These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

EVE Online Development Strategy (CSM Public)

First post First post First post
Author
Snow Axe
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#101 - 2012-11-24 06:16:44 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
Tech should not be nerfed it should be gone.

Yeah as people put up moon minng operations because they are high maintenance and loosing businesses.

No they are not huge fountains like tech but they still do not require much player interaction to gain reward.


Right, remove tech and replace it with what exactly?

Raw mineral mining moons aren't isk fountains anymore - only tech and neo are capable of bringing over a bil a month, then there's plat and dyspro which are just over 700mil/month. After that you're getting into the "might cover fuel costs for a large tower" crowd. Reactions and advanced materials may be a different story, but they're far from low effort.

In conclusion, you're making **** up as you go along as usual.

"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["

Frying Doom
#102 - 2012-11-24 06:30:25 UTC
Snow Axe wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
Tech should not be nerfed it should be gone.

Yeah as people put up moon minng operations because they are high maintenance and loosing businesses.

No they are not huge fountains like tech but they still do not require much player interaction to gain reward.


Right, remove tech and replace it with what exactly?

Ring Mining, that was what that feature is for.

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

Snow Axe
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#103 - 2012-11-24 06:34:45 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
Ring Mining, that was what that feature is for.


Ring Mining doesn't even exist outside of a name yet. Talking about replacing anything with Ring Mining before Ring Mining exists is dumb at best and dangerous at worst.

"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["

Frying Doom
#104 - 2012-11-24 06:37:47 UTC
Snow Axe wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
Ring Mining, that was what that feature is for.


Ring Mining doesn't even exist outside of a name yet. Talking about replacing anything with Ring Mining before Ring Mining exists is dumb at best and dangerous at worst.

Actually as I have said in other threads, I personally think tech should be an NPC good until they do the POS revamp and the ring mining, as it is so out of balance to the rest of the game. Yes alchemy lowered its price but it is still distorting the whole of Null.

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

Snow Axe
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#105 - 2012-11-24 06:42:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Snow Axe
Frying Doom wrote:
Actually as I have said in other threads, I personally think tech should be an NPC good until they do the POS revamp and the ring mining, as it is so out of balance to the rest of the game. Yes alchemy lowered its price but it is still distorting the whole of Null.


If it's still distorting the whole of null, it's because the rest of null by itself really is *that* worthless, not that Tech is still some massive problem. Hence why giving 0.0 its own bottom-up income tools and industrial capacity is important enough to make it into this document - a fact you've opposed already.

Either way, the overarcing point in all of this is that your laser focus on tech and moon mining is completely missing what the actual problem with sov null is. Thankfully the CSM members who wrote this document weren't as petty and myopic as you.

"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["

Frying Doom
#106 - 2012-11-24 07:17:23 UTC
Snow Axe wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
Actually as I have said in other threads, I personally think tech should be an NPC good until they do the POS revamp and the ring mining, as it is so out of balance to the rest of the game. Yes alchemy lowered its price but it is still distorting the whole of Null.


If it's still distorting the whole of null, it's because the rest of null by itself really is *that* worthless, not that Tech is still some massive problem. Hence why giving 0.0 its own bottom-up income tools and industrial capacity is important enough to make it into this document - a fact you've opposed already.

Either way, the overarcing point in all of this is that your laser focus on tech and moon mining is completely missing what the actual problem with sov null is. Thankfully the CSM members who wrote this document weren't as petty and myopic as you.

Actually my primary opposition to this document was the fact that it was once again another "Lets use all the companies resources to fix Null"

As if that would do much for gaining new players, it would help to a degree with vets and bittervets, but there are a lot more of both in Hi-sec.

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

Snow Axe
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#107 - 2012-11-24 07:21:28 UTC
So you're saying that fixing a segment of the game that is literally broken is a waste of company resources?

"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["

Frying Doom
#108 - 2012-11-24 07:23:45 UTC
Snow Axe wrote:
So you're saying that fixing a segment of the game that is literally broken is a waste of company resources?

