These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

New Dev Blog: CSM December summit – meeting minutes are out

First post First post First post
Author
Misanth
RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE
#161 - 2012-01-18 00:40:27 UTC
Gogela wrote:
It's funny you said that, Misanth, because I just looked at the below quote and it changed my mind about the whole thing. I too would rather play internet spaceships than play flashy-dot-watching. It's a very succinct argument, and it changed my mind. heh... what if you could re-spec but there was a SP penalty? Twisted


No. In EVE you always have ot face the consequences of your actions, always been like that. Whether it means 'fly what you can afford to lose', taking risks in PvP, market, investment, SP, whatever really, it's all a calculated risk.

I trained Amarr BS 5 on Misanth before the nos-nerf and bandwith introduction, when Gallente completely raped Amarr and we all did "lol, Amarr" on forums (for years). I trained Amarr Carrier on Misanth and bought an Aeon before they were buffed. Those are risks (SP wise) that I chose to take.

Respecs is just utter **** for this game, it's for WoW and other MMO's where you have a level cap and a fixed PvE content, or arena style PvP.

AFK-cloaking in a system near you.

Galphii
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#162 - 2012-01-18 00:54:34 UTC
An excellent read! Good to see that the key points of Eve's problems can be identified and worked upon, such as drone sector ore makes supercap building too easy, and current combat dynamics making killing them too hard.

I like the idea of more capital ships, if proper roles can be assigned to them. Perhaps an assault carrier that has capital guns and fighters? Big smile

How about a capital ship that can function as a mobile cyno jammer for a system, that'd have an impact on supercap deaths. Twisted

"Wow, that internet argument completely changed my fundamental belief system," said no one, ever.

Galega Ori
Interstellar Expeditionary Group
Einstein-Rosen Brigade
#163 - 2012-01-18 00:56:31 UTC
Quote: Cloak Hunters: CCP brought up the possibility of a future cloak-hunting ship or mechanic as a hypothetical; this was described as 'more like finding a submarine than pulling a blanket off' a cloaked ship. The CSM was cautiously positive about the idea of a cloak-hunting vessel of some kind.

HAH, this is a big FU to all those "don't mess with my afk cloak" trolls that always show up in any thread with the word cloak in the title. LolLolLolLol

Seriously though I'm very happy to see that CCP has seen and understands that cloaking is broken as far as the inability of people to catch them once they are cloaked up. An idea thats been tossed around on some of the now troll threads that are the counter cloak ideas, is to require cloaks to have a fuel consumption that removes the ability to permanently afk cloak. This combined with the ship idea from CCP would in my opinion fix cloaking in general and bring it more in line with the rest of EVE as far as the risk v reward.

CCP Eterne: Silly Player, ALL devs are evil.

Misanth
RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE
#164 - 2012-01-18 00:57:33 UTC
Michus Danether wrote:
I2. 'Sensor Ping' decloakers.
- Highslot module, when activated sends a ping throughout the system that creates a visual effect on the screen of any cloaked ship in the system, also builds up a 'static charge' in the cloak field of any cloaked ship in system. The only thing that dissipates the static charge is time. Static charge builds up every time the pulse is activated until the ship becomes unable to recloak due to the static buildup.

Restrictions:

- More ships != more pings, limit system pings to a 'global' effect. A system can only be pinged every minute or something.
- Takes several pings to decloak a ship (dependent on ship type/size?)
- Should happen instantly, so the cloaked pilot has no warning a ping is incoming (so they can't decloak, take the ping and recloak immediately)

Solves:
AFK cloakers. They simply would be unable to camp a system afk.
Cloaking botters.

Does not impact normal cloaking operations that take space within a few minutes, cloaked ships can still get warp in points and intel within the 5-10m it takes to 'ping' them out of cloak. Even when decloaked they should still be able to survive.

Maybe EAF should have this ability?.... hmm. No idea, doesn't really matter.

Tell me what is wrong with this idea as well, is there a group of players or a play style that this impacts negatively or improves too much? Does this benefit the hunter or hunted more, both?

I think these are fair and balanced implementations of those two discussed topics at the CSM summit. Disagree with me, please, I want to see the best systems in place and only discussion will forge them! Go! Go now!


