These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page123Next page
 

EVE Stratics! Exclusive pre-Inferno Interview with CCP Soundwave and the Art Team
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Malcom Vincent
Generic Alt Corporation 421
#21 - 2012-05-22 09:13:35 UTC
Ammzi wrote:
Malcom Vincent wrote:

Please see question 6 under Game Design.


Cheers, I do sincerely hope the answer will be positive. I can't remember your list right now and whether it includes crimewatch, but specifically having a timeperiod or data for the release of "aggression/gun timers" on logistics would be good to know.


The reason Im not listing very specific topics is to avoid 'yes' and 'no' answers but to allow them to iterate and expand on it.

That being said, there is something about the crimewatch up there in the OP.

Upstarting Blogger: Ormehullet Guides and more is coming
Tobiaz
Spacerats
#22 - 2012-05-22 09:15:04 UTC
Ammzi wrote:
What was the reason for changing the war dec mechanics in this way as to only remove the exploitation and not further enhance it to limit pure griefing war declaration?

I'd much rather have seen a "capture the flag" scenario that allowed one party of the war to engage hostile "war" assets in highsec when the wartargets would rather dock up then confront their fleet thus allowing one side to completely remove the war after a certain amount of time (call it reinforcement timer after shooting the war asset) if the other wartargets didn't show up the following day to defend their war asset.

This would in so many beautiful ways increase the amount of proper war engagements one would have in highsec instead of each side picking of random stragglers from the other's alliance.

High sec wars are still broken, especially with CCP's failure at actually removing neutral/non-neutral station/stargate hugging logistics in Inferno and rather wait for next release..... pfff


War shouldn't become 'capture the flag'. For the sandbox to work, war objectives should remain as much meta-gaming possible and the only 'proper' war isn't one that isn't proper at all.

Operation WRITE DOWN ALL THE THINGS!!!  Check out the list at http://bit.ly/wdatt Collecting and compiling all fixes and ideas for EVE. Looking for more editors!
Ammzi
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#23 - 2012-05-22 09:19:23 UTC
Tobiaz wrote:

War shouldn't become 'capture the flag'. For the sandbox to work, war objectives should remain as much meta-gaming possible and the only 'proper' war isn't one that isn't proper at all.


I'd rather have real pew pew than fake pew pew even if that includes some artificial war assets structure that CONCORD have set up for us to have a brawl on.
I am sick and tired of docking games and quite despicable logistics.

I am tired of having to hide and divide my fleets in different systems as to ambush the hostiles and I am tired of them running away when their 6 neutral scouts have confirmed our location and that they MIGHT lose this battle.
I want them to either man up and fight or remove their war and tell them to go home and find someone they actually might have a shot at.
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#24 - 2012-05-22 09:19:48 UTC
That's some real passive aggressive questioning right there.

The wishlist is pretty much complete...
Elzon1
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#25 - 2012-05-22 09:21:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Elzon1
Back during Dominion a bottleneck was created in terms of technetium and the players warned of this happening. CCP went ahead with this change and as a result major alliances used technetium moons as a source of passive income supplying the tech 2 market with technetium. Recently a cartel (OTEC) has formed to take full advantage of this situation. This bottleneck was created by CCP and has been rumored to have cause stagnation in nullsec (0.0 space) as well as effecting the tech 2 market as a whole. Are they any plans in motion to alleviate this situation and if so what are they? Has r32 alchemy been considered?

There are plans to release quite a few new modules and yet some aren't in the initial inferno release. Will these modules be released all at once during a semi-major patch day or as they are available for release? Are there any plans for new modules beyond these new 16? What would be your favorite kind of module and why? If you would be able to create any module to be released into the game what would it be?

It has been noted that the new "lockbreaker" module can be used on marauders, why was this decision made? Are there any buffs coming to marauders in terms of pvp capability?
Malcom Vincent
Generic Alt Corporation 421
#26 - 2012-05-22 09:23:11 UTC
Rek Seven wrote:
That's some real passive aggressive questioning right there.


We'll avoid that so that we can keep a good line of communication open with the team for more future interviews.