No not at all, I am saying that an area with 20% of the games population is not worth 100% of the companies resources for an entire year.

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

Fractal Muse
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#109 - 2012-11-24 08:36:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Fractal Muse
My issue with this document is that it doesn't address EVE Online as a -whole- instead it addresses it as pieces.

Each little piece gets attention without attempting to relate it back to the other pieces of EVE.

EVE is already a series of disjointed and separate 'mini-games' that only broadly interact with one another (usually through the market at a macro level in terms of minerals) and this isn't good for a game that is supposed to be player driven and embodying the concept of 'emergent' gameplay... unless that was dropped at some point.

EVE suffers from a lack of overall focus for the -whole- game. All of this talk of 'iteration' is great but it has the side affect of continually separating the game components into isolated regions or games.

CCP needs to start treating EVE online as a framework that encourages and allows players to interact and impact the game environment.

What makes a game successful over the long term: Continual introduction of new and interesting things that build upon previous new and interesting things.

People love to hate on WoW but this is what WoW does right: They release new content that is different and fun (and yes the basic gameplay is the same) with each release. New stuff. New dungeons. New raids. New skills. New abilities. New equipment. New stuff for people to do together and can be done quickly if wanted.

Further, WoW guides players through a process of discovery of not only their own character but also how to group with others. Over the levels players are brought into easy dungeons at first and then continue to grow, meeting other people along the way, and by the time they reach the 'max level' there is more content for them but they also have lots of friends that they have met. WoW even teaches players how to raid (because they know that raids - being gameplay that multiple play together forms the basis of their continued subscription retention) by having easy mode raids to hard mode raids.

EVE Online has nothing like this. From the start of playing EVE the gameplay is almost all solo based and CCP does nothing to bring new players together either to work together or to fight one another. Many players drop out of the game because they reach the end of the tutorials and there's nothing there. This has to be improved.

The ironic part is that best EVE experience is actually based in corporations and alliances. Of dozens, hundreds, even thousands of players working together. But, new players don't even get a taste of this.

I am very disappointed in the CSM for not even bringing up the concept of EVE Online being interconnected and an ecosystem. I don't like that they didn't suggest much, of anything, that would bring more players together into interacting with one another in different ways.

I loved incursions because it brought players together. But, incursions is just another mini-game within the overall game. It is separate from the rest of the universe.

I love 0.0 because it brings players together. The sovereignty mechanisms while clunky and extremely limited are great in bringing masses of players together into Alliances - this is GOOD.

I want to see EVE Online treated like an ecosystem of players which encourages players to interact with one another not just in bad ways but also in good ways.

Please, start treating the Universe as a whole and not as a series of mini-games that barely interact with one another.

And.. what about wormholes? Have they just disappeared off the face of the galaxy?
None ofthe Above
#110 - 2012-11-24 16:40:08 UTC  |  Edited by: None ofthe Above
Wow.

I don't think a single one of you actually read the document well enough to understand that the point was:


  • You can't chase Jesus features, committing all resources to a new feature without maintenance and iteration.
  • You can do big projects that innovate and provide new shinies without abandoning the maintenance and iteration.
  • You can even do themed releases that tie major updates and iteration together.


The things you are all arguing about are a set of examples on applying the above principles to development themes. (Apologies if I missed one or two of that did get it, didn't notice in the many posts of those that didn't.)

Please reread this part:

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.


Now one could argue that the choice of examples and the proposed implementations were flawed, but its worth talking about the central premise.


  • Does EVE needs big new features to attract new players, and retain old ones?
  • Can EVE survive another Jesus feature binge that has nearly all the companies resources committed to some new project?


