These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
123Next pageLast page
 

EVE Online Development Strategy (CSM Public)

First post First post First post
Author
Seleene
Body Count Inc.
#1 - 2012-11-22 16:49:27 UTC
(This is a re-post from the Jita Park thread in order to get this subject a bit more visibility.)

Earlier this month, EVE’s Senior Producer CCP Ripley 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. CSM7 would like to thank CCP Ripley for not only distributing it to CCP’s development teams but also agreeing to its timely publication.

A Few Notes to the Community:

  • The intended audience for this document was CCP, not the community; please keep this in mind when reading it.
  • We tried to avoid, as much as possible, specific suggestions like “fix sov by doing x.” Instead, our emphasis was to explain why “fixing sov” will address specific business goals.
  • The primary coauthors of this document were Alekseyev Karrde, Hans Jagerblitzen, Trebor Daehdoow, and Two Step. It was unanimously endorsed by all active members of the CSM.
  • Nothing has been edited or removed due to the NDA; aside from minor edits made for clarity, this is exactly what the CSM sent to CCP.


DOWNLOAD HERE

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!

fukier
Brave Collective
#2 - 2012-11-22 17:05:54 UTC
i like it but it makes no mention of the WIS prototype...
At the end of the game both the pawn and the Queen go in the same box.
Seleene
Body Count Inc.
#3 - 2012-11-22 17:13:32 UTC
fukier wrote:
i like it but it makes no mention of the WIS prototype...


You're not wrong. We don't have enough information on where that is going or if it will ever actually be a thing to even take it into account as a realistic factor for resource allocation as it relates to the reasons we wrote this document. We are focused on game play issues that have relevance in the here and now, not something which may or may not ever become reality. 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!

iskflakes
#4 - 2012-11-22 17:14:43 UTC
I used to think this CSM was totally useless when it came to fixing real issues.

After seeing this document, I am more confident. Clearly somebody in the CSM gets it.


The obvious course for CCP is to fix POSes. If done right it can solve all three problems at once (0.0 lack of real objectives/reward, lack of 0.0 industry, POSes being ****).

-

fukier
Brave Collective
#5 - 2012-11-22 17:22:53 UTC
Seleene wrote:
fukier wrote:
i like it but it makes no mention of the WIS prototype...


You're not wrong. We don't have enough information on where that is going or if it will ever actually be a thing to even take it into account as a realistic factor for resource allocation as it relates to the reasons we wrote this document. We are focused on game play issues that have relevance in the here and now, not something which may or may not ever become reality. Smile


i here that...

though i would love to see it eventually make it into the game perhaps 2015ish?

like for taking over stuff like FW complex...

now you run circles around the outpost but what ifyou actually had to take it over with your guns and stuff... thats the potential i see for the prototype...

as for the purpose of the document i feel you guys are spot on with your vision for the next two years...
At the end of the game both the pawn and the Queen go in the same box.
Jame Jarl Retief
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#6 - 2012-11-22 17:24:45 UTC
I had a chuckle at the "giant-panda-themed bosses" thing. You guys do realize that said game has had absolutely no trouble maintaining 10+ million paying subscriber player base for 8 years and counting? And recently broke a 1 million concurrent user record in September?

Further, in all of this, the main questions that should always be asked are:
"Who is this for?"
and
"How will it improve the game?"

For example, Incarna had no answer to either question. Inferno improved FW, but not everyone cares about FW, so it fell largely on deaf ears. The upcoming AI change also doesn't seem like it was entirely thought out, because while it is theoretically for everyone, it doesn't really seem to improve the game, unless you consider adding more hassles and hoops for players to jump through as an improvement.

I'm also not too sure how I feel about the whole two-expansion iteration thing, where first expansion lays down the ground work and second expansion brings in the payoff. Could lead to many problems, like downright broken stuff for half a year. See the FW mechanics introduced in Inferno, and how much obscene ISK was made as a result of exploitation of those blatantly broken mechanics until they were recently changed, and more fixes coming in Retribution. Six months or more of broken game can do a whole lot of harm. Perhaps a better idea would be ONE expansion per year, but it comes out finished and polished and working. Not half-donkeyed and broken and needing years of iteration to bring up to snuff.

