These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

December CSM Summit

First post
Author
Seleene
Body Count Inc.
Mercenary Coalition
#1 - 2011-11-19 02:30:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Seleene
The dates are now locked in: December 7th - December 9th.

We've had one "pre-Summit" meeting with CCP and a couple more on the horizon. While I expect this summit will be much different in tone to the others, things looks promising overall. There will be no Kool-Aid drinking on the CSM, but we've been encouraged by what we've seen recently. The tone of day to day chats with CCP is unrecognizable compared with just a couple months ago. The numerous written dev blogs and video blogs should keep coming right up until Crucible's release.

One thing we want to make sure of is that we get what information we can about the Summit into your hands as soon as possible. As the Summit gets closer, we will make sure to re-post links to blogs, twitter accounts, etc... so you can follow the non-NDA stuff in real time (more or less). We're also hoping to get a much quicker turn around this time on the official summit minutes, holidays permitting.

Feel free to suggest stuff for us to ask about / discuss here and we'll post more in terms of official details / agenda as soon as we can.

EDIT - Link to the Official CSM 6 Logo

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!

Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#2 - 2011-11-19 02:50:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Poetic Stanziel
War declaration mechanics. Is CCP going to leave them as is or fix them? Since CCP's policy change (i.e., giving permission to use previously-disallowed exploits) there is little point in wardeccing any corporation. Avoiding wardecs is now trivial. Because of this, all player-owned highsec structures are untouchable. Will CCP be bringing back CONCORD approved PvP to highsec?
E man Industries
SeaChell Productions
#3 - 2011-11-19 04:56:05 UTC
Hope they collect all the ideas from

Little things
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=33928&find=unread
Visual Paper cuts
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=33774

and let us tell them what is important to us to help them decide where to focus.

Once that's done and ccp knows how long each item takes the CSM can add further input.
StukaBee
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#4 - 2011-11-19 10:56:16 UTC
Will there be another fireside chat beforehand?
Ehnea Mehk
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#5 - 2011-11-19 23:42:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Ehnea Mehk
I agree the WARDEC system exploits be addressed, because ignoring them is unfair as some people have stressed. However, my position has always been one that stops using the system as a club to grief smaller new corporations. Having been on the receiving end of two such griefer WARDECS, one as CEO, I have some inside perspective on the issue as a defending corporation.

I previously put some proposals on my blog and in the forums about how to fix the WARDEC system so it is more balanced and fair for both parties (attacker and defender). While I disagree with some of the comments in the thread to my proposal, notably from those who use the WARDEC system as a form of extortion towards new players, I have revised those proposals to address some scenarios my previous proposal did not address. I've noted those changes as such in parentheses.

(1) Corporations with players of 5 and under are not valid WARDEC targets. Corporations that start out will consist of players that does PvE stuff before the corporation becomes large enough to generate the ISK required to create a PvP wing once POSes come into question. (it was previously 15, but I revised it to 5 because 15 members would be a more established corporation making a lot of ISK. Corporations between 1 to 5 members are just starting out, and are usually informal structures with no possible way to defend themselves).

(2) Wars are consensual. Both sides MUST agree to fight in order for a war to be valid. There should also be a mechanism that defines the win condition (the total lost ships or structures, total pilots killed, or even a timer to complete a specific condition) in the declaration. If the defender refuses the challenge to partake in a WARDEC sent by the attacker, the defender is fined an amount of ISK that goes directly into the wallet of the attacker (I added this in so the defender does not have some kind of shield for refusing the attacker's challenge. I do not know what the amount would be, but it might be a percentage of the defender's worth in terms of ISK plus assets. The attacker would then be declared the winner of the WARDEC by default. There should be a cooldown period between launching multiple WARDECs against the same corporation if such a fine was previously paid. This prevents farming the defender for ISK with repeated spamming of WARDECs.)