I would argue that the reaction supports my assertion that you have to matrix the targets of:

Quote:
Potentials -- people who have never or only briefly subscribed. (90% Shiny, 10% Iteration)
Newbies -- players with less than a year in the game. (70% Shiny, 30% Iteration)
Veterans -- players with more than a year in the game. (10% Shiny, 90% Iteration)
Bittervets -- unsubscribed veterans. (50% Shiny, 50% Iteration)


against the professions and residency. The development cycles are too long to have any large segment of the population lay stagnant for several releases.

I would suggest that while maintain a themed focus, continued work on "spreading the love" is necessary. Smaller projects spread around into the interest groups (which I think has been done a bit, to give CCP credit I do see some attempts at this). And making sure the communication is there to make sure people know why this is done. Themes need to be selected for the maximum impact for all age players across the variety of professions and residency.

While the discussions about null vs low vs high, and this feature vs that feature are valuable, you have a chance to discuss and influence the strategic direction of the company's development. Don't waste it squabbling over tactical details.

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

Seleene
Body Count Inc.
#111 - 2012-11-24 17:01:57 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
Snow Axe wrote:
So you're saying that fixing a segment of the game that is literally broken is a waste of company resources?

No not at all, I am saying that an area with 20% of the games population is not worth 100% of the companies resources for an entire year.


**** is broken and needs to be fixed; it's not just the 'null sec' people that believe this - the document was UNANIMOUSLY ENDORSED by the entire CSM. I don't care what percentage they spend on it so long as the broken and abandoned stuff gets fixed. After being on the CSM for two terms, and a Dev for three years before that, I've given voice to quite a few balanced proposals and game play changes. Now, at this moment in time, it's time for the people who help keep the game in the real world news to be able to play a game that isn't a hacked together, soul sucking, time vampire structure bash.

CCP had better take note of this as well because with games like Star Citizen on the horizon, I can guarantee you that their monopoly on the time of people that enjoy this kind of game is going to start being challenged.

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!

Seleene
Body Count Inc.
#112 - 2012-11-24 17:07:20 UTC
Fractal Muse wrote:


I am very disappointed in the CSM for not even bringing up the concept of EVE Online being interconnected and an ecosystem. I don't like that they didn't suggest much, of anything, that would bring more players together into interacting with one another in different ways.

I loved incursions because it brought players together. But, incursions is just another mini-game within the overall game. It is separate from the rest of the universe.

I love 0.0 because it brings players together. The sovereignty mechanisms while clunky and extremely limited are great in bringing masses of players together into Alliances - this is GOOD.

I want to see EVE Online treated like an ecosystem of players which encourages players to interact with one another not just in bad ways but also in good ways.

Please, start treating the Universe as a whole and not as a series of mini-games that barely interact with one another.

And.. what about wormholes? Have they just disappeared off the face of the galaxy?


MAAAAATE.... if you looked at the composition of the current CSM, looked at our history in and out of the game, looked at something other than the alliance tags, then you'd realize how wrong / off base / bad your post is. We are all very aware of the things you mention but, ONCE AGAIN, this document was simply A THING that we sent to CCP answering some very SPECIFIC questions. By no means should you take it as the end all, be all of the CSM's view of how EVE's ecosystem works and thrives.

Or I could just be lying about all that stuff I just said because of... hell, I can't even think of why, but I'm sure someone will step in and explain it to me. RollLol

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!

Seleene
Body Count Inc.
#113 - 2012-11-24 17:10:50 UTC
Kainotomiu Ronuken wrote:
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:


I voted for Seleene on the basis that I believed he would represent ALL of Eve.

I hope I am not mistaken.

That's one hell of an expectation.


Not really. Feel free to ask TEST's elected CSM member if he thinks I care about this or that thing over another thing. I'm way way WAY beyond caring about this part or that part of EVE. EVE IS EVE. I don't get why people try to chop it up into their little game play kingdoms. v0v

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!