The rest of it? Once again far too much focus on 0.0, Sov, PoS, etc. You guys (CSM in general) need to realize that 60% of EVE's playerbase live in hi-sec. As such, they don't give a toss about 0.0. Or Sov. And to a large degree about PoS. If you are going to talk about player retention, you NEED to talk about hi-sec. Not about how to make 0.0 better or more profitable. Because, like it was said so many times before, no matter how good or profitable 0.0 becomes, it will won't make those 60% in hi-sec go there. It is a conscious decision based on many factors. And nerfing hi-sec to force people into 0.0 will force people out of the game instead.

So, as far as the suggested focus in this paper goes? Seems to focus on the 40% living in low/null and WH space. And not on 60% (majority) living in hi-sec and making them happy (continuing to subscribe).
Seleene
Body Count Inc.
#7 - 2012-11-22 17:34:21 UTC
Jame Jarl Retief wrote:
If you are going to talk about player retention, you NEED to talk about hi-sec.


Oh believe me, we do. That's just not what the focus of this document was. Quite a lot of us have many interests in hi-sec and there are quite a lot of ways that even things that seem specifically for one kind of gameplay will affect all the others. I'd encourage you to read an excellent take on this very subject by Malcanis:

The Big Lie

I think the document makes a fair case for many types of gameplay and improvements that are not completely null-sec centric, but I will freely admit that I believe a big part of CCP's problem with retention of older players is due to a complete neglect of null sec over the past few years. As one of the main devs that worked on it, I can tell you that Dominion was basically a Greek ******* tragedy in terms of how much time and effort was put into the feature versus what actually ended up on TQ. As with most of the player base, I was pretty fired up last year about how ****** everything was and, along with the other active members of CSM 6, quite enjoyed beating CCP repeatedly with the FIX / ITERATE IT bat. After Retribution hits, however, I feel it's time for CCP to dust off the old plans and integrate them into the big picture. 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!

iskflakes
#8 - 2012-11-22 17:40:50 UTC
Seleene wrote:
Oh believe me, we do.


Please stop talking about higsec. We've had several consecutive highsec expansions, and are about to get another one. Nullsec is where all the real content comes from, the content that attracts new players. A huge battle between two nullsec coalitions with hundreds of titans and high stakes is a better advert for the game than some new button orbiting or NPC killing expansion. Of course, nobody uses titans or supers anymore since the botched nerf, but that's besides the point.

-

Azami Nevinyrall
172.0.0.1
#9 - 2012-11-22 17:43:20 UTC
I've read that, its does posses a lot of useful information...

But, sadly, it mainly says "Nerf hisec and buff null"

The current issue that I see is that the CSM is nullsec dwellers, who at the end of the day is really looking after themselves.

...

Seleene
Body Count Inc.
#10 - 2012-11-22 17:44:38 UTC
Well, I tend to just talk about whatever is a problem in the game, regardless of what sector of ~space~ it's in. Smile

Also, this picture is relavent.

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!

iskflakes
#11 - 2012-11-22 17:44:45 UTC
Azami Nevinyrall wrote:
I've read that, its does posses a lot of useful information...

But, sadly, it mainly says "Nerf hisec and buff null"

The current issue that I see is that the CSM is nullsec dwellers, who at the end of the day is really looking after themselves.


Damn, if only there was some kind of vote so higsec could choose its own representatives...

Oh wait...

-

Jame Jarl Retief
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#12 - 2012-11-22 17:47:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Jame Jarl Retief
iskflakes wrote:
Seleene wrote:
Oh believe me, we do.


Please stop talking about higsec. We've had several consecutive highsec expansions, and are about to get another one. Nullsec is where all the real content comes from, the content that attracts new players. A huge battle between two nullsec coalitions with hundreds of titans and high stakes is a better advert for the game than some new button orbiting or NPC killing expansion. Of course, nobody uses titans or supers anymore since the botched nerf, but that's besides the point.


That's a heck of an assumption. Quite a few people find large blob/zerg battles rather uninteresting, actually. This gets confirmed over and over again in MMO world.