"Tell me what is wrong with this idea as well, is there a group of players or a play style that this impacts negatively or improves too much? Does this benefit the hunter or hunted more, both? "

a) It promotes blobbing (see b)
b) Nullsec sovholders can just blob their homesystems (even more, as if upgraded systems, no mining and no more beltratting wasn't bad enough) with "pings" and combatprobes. How would solo/small scale hunters like me operate?
- The blobbers would camp the gates, send out their pings and probes, and I can't log, cloak or do anything but bring an even bigger blob myself.

My corp lives in nullsec most time of the year. We don't own space anywhere. We don't bot of "afk cloak". But we do go afk while cloaked, when people are camping us in, we need a bio, wife-/dinner calls etc. So nullsec becomes even more of a blobfest where you are forced to have upgraded, cynojammed blobsystems.

Frankly speaking: having any kind of way to decloak cloakers other then the tools we already have today, is ********. Yes, ********, stupid, idiotic, you name it. Cloakers can't kill anyone when cloaked. You can rat, mine, play baseball or whatever you want while they are in system. The minute they decloak it's combat, like always. It's your choice if you want to PvE undefended, and nullsec is hostile. This goes even more for WH btw, are everyone supposed to own a POS in WH's now?

This game already hate smallscale PvPers as is, and while I get why CCP promotes that people should join corps/alliances, the uphill for smallscale corps/alliance is already too big as it is. Cloaks is a module that we had since forever, it works, it never been an issue, it never been poorly balanced (btw, have you tried to lock or recloak with anything but a stealthbomber and/or covert ops cloak? those timers are enough for most non-trimarked battleships to warp off..).

Anti-cloak tools = moronic, at best. Nothing really wrong with your idea tho, there's been plenty of similar 'ping' suggestions, and in particular using a highslot module.

If we make combat probing harder, insta-ewarp and-/or shorter logoff timer, then we could at least log off when we go take a ****, but what if we get a phonecall? Have to stir the pots while cooking? Being AFK from keyboard even less then one minute will be impossible. And we have to sit there nonstop until the blobbers are gone.

Death to blobs. They're ruining this game. With less blobbing, we'd see alot less cloaking.

AFK-cloaking in a system near you.

Tas Nok
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#165 - 2012-01-18 00:58:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Tas Nok
Lyrrashae wrote:
Aaaaaaaaaaaaand once again, sov-nullseccers, jerking themselves off over their play-style whilst showing no clue about wormholes:

"If you build a fortress in there, it's impossible to invade."

Really?

Really?

Are you ******* serious.

Keep your supercraps out of our end-game, you walking cancer.


+1 anyone with a clue knows that those fortress can fall and those with a fortress are under almost constant threat, its a good balance, and while the removal of loading messages and jumps has made WH life a crappy grind for small corps, its still preferable over living under our self appointed Null/CSM Overlords

One other thought about the composition of the 2013 CSM, going for the STV is a really crappy system, but the current system which is 100% popular vote based on all at-large seats is also an unbalanced popularity contest.

without getting too long winded, the ideal system would have the following checks (both for players and CCP)
--Limit candidates based on a selection of corp sizes, 10 candidates from small 35-75member corps, 10 from 75-200, 10 from 200-500, 10 from 500-unlimited this would give players with a wide variety of experience a slot
(how to limit? no idea, and the numbers above are arbitrary, the idea is to stop folks in 1-man corps from clogging up the system)

--Limit the number of times you can be on the CSM, this has both good and bad effects, but new blood is always good

--divide up the CSM into 4 seats and 3 at-large seats
(NULL/WH/LS/HS) how to ensure the delegates actually care about their seats is another topic (perhaps based on where your corp HQ/med clone is based?)

--Largest vote-earner is still chair, until the CSM meets, and then they should elect among themselves who they want to lead (I think this is how it is now, not sure atm)

--CCP might also want to appoint a ghost CSM to act as a counterbalance to a fully popularly elected CSM to ensure a wide variety of opinions are voiced and understood (they can already draw from forums and their own surveys and their volunteer programs, but resolving what is important to "most" players vs what's important to the CSM will continue to be an issue as long as they are all elected in the current system)

That's all I got for now...
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
#166 - 2012-01-18 01:01:10 UTC
Two step wrote:
I am one of the dissenters on respecs on the CSM, for many of the reasons mentioned in this thread. I view respecs as taking away one of the really interesting, unique things about EVE's skill system.

The right thing for CCP to do with the SC/Titan nerf would have been to refund supercap pilots's drone SP. There is no need to invent a respec mechanism to solve that problem.