(3) There should be a reward system, again mutually accepted and programmed into the consensual agreement in (2), something like a contract that says ISK must be paid or goods given to the winner of the war. Perhaps the liquidation of a corporation or alliance can be used as a sort of war goal.

(4) There should be a new war tab in the corporation control panel that shows past wars, what the victory conditions were, and who won and what the reward was. The API could also store that information and make it retrievable to programmers

I also like the following link to be reviewed as it has a lot of good suggestions about how to fix the WARDEC system.
Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#6 - 2011-11-20 00:07:33 UTC
Ehnea Mehk wrote:
(2) Wars are consensual. Both sides MUST agree to fight in order for a war to be valid.

Just ask CCP if they plan to address the wardec system, Seleene, and an approximate date for release. Do put forward anything ridiculous like the above suggestion. (I know you know better, anyhow, Seleene.)

Smile
Ehnea Mehk
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#7 - 2011-11-20 00:27:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Ehnea Mehk
Poetic

The CSMs represent all players, not just you or your corporation. I don't care how buddy-buddy you are with any member.

If you have a problem with that, well, that's really a shame but it is a reality you just have to handle. I'll speak my mind and do things my way, with or without your blessings.

Thank you

Ehnea.
Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#8 - 2011-11-20 00:41:03 UTC
Ehnea Mehk wrote:
The CSMs represent all players ...
Actually, no they don't. They represent the people who voted for them, based on the platform on which they ran. They also represent anyone who agrees with their views, even if they did not vote for them.

Unless a nuthugger carebear got voted to the CSM, you likely have no one to represent you, Ehnea.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#9 - 2011-11-20 00:49:13 UTC
Can we please not get into the fucknuttery that is the discussion about who the CSM does or doesn't represent?

As to the consensuality of a war, so if I don't feel like doing something as boring as fighting a war because it interferes with my corp-wide mining ops, all I have to do is say "no", and I'm undeccable?

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat

Thurasi Agalder
No Bull Services Shop
#10 - 2011-11-20 00:50:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Thurasi Agalder
Ehnea Mehk wrote:
Poetic

The CSMs represent all players, not just you or your corporation. I don't care how buddy-buddy you are with any member.

If you have a problem with that, well, that's really a shame but it is a reality you just have to handle. I'll speak my mind and do things my way, with or without your blessings.

Thank you

Ehnea.


A like to this post.

I never launched a war against anyone so what Ehnea said doesn't affect me. Ehnea is entitled to his opinion, though. No player can tell another not to suggest anything if they are paying a sub. The CSM can ignore it but Ehnea can still post it.

My 0.02 ISK worth.

Lord Zim wrote:

As to the consensuality of a war, so if I don't feel like doing something as boring as fighting a war because it interferes with my corp-wide mining ops, all I have to do is say "no", and I'm undeccable?


Nope. Ehnea said in his proposal you would still have to pay for saying no and the other party wins.

"Thursday"
Khanh'rhh
Sparkle Motion.
#11 - 2011-11-20 01:28:18 UTC
Ehnea Mehk wrote:
(1) Corporations with players of 5 and under are not valid WARDEC targets. Corporations that start out will consist of players that does PvE stuff before the corporation becomes large enough to generate the ISK required to create a PvP wing once POSes come into question. (it was previously 15, but I revised it to 5 because 15 members would be a more established corporation making a lot of ISK. Corporations between 1 to 5 members are just starting out, and are usually informal structures with no possible way to defend themselves)

Best idea evar, yo.

Now I can stick a few alts to buff out a one-man "greif" wardec corp, and go wild. As soon as someone decides to come after me, I drop a couple of alts and I am immune, tee hee ^_^

Quote:
blah blah blah consensual wardecs blah blah blah

Again, awesome suggestion. I can start an alt corp, get some idiot to agree terms, and then port in 10, 20 or 50 extra members and grind you into the dirt. When you hire mercs to try to get revenge .. I don't agree to the war! lawlll

If you don't understand how making MORE rules just gives "greifers" - who are a lot smarter at game mechanics than you - even more to smack you over the head with, you're doing it wrong.