Look at the recent GW2 release. The game has small scale PvP (structured PvP), but the main draw was supposed to be World vs World vs World - a huge three-way battle between three servers, in a huge map, with keeps, supply outposts, resupply chains, siege weapons, the works. Problem is, most people really didn't like WvWvW because it very quickly evolved into a large zerg blob roaming around the map. Servers with tens of thousands of players stomped servers with just hundreds of players. Players on those servers got mad and transferred to larger servers, only exacerbating the issue by merging themselves with an already large blob. End result? Several huge blobs in a stalemate, and nobody wants to play it, and subscriptions are starting to decline. Exactly what we're seeing in EVE, except subscription loss is hidden by increased alt propagation.

To further support this, the most popular MMO in the world today (and for the past 8 years) does not have large scale battles and blobs. Biggest one I believe is still 40v40. And while in theory world PvP can get larger than this, in practice it very seldom happens. If small scale was less popular than huge zergs/blobs, the game would have tanked. It didn't. Hence small-scale where individual skill plays more of a role is preferable for many players.

Plus, the fact that the majority of the population lives in high sec suggests that they weren't attracted by 0.0 or fleet fights. Or they wouldn't be living in high sec to begin with.
Azami Nevinyrall
172.0.0.1
#13 - 2012-11-22 17:53:19 UTC
iskflakes wrote:
Azami Nevinyrall wrote:
I've read that, its does posses a lot of useful information...

But, sadly, it mainly says "Nerf hisec and buff null"

The current issue that I see is that the CSM is nullsec dwellers, who at the end of the day is really looking after themselves.


Damn, if only there was some kind of vote so higsec could choose its own representatives...

Oh wait...

The main problem with highsec dwellers is that most of them are spread out with a mix of noobs and vets. just too fractured.

Also the CSM votes are one sided, considering that when one nullsec person decides to run for office, they get all their corpies and friends to vote for them. Name one just one highsec alliance with over or even near 10k mindless drones?

...

YoYo NickyYo
Doomheim
#14 - 2012-11-22 17:53:34 UTC
too little, too late? Oops


And, yes, it's all about 0.0 at the expense of highsec. When the CSM only represents 0.0, I not sure what anyone else would expect....


I am not, nor will I ever be...Nicky Yo.... The question you should ask is.....When will they release the NICKY!

iskflakes
#15 - 2012-11-22 17:56:03 UTC
Jame Jarl Retief wrote:
Plus, the fact that the majority of the population lives in high sec suggests that they weren't attracted by 0.0 or fleet fights. Or they wouldn't be living in high sec to begin with.


Most nullsec players I know have numerous highsec alts for hauling, manufacturing, running missions, checking market prices, PI, etc. This makes it look as if 99% of the player base lives in highsec, when it's not nearly that high. If nullsec was competitive with highsec for income (as it once was) we would see a lot of players moving back into nullsec, and moving back into player run alliances. From CCP's point of view this is great, because players who join a social group are more likely to continue subscribing.

Also, even if a carebear is living completely in highsec, the events in nullsec still affect them, e.g. OTEC technetium price fixing. Nomatter how you look at it, nullsec drives the content in this game, and if CCP want to attract new players (and retain the existing ones) that's where they need to be looking.

-

Vera Algaert
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#16 - 2012-11-22 17:56:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Vera Algaert
Jame Jarl Retief wrote:
The rest of it? Once again far too much focus on 0.0, Sov, PoS, etc. You guys (CSM in general) need to realize that 60% of EVE's playerbase live in hi-sec. As such, they don't give a toss about 0.0. Or Sov. And to a large degree about PoS. If you are going to talk about player retention, you NEED to talk about hi-sec. Not about how to make 0.0 better or more profitable. Because, like it was said so many times before, no matter how good or profitable 0.0 becomes, it will won't make those 60% in hi-sec go there. It is a conscious decision based on many factors. And nerfing hi-sec to force people into 0.0 will force people out of the game instead.

So, as far as the suggested focus in this paper goes? Seems to focus on the 40% living in low/null and WH space. And not on 60% (majority) living in hi-sec and making them happy (continuing to subscribe).

if you want to be taken seriously then don't repeat arguments that have been debunked long ago - such as equating characters with players.