-1 Respec
-1 Refund

There isn't any problem here to fix, except for null sec whinebear tears. Boo hoo...

Ships and weapons get nerfed - do you plan to refund everyone's SP every time something gets changed in the game? Fail. Utter fail.
Amelia Diamant
Perkone
Caldari State
#167 - 2012-01-18 01:01:29 UTC
As a professional JF pilot, I strongly disagree with having the Jump Drive spool-up time apply to Jump Freighters.

According to the minutes, the two primary reasons for this change are (as I understand them);

1. The current state of session change allows a travel fit capital ship to jump into a system and then jump out again before its invulnerability ends, allowing them to be untouchable in lowsec.
2. The fact that point 1 allows capital ships to move very fast across the universe, causing power projection problems.

I will address these two issues, I and elaborate on why I do not believe that they apply to Jump Freighters.

1. Simply put, Jump Freighters cannot be travel fit. It is impossible for a JF to cap up quickly enough that they can use this method to move around. Thus, even with the session-change timer changes, JF pilots with any sense are still restricted to station systems.
2. This point is invalid twofold - given my rebuttal to the first point, JF cannot move that rapidly and are (more or less) restricted to jumping to cynos lit within docking range of a station. Furthermore, JF are not a tool of power projection. They have zero offensive use whatsoever.

As it stands, Jump Freighters cannot be effectively 'camped in' by a hostile force in lowsec. I do not consider this to be a problem, though I am sure some would agree. With the proposed changes, a JF would have to sit on the undock of the station it is attempting to leave for 60s, with 30s of invulnerability. That allows 30s in which they can be bumped out of docking range and killed and/or tackled and otherwise disallowed to jump. This also applies to docked capitals of other types.

However, this poses a problem for JF pilots. As stated earlier, our ships have zero capability for self-defense. Thus, if we are on an undock in lowsec and vulnerable, there is no reason why a lone pilot should not tackle that JF. A single pilot (or even a small gang) might approach tackling a carrier on a station with some trepidation. That simply doesn't apply to JF, meaning this change would increase the amount of time a JF pilot loses being camped in and thus would cripple our ability to operate in lowsec. Gate guns aside, there would be no risk to camping us in.

TL;DR - The stated reasons for the spool-up change do not apply to Jump Freighters, and thus the change should not apply to that class of ship.
Misanth
RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE
#168 - 2012-01-18 01:18:00 UTC
Amelia Diamant wrote:
As a professional JF pilot, I strongly disagree with having the Jump Drive spool-up time apply to Jump Freighters.

According to the minutes, the two primary reasons for this change are (as I understand them);

1. The current state of session change allows a travel fit capital ship to jump into a system and then jump out again before its invulnerability ends, allowing them to be untouchable in lowsec.
2. The fact that point 1 allows capital ships to move very fast across the universe, causing power projection problems.

I will address these two issues, I and elaborate on why I do not believe that they apply to Jump Freighters.

1. Simply put, Jump Freighters cannot be travel fit. It is impossible for a JF to cap up quickly enough that they can use this method to move around. Thus, even with the session-change timer changes, JF pilots with any sense are still restricted to station systems.
2. This point is invalid twofold - given my rebuttal to the first point, JF cannot move that rapidly and are (more or less) restricted to jumping to cynos lit within docking range of a station. Furthermore, JF are not a tool of power projection. They have zero offensive use whatsoever.

As it stands, Jump Freighters cannot be effectively 'camped in' by a hostile force in lowsec. I do not consider this to be a problem, though I am sure some would agree. With the proposed changes, a JF would have to sit on the undock of the station it is attempting to leave for 60s, with 30s of invulnerability. That allows 30s in which they can be bumped out of docking range and killed and/or tackled and otherwise disallowed to jump. This also applies to docked capitals of other types.

However, this poses a problem for JF pilots. As stated earlier, our ships have zero capability for self-defense. Thus, if we are on an undock in lowsec and vulnerable, there is no reason why a lone pilot should not tackle that JF. A single pilot (or even a small gang) might approach tackling a carrier on a station with some trepidation. That simply doesn't apply to JF, meaning this change would increase the amount of time a JF pilot loses being camped in and thus would cripple our ability to operate in lowsec. Gate guns aside, there would be no risk to camping us in.

TL;DR - The stated reasons for the spool-up change do not apply to Jump Freighters, and thus the change should not apply to that class of ship.