Fractal Muse
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#114 - 2012-11-24 21:42:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Fractal Muse
Seleene wrote:

MAAAAATE.... if you looked at the composition of the current CSM, looked at our history in and out of the game, looked at something other than the alliance tags, then you'd realize how wrong / off base / bad your post is. We are all very aware of the things you mention but, ONCE AGAIN, this document was simply A THING that we sent to CCP answering some very SPECIFIC questions. By no means should you take it as the end all, be all of the CSM's view of how EVE's ecosystem works and thrives.

Or I could just be lying about all that stuff I just said because of... hell, I can't even think of why, but I'm sure someone will step in and explain it to me. RollLol

Hello Seleene,

Thank you for taking the time to respond. I must apologize that I did not take the time in my response to frame it within the greater context of the ideas that the CSM has put forth. Instead, as you correctly point out, I focused solely upon the document that the CSM created as an advisory document to influence the overall strategic planning of EVE Online. I did this because I read it as, "a document that expressed CSM views on the future of EVE development."

I also was giving the guidance and framing to read this document in that light by the following:

"... called a meeting with the CSM to solicit feedback on some challenges and goals CCP was addressing during an upcoming strategy planning meeting. During the course of this meeting, the CSM offered to provide CCP with a different perspective on what EVE’s development strategy could be. CCP Ripley stated that she would find such a document helpful, but that this did not imply a commitment to implement what the CSM would give her.

The following document is the result of that collaborative effort and was submitted to CCP approximately two weeks ago. Our goal was not to provide a prescriptive “wish list”, but instead to influence the strategic planning conversation in a positive direction."

My apologies for misunderstanding what the document was intended to do and thank you for pointing that out.

As you show in your response it is very easy to take a single message, post, or document and focus solely upon that. As such, you are correct in noting that one needs to be careful when presenting an overall vision and one should reiterate the most important elements of what is wanted for that vision.

My concerns in the document remain the same in that this is meant to have been strategic level input on the direction of EVE Online. Within that framework, the document splits out each individual element and suggests improvements that leave each element further individualized from the rest. A few sentences at the end would have encapsulated everything within an overall context of interdependency but, unfortunately, this did not make it into the document. It is that omission and my mistaken understanding of what the document was meant to be that I noticed and wanted to give voice to.

Once more, my apologies.
ISD TYPE40
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#115 - 2012-11-24 23:19:12 UTC
Thread has been cleaned of posts that broke the following rules:

Forum Rules wrote:


5. Ranting is prohibited.

A rant is a long-winded, redundant post, often filled with angry, non-constructive comments. A free exchange of ideas is essential to building a strong sense of community and helpful in the development of the game, but rants are disruptive and incite flaming and trolling. Please post your thoughts in a concise, clear manner and avoid going off on rambling tangents.


6. Personal attacks are prohibited.

Commonly known as flaming, personal attacks are posts that are designed to personally berate or insult another. Text of this nature is not beneficial to the community spirit and will not be tolerated. Corporation, faction and alliance members and other players are cautioned to avoid allowing “in character” disputes from becoming "out of character" personal attacks. The game is designed for role-playing and/or portraying a role and it is sometimes easy for tempers to flare when the lines between the virtual world and the real world are crossed. Please keep in-game disputes in the game and off the forum unless it is clearly a mutual, in-character exchange.


7. Trolling is prohibited.

Trolling is the word used to describe a post that is deliberately designed for the purpose of angering and insulting the players. Posts of this nature are disruptive and do not contribute to the sense of community we want for our forums.


30. Rumor threads and posts.

Rumor threads and posts which are based off no actual information and are designed to either troll or annoy other users will be locked and removed. Players who engage in these type of threads can expect to receive a warning and ban.



Please remain on topic - ISD Type40.

[b]ISD Type40 Lt. Commander Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department[/b]

Mars Theran
Foreign Interloper
#116 - 2012-11-24 23:28:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Mars Theran
Snow Axe wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
Actually as I have said in other threads, I personally think tech should be an NPC good until they do the POS revamp and the ring mining, as it is so out of balance to the rest of the game. Yes alchemy lowered its price but it is still distorting the whole of Null.