Here's a story for you:

pre-Dominion: 0.0 players generate income via lvl4 high-sec alts
Dominion - Incursion 1.4: 0.0 players actually earn their income in 0.0
Incursion - Escalation to Inferno: 0.0 players generate income via (high-sec) incursion alts
Escalation to Inferno - Inferno: back to high-sec lvl4s
Inferno - October 23rd: 0.0 players generate income via FW plexing alts
October to now: back to high-sec lvl4s

Historically it has been the norm that 0.0 players are expected to be self-sufficient - which generally meant having income-generating alts in empire. Dominion brought a short break in that routine as it made actually living in 0.0 (as opposed to only logging in your 0.0 character for fleets) a worthwhile option. Since Incursion 1.4 we are back to normal.
A sizeable part of your "60%" are alts of 0.0 players who would be moved to 0.0 if risk vs reward was favorable.


(Forsaken Hubs have been buffed but are in my experience not comparable to lvl4 income (at decent LP conversion rates), farming c4-c6 wormholes has been an option ever since Apocrypha but requires more organization & effort than many players are willing to invest.)

.

Rengerel en Distel
#17 - 2012-11-22 18:01:24 UTC
The whole high/low/null/wh space argument is just circular. It is the game mechanics which push people into various spaces more than a desire to do one thing or another. The POS change if done correctly will shuffle more people around than nerfing missions, incursions, or whatever else people think will do it. If they screw up the POS change, things will stagnate as they have.

With the increase in shiptoasting, the Report timer needs to be shortened.

Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#18 - 2012-11-22 18:07:37 UTC
Vera Algaert wrote:
Jame Jarl Retief wrote:
The rest of it? Once again far too much focus on 0.0, Sov, PoS, etc. You guys (CSM in general) need to realize that 60% of EVE's playerbase live in hi-sec. As such, they don't give a toss about 0.0. Or Sov. And to a large degree about PoS. If you are going to talk about player retention, you NEED to talk about hi-sec. Not about how to make 0.0 better or more profitable. Because, like it was said so many times before, no matter how good or profitable 0.0 becomes, it will won't make those 60% in hi-sec go there. It is a conscious decision based on many factors. And nerfing hi-sec to force people into 0.0 will force people out of the game instead.

So, as far as the suggested focus in this paper goes? Seems to focus on the 40% living in low/null and WH space. And not on 60% (majority) living in hi-sec and making them happy (continuing to subscribe).

if you want to be taken seriously then don't repeat arguments that have been debunked long ago - such as equating characters with players.

Here's a story for you:

pre-Dominion: 0.0 players generate income via lvl4 high-sec alts
Dominion - Incursion 1.4: 0.0 players actually earn their income in 0.0
Incursion - Escalation to Inferno: 0.0 players generate income via (high-sec) incursion alts
Escalation to Inferno - Inferno: back to high-sec lvl4s
Inferno - October 23rd: 0.0 players generate income via FW plexing alts
October to now: back to high-sec lvl4s

Historically it has been the norm that 0.0 players are expected to be self-sufficient - which generally meant having income-generating alts in empire. Dominion brought a short break in that routine as it made actually living in 0.0 (as opposed to only logging in your 0.0 character for fleets) a worthwhile option. Since Incursion 1.4 we are back to normal.
A sizeable part of your "60%" are alts of 0.0 players who would be moved to 0.0 if risk vs reward was favorable.


(Forsaken Hubs have been buffed but are in my experience not comparable to lvl4 income (at decent LP conversion rates), farming c4-c6 wormholes has been an option ever since Apocrypha but requires more organization & effort than many players are willing to invest.)



More to the point we need to change the assumption that "income" for 0.0 players means "mindlessly smooshing red pluses in order to spawn even more ISK into an over-inflated economy".

0.0 income generation should also include production, resource gathering, research and trading, just as it does in hi-sec.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

fukier
Brave Collective
#19 - 2012-11-22 18:09:29 UTC
Seleene wrote:
Well, I tend to just talk about whatever is a problem in the game, regardless of what sector of ~space~ it's in. Smile

Also, this picture is relavent.


bah work blocked that image... can you describe it?
At the end of the game both the pawn and the Queen go in the same box.
iskflakes
#20 - 2012-11-22 18:32:30 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
0.0 income generation should also include production, resource gathering, research and trading, just as it does in hi-sec.


The document suggests exactly that... (Lack of nullsec industry is a major section)

-

123Next pageLast page