It sounds like you are / were a terrible player with no idea how to use existing game mechanics to your advantage, so instead want them changed. Seriously, just play another game already.

"Do not touch anything unnecessarily. Beware of pretty girls in dance halls and parks who may be spies, as well as bicycles, revolvers, uniforms, arms, dead horses, and men lying on roads -- they are not there accidentally." -Soviet infantry manual,

Khanh'rhh
Sparkle Motion.
#12 - 2011-11-20 01:31:19 UTC
Serious post:

I want the concept of risk:reward to be looked at, and balanced across similar activities. You can make less ISK in most wormholes than you can in a highsec Incursion, and wormholes are nullsec with no local channel. That is ****** up. If 100+mil an hour is to be kept in highsec, then the rewards of riskier space need to be ramped up to compensate.

"Do not touch anything unnecessarily. Beware of pretty girls in dance halls and parks who may be spies, as well as bicycles, revolvers, uniforms, arms, dead horses, and men lying on roads -- they are not there accidentally." -Soviet infantry manual,

Vulpina Elaphe
Doomheim
#13 - 2011-11-20 01:58:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Vulpina Elaphe
Some suggestions:

Gate bottlenecks. I sometimes wait as long as two minutes to jump through a gate. And no, it's nowhere near Jita.

Missions. Time for an update. More variety on the types of missions. The formletter layouts are so static it feels like I'm doing the same mission over and over. Does it always have to be loot the can, shoot all the rats, or mine units of whatever?

Amarr space is very underpopulated these days. Is it time to put more love into Amarr space to bring back players, or *gulp!* redefine the Amarr Empire borders and give systems to other empires?

An update on this, regarding the redistribution of wealth to match risk, and how it impacts highsec industry. Is this still a long term discussion?

Looking at the tax rate of some NPC corporations. We can't choose the NPC corporation we can go to, but it would be nice to have some modifier to reduce the tax slightly.

EDIT: Yeah, that comment from Poetic saying Ehnea should not be listened to and that the CSM only listens to their pals irked me. I thought it was the stomach flu I'm getting over but no. Ehnea's capture the flag idea is the wrong direction for the game but he got a like for standing up for himself. I always back the underdog.
ShipToaster
#14 - 2011-11-20 04:01:23 UTC
I would like to hear what CCP have to say about:

1. All the stuff about high sec becoming too safe. (wardecs exploits and fixes, wardec changes, concord buffs, insurance)

2. All the stuff about economics becoming screwed up in game. (incursions, plex, incursions, market stuff, and incursions)

3. The whiteboard with all the stuff about making null better and more accessible, what happened to it?

4. HTFU, do they still possess this quality? (any examples to show they do would be nice)

5. Consensual PvP equals the death of EVE make them understand that or tell me that they dont so I can leave now.

6. I want lots more stuff that can be built or deployed in space, dont care what, so make this happen Big smile

And I am going to whore my own wardec changes thread to give some balance to the carebear push in this one https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=22037

.

Akrasjel Lanate
Lanate Industries
#15 - 2011-11-20 09:56:51 UTC
The issue about ganking, actualy no insurence when for you when you gank someone and CONCORD kills you.

CEO of Lanate Industries

Citizen of Solitude

Ya Huei
Imperial Collective
#16 - 2011-11-20 10:05:28 UTC
Ehnea Mehk wrote:
stuff


Consensual PVP ? Are u actually serious ?


Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#17 - 2011-11-20 10:10:26 UTC
Thurasi Agalder wrote:
Lord Zim wrote:

As to the consensuality of a war, so if I don't feel like doing something as boring as fighting a war because it interferes with my corp-wide mining ops, all I have to do is say "no", and I'm undeccable?


Nope. Ehnea said in his proposal you would still have to pay for saying no and the other party wins.