If you spotted something in the OP, please let me know.

Upstarting Blogger: Ormehullet Guides and more is coming
Malcom Vincent
Generic Alt Corporation 421
#27 - 2012-05-22 09:27:45 UTC
Elzon1 wrote:
Back during Dominion a bottleneck was created in terms of technetium and the players warned of this happening. CCP went ahead with this change and as a result major alliances used technetium moons as a source of passive income supplying the tech 2 market with technetium. Recently a cartel (OTEC) has formed to take full advantage of this situation. This bottleneck was created by CCP and has been rumored to have cause stagnation in nullsec (0.0 space) as well as effecting the tech 2 market as a whole. Are they any plans in motion to alleviate this situation and if so what are they? Has r32 alchemy been considered?

There are plans to release quite a few new modules and yet some aren't in the initial inferno release. Will these modules be released all at once during a semi-major patch day or as they are available for release? Are there any plans for new modules beyond these new 16? What would be your favorite kind of module and why? If you would be able to create any module to be released into the game what would it be?

It has been noted that the new "lockbreaker" module can be used on marauders, why was this decision made? Are there any buffs coming to marauders in terms of pvp capability?


Niceone.

Added moongoo to question 4. Will type out the module observations as a new one.

Upstarting Blogger: Ormehullet Guides and more is coming
Malcom Vincent
Generic Alt Corporation 421
#28 - 2012-05-22 09:45:28 UTC
Hmm.

Need moar UI questions!

Upstarting Blogger: Ormehullet Guides and more is coming
Jace Errata
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#29 - 2012-05-22 10:11:17 UTC
Can I just clarify my artillery question- I'm referring to the cross-section of the barrels, rather than the entire turret.

And for a UI question....

- When will we see sleek, polished, OS*-style looks for the UI? Currently it's all Windows 95 plain squares.



*Modern OS...

tweeten

One day they woke me up so I could live forever

It's such a shame the same will never happen to you
Malcom Vincent
Generic Alt Corporation 421
#30 - 2012-05-22 10:13:16 UTC
Jace Errata wrote:
Can I just clarify my artillery question- I'm referring to the cross-section of the barrels, rather than the entire turret.

And for a UI question....

- When will we see sleek, polished, OS*-style looks for the UI? Currently it's all Windows 95 plain squares.



*Modern OS...


Lol, I gathered as much Big smile

I'll see if I can find a graphic ingame to complement that one Lol

Upstarting Blogger: Ormehullet Guides and more is coming
Jace Errata
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#31 - 2012-05-22 10:15:06 UTC
Malcom Vincent wrote:
I'll see if I can find a graphic ingame to complement that one Lol

One of the more obvious ones is 250mm artillery. :helpful:

tweeten

One day they woke me up so I could live forever

It's such a shame the same will never happen to you
Sarah Schneider
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#32 - 2012-05-22 10:28:39 UTC
Malcom Vincent wrote:
Hmm.

Need moar UI questions!


Some players were concerned that CCP is more focused on improving the eyecandy aspect of the UI instead of their functionality and usability, also some were worried that since CCP never brought this up before, that they have no idea on how to 'fix' (or to improve) the current and possibly future UI panels to a more user-centric design,

One example would be, does CCP have any plans for mashing up (or improving) and reducing the screen consumption by the following panels/windows : overview, drones, fleet + fleet broadcasts, watchlist, locked targets and selected object? or are they gonna leave it as it is now or perhaps just go with the eyecandy fix instead.

These concerns were raised due from the recent release of the "EVE UI - Past, Present, Future & Fantasy Trailer" which displays (or in a sense, represents) the way they view UI improvements as to make them "prettier" and futuristic, instead of addressing the issue of user usability, reducing screen usage, effective relaying of information and ergonomic design improvements.