Agree with your first point, but as for point 2 and the "power projection" argument: JF's supply wars, production, alliance income etc. It's a force multiplier. When you are building supercaps or hauling big amounts of moon minerals, the JF's are part of the power projection.

A blanket nerf to all capital movement in this game is needed, universe is way too small now. (JD Calibraiton/Conservation 5-pilot here). And no, I'm not hating specificly on JF's, in fact I can feel with those who do corp logistics and/or POS fueling etc. There is just way too many who are doing way too safe travel over way to large distances - regardless of shiptype.

AFK-cloaking in a system near you.

RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#169 - 2012-01-18 01:26:01 UTC
Two step wrote:
I am one of the dissenters on respecs on the CSM, for many of the reasons mentioned in this thread. I view respecs as taking away one of the really interesting, unique things about EVE's skill system.

The right thing for CCP to do with the SC/Titan nerf would have been to refund supercap pilots's drone SP. There is no need to invent a respec mechanism to solve that problem.


They didn't when MoM's lost clone vats. Or when Bombers lost Cruise missiles. Or when anything else got nerfed. Like everyone has said, they had the use of those drone skills. And CCP has never recompensed pilots for a mechanics change (not counting when skills got removed), and shouldn't start now.

Any discussion of respecs needs to be divorced from a discussion of Super pilot drone SP.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon

RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#170 - 2012-01-18 01:27:08 UTC
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
Trebor for Jesus.

In EVE, this just means you want to nail me to a cross... Twisted


But... Maxwell lent me his hammer for the occasion. If I don't use it, he might *Bang* *Bang* bring it down on my head.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon

Raid'En
#171 - 2012-01-18 01:30:38 UTC
took a while to read, but it was worthwhile.

i'll make a detailed post later, but for now, i'll just say i have seen lots of goods things, and very few bad things.
lots of ideas i like for the future on it.
Klam
Church of Boom
#172 - 2012-01-18 01:41:16 UTC
NO RESPEC! This is core to how Eve is different than other MMOs, don't *muck* with that.

The only time respec is acceptable in Eve is when a skill is removed from the game completely.

This isn't like other MMOs/RPGs where you hit a max SP wall, then can't try anything new unless you have respec as an option. This is why in those games, when a game mechanic change comes through, they allow a respec. In Eve that isn't necessary.

In EVE you can ALWAYS train more. Always become more versatile. Allowing respecing breaks the very core of Eve for veteran and new players alike. All skill training choices is a long term gamble/investment. The long term usefulness is never guaranteed. This is core to Eve, risk is everywhere, with everything, even skill choices. In eve everything is a persistence sandbox, you don't get to turn-back the clock. Ever.

For those super cap pilots whining about "too many drone skills"...
Have you heard about these things called Carriers... those drone skills are still useful there. Guess what, it even uses the same ship skill. I have no sympathy for super-carrier pilots in this. All these years they have NOT refunded SP for other ship changes/nurfs over the years. They shouldn't start now.
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
#173 - 2012-01-18 01:52:42 UTC
Regarding CSM elections...

In addition to voting *for* a candidate, everyone should also be able to vote *against* a candidate.

This would provide a bit of balance for the independent (non-alliance) candidates by allowing non-alliance players to dilute the concentrated voting power of the larger alliances.
Amelia Diamant
Perkone
Caldari State
#174 - 2012-01-18 01:53:21 UTC
Misanth wrote:
Agree with your first point, but as for point 2 and the "power projection" argument: JF's supply wars, production, alliance income etc. It's a force multiplier. When you are building supercaps or hauling big amounts of moon minerals, the JF's are part of the power projection.


I understand your point of view, and I agree in general terms. But both supercaps and moon minerals are primarily a Nullsec concern. The spool up change changes nothing to nullsec travel - the possibility of being camped in already exists there due to bubbles. So while I don't really agree with your specific examples, your point is fair enough.

My primary concern is how the change will affect lowsec work, though. I primarily move assets in lowsec, and this will cripple my ability to do so in a timely manner.
Soulpirate
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#175 - 2012-01-18 02:08:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Soulpirate
Quote:
The CSM and CCP both acknowledged the need to rebalance Drake, which ‘does everything too too well’. CCP is considering giving it a more offensive role like Raven or Caracal where it would lose the shield resistance bonus and the 5% Kinetic damage bonus and instead gain a rate of fire bonus and a missile velocity bonus. The CSM vehemently approved of this idea. CCP and the CSM also agreed that this possible change to the Drake would help add more uniqueness to the Nighthawk, which is presently overshadowed entirely by the Drake.