"Thursday"

I didn't notice that, but I guess that'll still just make it so someone makes a living of f.ex sitting on jita undock and wardecing random corps and hoping they'll just deny the wardec. Additionally, it'll just mean that the CEO or whomever will just be sitting with the ISK instead of storing it in the corp wallets, so the hit of being wardeced will be minimal if it's based on the corp's worth.

Akrasjel Lanate wrote:
The issue about ganking, actualy no insurence when for you when you gank someone and CONCORD kills you.

Absolutely no issue with this from a logical standpoint, but given that I would assume the same would happen when popped in lowsec or nullsec. Any sane insurance company would tell you to get stuffed if you were to take something you insured into a warzone.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat

Taggoth Mertwull
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#18 - 2011-11-20 10:52:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Taggoth Mertwull
Lord Zim wrote:
I didn't notice that, but I guess that'll still just make it so someone makes a living of f.ex sitting on jita undock and wardecing random corps and hoping they'll just deny the wardec. Additionally, it'll just mean that the CEO or whomever will just be sitting with the ISK instead of storing it in the corp wallets, so the hit of being wardeced will be minimal if it's based on the corp's worth.


I missed that as well. When I first read it, I thought it was a rehash from his previous post in another forum so I skimmed. Ehnea also suggested an extended cooldown period before the same aggressor corp can launch a new war. Instead of a cooldown, I suggest a diminishing returns model: penalty fee payout declines with each spam-dec launched by the same corp.

I propose two ways to get around the CEO scarfing the ISK before refusing the challenge. The first is a snapshot of the financials at the time war is declared, before the CEO decides to pull a fast one. This may not work as well if the CEO decides to keep all the money in his personal wallet to counter subsequent wars. In that case, my second suggestion is to charge a fixed penalty fee based on the size of the corp that refused the challenge. Again a snapshot can be taken at the time war is declared but this time on the membership size.

I also want to suggest something for the summit

i) Incorporaiton

  • Requiring a fleet, not one person, to create a corp (perhaps a fleet of 5?). This will cut down on the clutter of all these one-man home offices in the corp database. This will also put more serious thought into creating a corp and the ISK involved.
  • A warning to appear about the risks of incorporation, including the possibility of being a war target, before the corp is formed.
  • Shares that actually mean something


  • ii) A re-evaluation of all ships and modules for each empire, to ensure they are more or less balanced and something is not broken.

    Quote:
    "That which does not kill us makes us stronger."
    - Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche
    Khanh'rhh
    Sparkle Motion.
    #19 - 2011-11-20 15:10:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Khanh'rhh
    You're discussing "ifs" and "buts" and "maybe" but the real issue is being ignored. If you add MORE rules to a mechanic that is already badly, badly broken BECAUSE of the rule set, and the fact no one wants to enforce them, you just add to the problem.

    -Make all wars a flat fee. 50mil per war sounds fine. (This removes dec shields via cost)
    -Stop corps joining an alliance under the first week of a war.
    -Stop corps leaving an alliance in the first week of a war. (These two stop alliances "cleaning" wardecs)
    -A corp leaving an alliance has to complete that week at war.

    That solves all the issues with the wardec system as it stands. Players are free to whine about not wanting wars anyway, but those players frankly don't understand the basics of the game. There's meant to be risk. There's meant to be PVP. Whether or not there SHOULD be wars is a different discussion, and having lose baggy rules that "kinda" lets it happen but "kinda" lets it get exploited is NOT the solution.

    "Do not touch anything unnecessarily. Beware of pretty girls in dance halls and parks who may be spies, as well as bicycles, revolvers, uniforms, arms, dead horses, and men lying on roads -- they are not there accidentally." -Soviet infantry manual,

    Seleene
    Body Count Inc.
    Mercenary Coalition
    #20 - 2011-11-20 18:12:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Seleene
    Ehnea Mehk wrote:
    The CSMs represent all players, not just you or your corporation.


