CSM in recovery

Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#185 - 2012-11-21 01:58:22 UTC
Laerise wrote:
Lowsec, and especially faction warfare lowsec, is actually much more dangerous than the average nullbears system deep in the sea of NAP fested blue. There is no way to reliably cynojam a system, there is no way of reliably controlling who enters a system and there is much more hostile traffic around at all times of the day.

To be frank, nullbears may be the loudest part of EVE on the forums, but the most broken part of EVE with the most broken risk/reward situation is still lowsec - and especially non FW lowsec. There is no sane reason to live in non FW lowsec, except maybe the very few level 5 mission agent areas. Lowsec has all the problems listed in the document but none of the advantages of nullsec.

Especially damning is the fact that you put features like "Group PVE for Miners aka "Ring Mining" (New Feature)" into nullsec, where it should be "more common and lucrative".

What is your reason to put the most "lucrative" PVE mining content into nullsec again, except but to appease the nullbears who want to reap all the benefits of this new system without the (true) risk of lowsec?
Again, putting high yield content into nullsec because nullsec is "the most dangerous" is fallacious because it's actually not.


This is an important question, one worthy of further elaboration. A warning though - I'm not really going to go into the "nullbear" bullshit - arguments about this group or that group complaining the most are almost always extremely subjective - and I struggle with whether to have a serious discussion with someone who clearly wants to stereotype and dismiss tens of thousands of paying customers to begin with.

But to talk specifically about safety levels in 0.0 is something we can do objectively, without all the "those people" nonsense. You are correct - 0.0 is, in many places, unpopulated and relatively safe. This is very much to be expected - it should be of little surprise that a moderate reward, high risk (from a strictly mechanical perspective - how easy it is for other players to trap you and kill you) area of space will less desirable to live in that has high reward (Faction Warfare rewards being the current winner) but low risk (again, from a mechanical perspective). It is very easy in lowsec to protect your assets if you dont want to lose them - you are guaranteed 100% access to anything you stash in a station (NPC alts can always dock, everywhere) and travel is much, much safer without bubbles. Gatecamps exist - but are still trivial to bypass using a variety of methods, if your true intention is to not get killed.

Thus, we end up a system where 0.0 is practically safer, although not mechanically safer. This is an important point of distinction - because you are actually advocating worsening a major problem with the game by basing your recommendations off of the bad side effects of the current situation. It's circular logic - saying we shouldn't fix 0.0 because no one lives there, when the reason no one lives there is because its not in a healthy enough place begin with. And yes, of course I'm exaggerating when I'm saying "no one", there are obviously MANY citizens of 0.0 - but as you've already pointed out, not nearly populated enough to become fiercely competitive and dangerous, especially for smaller entities. We will never see that level of individual risk unless CCP makes it worth pursuing wealth out there when compared to what one can earn in Empire space.

Say whatever you want about my loyalties, but I'm easily the most smug CSM member when it comes to what Retribution is delivering for "my people". New ships, massive rebalancing, a completely revamped Crimewatch, bounty hunting, wardec fixes, and Faction Warfare iterations - its a low sec resident's wet dream of an expansion compared to just about every release since well, before I started playing the game. I literally couldn't be more excited about a feature set to have direct input on. But those of us that live in low sec still form a small fraction of the overall playerbase, whose interests I am also obligated to defend to CCP regardless of who elected me. Vote however you like in the future with that in mind, won't bother me a bit either way. Cool

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary

Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#186 - 2012-11-21 02:03:53 UTC
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
After 2.5 years on CSM, I am now totally bald. True story.


Updated avatar I see? Now now, Trebor - you're not fooling anyone. Just because the new portrait more accurately renders your current hair situation, doesn't mean we're going to believe that you're suddenly 10 years younger. Twisted


CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary

Kropotkin
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#187 - 2012-11-21 04:19:30 UTC
Bravo to CSM and CCP for publishing the framework they are using to discuss the future of EVE!

Putting the framework on the table makes it much easier for players to comment constructively.

In 2002, John Mashey reprised a talk he first gave in 1977, "Small is Beautiful and Other Thoughts on Programming Strategies".

One thing Mashey discusses is "Creeping Featurism", from which EVE-online suffers greatly.

Iceland's maritime heritage should help CCP understand the two approaches to dealing with this affliction:

The Lifeboat Rule: Once you reach the point where adding another passenger to the lifeboat will swamp it and kill everyone, the only way you can let a new passenger aboard is first to throw an old passenger overboard to the sharks.

The Sinking Lifeboat Rule: If the lifeboat has a leak, you may have to throw a passenger overboard from time to time, without letting anyone new come aboard.

The framework lacks any provision for identifying existing content and features to eliminate.
Theodoric Darkwind
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#188 - 2012-11-21 04:32:43 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 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?