If it's still distorting the whole of null, it's because the rest of null by itself really is *that* worthless, not that Tech is still some massive problem. Hence why giving 0.0 its own bottom-up income tools and industrial capacity is important enough to make it into this document - a fact you've opposed already.

Either way, the overarcing point in all of this is that your laser focus on tech and moon mining is completely missing what the actual problem with sov null is. Thankfully the CSM members who wrote this document weren't as petty and myopic as you.


Not that I agree with the guy, but I'd hesitate to say that they weren't petty and myopic. Actually, they are extremely myopic; it's just that they also happen to be right in that Nullsec needs a self-sustaining player economy, rather than getting these infuriating penalties to supply and manufacture that occur the farther you go from NPC domains in Highsec.

That just happens to be a very real problem, when the highest investment from a player can't even come close to what you get for--very nearly--free from an NPC. It's, quite frankly, stupid.

..on the other hand, I'm pretty sure that CCP wasn't asking for that specifically, when they approached the CSM with this. Actually, I believe they were looking for something completely different.
zubzubzubzubzubzubzubzub
CCP Falcon
#117 - 2012-11-24 23:36:13 UTC
This thread is for discussion of the original post and its content. Keep it on topic.

I've reviewed what's been posted and the posts that were moderated by ISD CCL. The aggressive, insulting, racist, politically charged and troll filled posts stop as of now.

Anyone who wants to break the rules from here onward can feel free to enjoy a long vacation from the forums.

Cut it out.

CCP Falcon || EVE Universe Community Manager || @CCP_Falcon

Happy Birthday To FAWLTY7! <3

MotherMoon
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#118 - 2012-11-24 23:42:29 UTC
also going to wait on news about the WiS prototype

http://dl.eve-files.com/media/1206/scimi.jpg

SmilingVagrant
Doomheim
#119 - 2012-11-24 23:57:12 UTC
CCP Falcon wrote:
This thread is for discussion of the original post and its content. Keep it on topic.

I've reviewed what's been posted and the posts that were moderated by ISD CCL. The aggressive, insulting, racist, politically charged and troll filled posts stop as of now.

Anyone who wants to break the rules from here onward can feel free to enjoy a long vacation from the forums.

Cut it out.



Falcon would you be interested in doing this for "The Big Lie" thread too? I thought it was an interesting conversation that merited discussion until the same person who crapped up this thread crapped up that one.
Frying Doom
#120 - 2012-11-24 23:57:53 UTC
Seleene wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
Snow Axe wrote:
So you're saying that fixing a segment of the game that is literally broken is a waste of company resources?

No not at all, I am saying that an area with 20% of the games population is not worth 100% of the companies resources for an entire year.


**** is broken and needs to be fixed; it's not just the 'null sec' people that believe this - the document was UNANIMOUSLY ENDORSED by the entire CSM. I don't care what percentage they spend on it so long as the broken and abandoned stuff gets fixed. After being on the CSM for two terms, and a Dev for three years before that, I've given voice to quite a few balanced proposals and game play changes. Now, at this moment in time, it's time for the people who help keep the game in the real world news to be able to play a game that isn't a hacked together, soul sucking, time vampire structure bash.

CCP had better take note of this as well because with games like Star Citizen on the horizon, I can guarantee you that their monopoly on the time of people that enjoy this kind of game is going to start being challenged.

Rather than saying "UNANIMOUSLY ENDORSED by the entire CSM" or as you said earlier UNANIMOUSLY ENDORSED by the active members CSM, could you be specific and actually list the names for me.

Yes and I agree Null is horribly broken and so many resources have been wasted on NULL over the last 5+ patches, not including inferno as that did not seem to have anything for Null. Don't you think proposing that CCP gets a road map on what they are doing would be a better idea than spouting out theories that would destroy the rest of the game and once again just get Null nerfed back to where it was or worse off again.

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