    This is very true and I'm just going to say, once again, that anyone who chooses to just throw out labels (the null-sec CSM, etc..) you're robbing yourself of a potential ear to your issues. The current CSM may not seemed 'well balanced' at a glance, but look a bit deeper and you might be surprised. One advantage of a 'veteran' CSM is that most of us ran for CSM not because of a bad last year or two of decisions by CCP but because of frustrations that go all the way back to the launch of the game.

    I've been playing EVE since April of 2003. I mined Omber for three weeks to get the money for a Maller BPO because that was literally the only way you could fly one - build it yourself! I've been a CEO for most of that time. Corp mining ops, running an industrial corp, building everything from Rifters to Outposts and supercaps, etc.. I created and ran Mercenary Coalition which was primarily an Empire War alliance for the first two years. I ended up working at CCP for over three years in Game Design and, let me tell you, nothing else wipes out your prejudices about "null sec" or "carebears" faster than having to actually work on various aspects of the game and really understanding how interconnected all of these elements are. Today, I'm in Pandemic Legion because I'm still an old mercenary at heart and PL is the best place for that sort of thing. Add it all up and I really don't have an opinion about NULL SEC versus HIGH SEC or all that crap. I just want the game as a whole to improve and so does the rest of the CSM.

    Every CSM member could probably write a paragraph like the above. We are a lot more varied and 'deep' than the haters want to give us credit for. For all the **** everyone likes to throw at Mittens, he spends a hell of a lot of time asking other CSM members and players questions about stuff and then moves to act on it. If he's prejudiced against anything but supercaps (which I can't blame him for tbh) I haven't seen it. Trebor and Messia are impossible to label in terms of what they support because they are cynical and knowledgeable about everything. The CSM alts like Two Step and Prometheus have been invaluable when it comes to discussions with CCP about various balance issues.

    My point is that even if you think you don't have someone on the CSM representing, you might very well be wrong. We're a pretty varied crew and I think the composition and experience of this CSM is a big reason why we're getting EVE Online: Crucible and not EVE: NPC Dance Challenge.

    While we're talking about it, let's just be honest and admit that Crucible is the 'low hanging fruit'. This expansion is full of everything that should have already been taking place over the last 2+ years. It's great stuff and I take nothing away from the hard work being done to get it all done but it's also the 'easy' stuff in the sense that it really wasn't that hard to find things to do / fix / iterate. The hard part starts after Crucible. It's still up to us as players and the CSM to help keep CCP ummm... 'focused'.

    As I've said previously, what we're looking at right now with the amount of resources that have been refocused on EVE is the potential for an 'Apocrypha' every 3-4 months. That's not bullshit, it's actually possible due to the fact that there are literally five times the number of teams working on EVE today as there were two months ago. The actual content of what is to come is certainly going to be the subject of most of the December summit. I saw a comment on Twitter a couple days ago that referred to Crucible as a 'tactical' expansion in preparation for the more 'strategic' stuff still to come. That's pretty accurate. As Mittens said, in the aftermath of the 'October War', everyone is gearing up for the inevitable 'Feature War'.

    Will CCP stay the course? Based on what we've seen recently I'd say, for at least the next year, yes. What will happen over the next year is anyone's guess but, aside from the 20% stuff, morale within the office is way up primarily because folks are getting a chance to work on the things they've been banging their heads against the wall about for years. I'd say we're looking at a solid 12 months of full throttle EVE EVE EVE before CCP takes their foot off the gas. That's fine with me for now because when the people working on the game are doing stuff that they WANT to do and actually have the resources and mandate to do it on a level that's never existed before, we'll probably see EVE evolve quite a lot in the next year.

    I'm not all starry-eyed and rainbows about it all, but the immediate future looks good and we should all do everything we can to use this opportunity to help get the game where we want it to be.

    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!

    123Next pageLast page