Boosting the Nighthawk by nerfing the Drake? Huh? What?

The Drake "does everything too well"?? Did you guys leave the cap off the whiteout during these meetings?

The only thing nerfing the Drake will do is put more people in Tengus, not Nighthawks.

If you want to add uniqueness to the Nighthawk, add uniqueness to the Nighthawk.

For fun I just did a D-scan in a level 4 mission system. 16 ships(1 Golem, 1 Noctis, 1 shuttle, 13 Tengus)

Maybe the Drakes are all blitzing level 5 missions somewhere. Roll
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#176 - 2012-01-18 02:17:49 UTC
Two step wrote:
Liang Nuren wrote:
Comments:
- Please don't mess up WH space. Its one of the few bastions of actual small gang warfare and WH stabilizers would really mess with that.


I wasn't at the summit, but I have already yelled loudly at the folks that were there about how bad stabilizing wormholes would be. They would take away the main unique feature of w-space, and would only make the strong organizations in w-space stronger, at the expense of everyone else.



what about a mod that goes on a ship highslot that is a one way destructible that reduces the mass of ships in the fleet so you can fit more ships in... you could make it only fit on a carrier and make it so it takes alot of pg and cpu...

furthermore the only way to fit a second one would be at a pos... so pretty much you are stuck there untill you can siege a pos take it down... setup up yours and then fit a new mod if you wanted to get the fleet out in one go...

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.

RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#177 - 2012-01-18 02:19:41 UTC  |  Edited by: RubyPorto
Soulpirate wrote:
Quote:
The CSM and CCP both acknowledged the need to rebalance Drake, which ‘does everything too too well’. CCP is considering giving it a more offensive role like Raven or Caracal where it would lose the shield resistance bonus and the 5% Kinetic damage bonus and instead gain a rate of fire bonus and a missile velocity bonus. The CSM vehemently approved of this idea. CCP and the CSM also agreed that this possible change to the Drake would help add more uniqueness to the Nighthawk, which is presently overshadowed entirely by the Drake.


Boosting the Nighthawk by nerfing the Drake? Huh? What?

The Drake "does everything too well"?? Did you guys leave the cap off the whiteout during these meetings?

The only thing nerfing the Drake will do is put more people in Tengus, not Nighthawks.

If you want to add uniqueness to the Nighthawk, add uniqueness to the Nighthawk.

For fun I just did a D-scan in a level 4 mission system. 16 ships(1 Golem, 1 Noctis, 1 shuttle, 13 Tengus)

Maybe the Drakes are all blitzing level 5 missions somewhere. Roll


PvE Ship Balance doesn't actually matter. Sorry. Nobody cares what people run PvE content in.

All that matters there is relative reward for various activities.

Drakes are too versatile in PvP. And that's where balance between ships actually matters.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon

Nikita Keriget
Doomheim
#178 - 2012-01-18 02:21:25 UTC
Supercarriers being able to dock? And you thought carrier docking games were bad...
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#179 - 2012-01-18 02:24:46 UTC
Nikita Keriget wrote:
Supercarriers being able to dock? And you thought carrier docking games were bad...



MAKE ALL STATIONS KICK OUT! caps lock! Pirate

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.

Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Top Belt for Fun
#180 - 2012-01-18 02:25:18 UTC
MeBiatch wrote:
Two step wrote:
Liang Nuren wrote:
Comments:
- Please don't mess up WH space. Its one of the few bastions of actual small gang warfare and WH stabilizers would really mess with that.


I wasn't at the summit, but I have already yelled loudly at the folks that were there about how bad stabilizing wormholes would be. They would take away the main unique feature of w-space, and would only make the strong organizations in w-space stronger, at the expense of everyone else.



what about a mod that goes on a ship highslot that is a one way destructible that reduces the mass of ships in the fleet so you can fit more ships in... you could make it only fit on a carrier and make it so it takes alot of pg and cpu...

furthermore the only way to fit a second one would be at a pos... so pretty much you are stuck there untill you can siege a pos take it down... setup up yours and then fit a new mod if you wanted to get the fleet out in one go...


The problem they're attempting to solve is a non-issue. It simply doesn't need to happen in any form.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.