Dovinian, Seleene and Elise come to mind, as they have all dealt with alliance and coalition level logistical issues.

about the only industry that I see working swimmingly in nullsec (as in you can source basically everything locally at a profit) is drug manufacturing.
Sinzor Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
#189 - 2012-11-21 04:48:34 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Sinzor Aumer wrote:
You just need to impose maintenance costs for the owner of a supercapital ship, these costs should be considerable and comparable to the production costs. I'll present the draft of this mechanics, but I dont insist it should be exactly as I say - just to give a general idea.

You say this as if $15 or 600 million for a PLEX every month isn't a high enough maintenance cost. Roll

Is 600 mil/month enough? Let's estimate.
If we agree 1% per day sounds reasonable, then it should be about 1 bil ISK per day for a Titan. Nowhere even close to 20 mil/day for plexing.

I'm not trying to convince anyone that we should reduce the number of supers in the game, not in this thread. Instead, I'd like to see opinions of people who are actually involved in sov. warfare about proliferation. But if you folks agree there is an issue with it - here is the remedy.
Frying Doom
#190 - 2012-11-21 07:52:07 UTC
Sinzor Aumer wrote:
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Sinzor Aumer wrote:
You just need to impose maintenance costs for the owner of a supercapital ship, these costs should be considerable and comparable to the production costs. I'll present the draft of this mechanics, but I dont insist it should be exactly as I say - just to give a general idea.

You say this as if $15 or 600 million for a PLEX every month isn't a high enough maintenance cost. Roll

Is 600 mil/month enough? Let's estimate.
If we agree 1% per day sounds reasonable, then it should be about 1 bil ISK per day for a Titan. Nowhere even close to 20 mil/day for plexing.

I'm not trying to convince anyone that we should reduce the number of supers in the game, not in this thread. Instead, I'd like to see opinions of people who are actually involved in sov. warfare about proliferation. But if you folks agree there is an issue with it - here is the remedy.

I am personally against Titans but 1 bil a day, you already have your alt stored in a coffin.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!

GizzyBoy
Aperture Harmonics
#191 - 2012-11-21 10:07:14 UTC
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:
corestwo wrote:
Players love flying overpowered ships, who knew.

I'm shocked you would suggest such a thing! ;p

Supers already have a maintenance cost atm: PLEX. Because the character cant leave that ship, using a super on your "main" is rare indeed. So 600m/month. Now if you COULD leave it safely maybe some kind of in-game upkeep would make sense



Friend bought sc on his main, Officer fit t2 rigs, super shiney,

Logged out of eve on all chars, never logged back in.
Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange
Empire of Arcadia
#192 - 2012-11-21 20:07:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Herschel Yamamoto
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
Herschel Yamamoto wrote:
The goal of the CSM is not to remain in compliance with the letter of their legal agreements, their goal is to get CCP to make a better game. You don't do that by spitting at them. I'm perfectly willing to see a document a day or two later if it means that any would-be ruffled feathers get smoothed down and the CSM has a better chance of actually making a positive contribution to the future of Eve. Just because being a **** is legal doesn't mean it's a good idea.
These guys are too concerned with potentially upsetting their new besties.

The Mittani, last year, brought the issue of Monocles, the in-game demonstrations, and the failures of Walking in Stations straight to the gaming press, very likely to the consternation of CCP. He was less worried about his besties and more concerned about correcting the course of CCP development on EVE Online.

Given all that, I don't think his relationship with CCP was hurt all that much. (His fanfest gaffe is beside the point.)

The CSM is more concerned with keeping CCP happy than the playerbase, because they live in fear of being denied access if they upset their keepers.

Now this document speaks to correcting development course as well. But it's certainly not time sensitive. CCP won't be roadmapping their next expansion, deciding upon features, until January or February, so there was time to discuss on a public forum first, then they could draft their document.

What we have here is a roadmap that the CSM is already firmly behind (only five or six of them had any legitimate input on the document), and we're meant to accept its direction, more or less, as is. Given that you don't see much discussion happening in this thread, just the CSM defending their stance, speaks to that.


I agree with you more than you might think. It's important for the CSM to be able to kick up a fuss when there's a need for it. But the thing about kicking up a fuss is, it doesn't work if you do it all the time. Someone who cries when something's wrong is respected, someone who cries for the sake of crying is an infant. Diplomacy isn't actually about being nice, it's about picking the right time and place to be mean. Too little mean and you're a walkover, too much mean and you're a belligerent jerk. Do you really think that spreading around a basically uncontroversial document like this one a couple days early is the right time to stick a knife in?

Sinzor Aumer wrote:
Is 600 mil/month enough? Let's estimate.
If we agree 1% per day sounds reasonable, then it should be about 1 bil ISK per day for a Titan.


Well then isn't it a good thing that we don't agree that 1%/day is the right number?
Dramaticus
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#193 - 2012-11-21 23:00:41 UTC
The time for the supercap proliferation argument was 5 years ago. Stop beating this dead horse.

The 'do-nothing' member of the GoonSwarm Economic Warfare Cabal

The edge is REALLY hard to see at times but it DOES exist and in this case we were looking at a situation where a new feature created for all of our customers was being virtually curbstomped by five of them

Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#194 - 2012-11-21 23:35:26 UTC
Dramaticus wrote:
The time for the supercap proliferation argument was 5 years ago. Stop beating this dead horse.


What drives me nuts is that everyone's knee-jerk reaction to the idea of supercap proliferation issue is to attack the supply end. How boring is that? The problem with supercaps is that they're not dying fast enough.

This is a video game, folks. It's about having fun, not doing more work. There are two ways to make less supercaps exist - make them take longer to build (boring) or make them die faster (ridiculously fun).

Call me crazy, but I really think it's really that simple. Make these ships risky, but fun as hell, and USEFUL as hell - and they'll die. Titans and Supers both suffer from lackluster battlefield roles due to several years of responsive nerfs without a cohesive design direction.

If this were me, "solving the supercap issue" would start with the Supercap ships themselves. We've got TOP MEN at CCP in the middle of a pretty pro balancing effort, give em a break from logi frigs and dessies and let them loose on capitals for an expansion cycle. I think we can implement a supercap proliferation fix that has the side effect of Lulz and Youtube videos and stories to tell while drinking together....not an extra 15 jump freighter trips. Ugh

Issler

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary

Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#195 - 2012-11-21 23:53:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Poetic Stanziel
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Call me crazy, but I really think it's really that simple. Make these ships risky, but fun as hell, and USEFUL as hell - and they'll die. Titans and Supers both suffer from lackluster battlefield roles due to several years of responsive nerfs without a cohesive design direction.
They'd have to be cheaper before people look at it that way. Which would then lead to more proliferation.

It has to be tackled from both ends, probably.

Issler
Noisrevbus
#196 - 2012-11-21 23:55:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Noisrevbus
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Dramaticus wrote:
The time for the supercap proliferation argument was 5 years ago. Stop beating this dead horse.


What drives me nuts is that everyone's knee-jerk reaction to the idea of supercap proliferation issue is to attack the supply end. How boring is that? The problem with supercaps is that they're not dying fast enough.


It just need to be pointed out over and over: The reason for that Hans, is not because they are too difficult to kill, the reason is that they simply do not get used enough because of the deeper rooted problems of resource balance in the game.

There should be an incentive to use them, use them in challenging situations and taking risks. Today, such behaviour is not rewarded on any level, so it can't be expected with regard to Supers either.

The current direction of game design highly discourages taking risks with any form of valuable assets. Not only any mistakes done at the conception of Supers, but the still ongoing direction today. The very thing you are setting out to discuss here.

Clobber this in, because they keep making more ships that are pointless to kill as they have no sink, so we refrain from using ships that actually have sinks without (expected-) guarantee. That's the "Super issue". It's not that Supers are not used at all, it's that we refrain from using them in risky situations - because there is so little reward for taking such risks against bottomed-out resources (with any ship).
Zaine Maltis
Innsmouth Enterprises
#197 - 2012-11-22 00:16:03 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Dramaticus wrote:
The time for the supercap proliferation argument was 5 years ago. Stop beating this dead horse.


(snip)

Issler


Er... are you channelling Issler Dainze, or have they just stolen your login?
Issler Dainze
Tadakastu-Obata Corporation
The Honda Accord
#198 - 2012-11-22 00:18:56 UTC
Zaine Maltis wrote:
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Dramaticus wrote:
The time for the supercap proliferation argument was 5 years ago. Stop beating this dead horse.


(snip)

Issler


Er... are you channelling Issler Dainze, or have they just stolen your login?


All the cool kids sign their posts "Issler"

Issler
Snow Axe
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#199 - 2012-11-22 00:25:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Snow Axe
Zaine Maltis wrote:
Er... are you channelling Issler Dainze, or have they just stolen your login?


It's custom to repeatedly mock anyone who signs their own posts on a forum when their name is literally attached to the content already written.

Issler

"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
#200 - 2012-11-22 02:02:38 UTC
Weaselior wrote:
Supercaps and caps being able to tackle other supercaps means once two supercap fleets are committed to battle you can't clear tackle and escape: you have to actually kill enough of the other side (and/or leave your tackled friends to die) to escape.


What is the difference between being tackled by HICs versus dreadnoughts that would prevent ships escaping once they have cleared tacklers?