"I'd rather have other players get shot by other players than not interacting with others" -CCP Soundwave
ITTigerClawIK
Galactic Rangers
#33 - 2012-05-22 10:57:48 UTC
Q for the guys doing ship teiricide.

only 5 frigates were overhauled for inferno and so far they are looking good, we also heard that the ship balancing team could only do 5 cause they were doing some other important project, id like to ask what could be more important than the compleate overhaul of the Tech 1 ship hulls and the removal of the teir system?
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#34 - 2012-05-22 11:08:37 UTC
I don't feel that eve's UI is neither functionally adequate or aesthetically pleasing. I think the UI needs an expansion dedicated to it instead of the current iterative approach which, although adds needed fixes, it adds additional problems (e.g. New UI scaling with vertically aligned targets). If you could ask something to that effect, that would be nice.

Do they have plans for an industry/harvesting expansion that may include changes to mining mechanics, a new dedicated gas mining ship, a T3 industrial ship or buffs to existing industrial ships (e.g. Hulks)? With the moon goo changes, i thing miners should have a ship capable of entering hostile space and have a good chance of avoiding or defending itself from hostiles, and then extracting the resources he wants quickly. This would be an ideal role of a T3 industrial.

The wishlist is pretty much complete...
Malcom Vincent
Generic Alt Corporation 421
#35 - 2012-05-22 11:36:35 UTC
There are plenty of hints towards some mining rebalance being in the cards, so lets leave it up to them to dive into that topic shall we?

Added some of the last questions to the OP.

Since its now 13:37 here in Denmark I feel its a good time to close the topic.

Upstarting Blogger: Ormehullet Guides and more is coming
Tobiaz
Spacerats
#36 - 2012-05-22 11:45:31 UTC
As a fellow journalist, please allow me to edit some of your questions Smile

Malcom Vincent wrote:
Im prepping a new interview for the coming month with CCP employees.

I'll close this thread in a few hours, so if you have questions to ask. List them now.


Rough draft below...
(places where 'you' is used, its used in the generic sense of the word)

Art team

  1. Please share the decisions that made the team move away from asymmetric ship design?
    2. Question: "Can CCP explain the reasoning for moving away from asymmetric ship designs and does it feel this move is fully supported by the community?"

  2. Have anything changed since you reached those conclusions, or do you still not like 'awkward'?
    3. (Unclear question)

  3. Can you dive into some of the decisions concerning the T2 ship designs? What kind of changes can we expect to see?
    4. Question: "Recently implemented and updated T2 ships have become simple T1 reskins without unique T2 bits added to their model. Most recent victim the Curse that lost its antennae. Is this what the community can expect for all T2 ships in the future, or will all eventually get a Stealth-Bomber-like revamp?"

  4. Please explain the logic of rectangular turrets.
    5. (Unclear question, better describe the issue of 'rectangular turrets' and asking for 'logic' is a bit awkward)

  5. Some players feel that the current V3 skins are 'blurry', do you intend on adding higher resolution skins?
    6. Question: "Even with the new V3 skins, players feel that the textures of large ships like the Apocalypse remain blurry. Will CCP increase these texture-sizes in the future?


Game Design

  1. Can you share some of the issues or reasons that made you increase the cost of Jump Fuel? Has it affected anything you didn't intend to?
    2. (There has been no nerf to fuel-consumption for Jump-mechanics, only a small one to bridges I think.)

    More accurate question: "The excessive power-projection and logistical capabilities of null-alliances are seen by many in the community as very problematic. The Technetium-cartel effortlessly protecting its many moons, drone regions JF flooding empire with cheap minerals, and bored capital-pilots hot-dropping anyone that tries to establish himself in low-sec. Will CCP consider an increase in fuel consumption for jump&bridge mechanics so the price-tag makes it only viable for alliance-level strategic operations?


  2. There are still some features that didn't make it to this patch (crimewatch, unified inventory etc). While the new launcher gives you the opportunity to release new features faster than before, can we expect to see the expanded features released on a case by case basis or do you intend to release those at a later date as a bulk update?
    3. "There are still some features like the Ally contracts and Tiercide ships, that were intended to make it to Inferno. Will these, together with updates to the unified inventory and crimewatch updates be released as they become available, or will they be bundled together as another Escalation-like 'post-cursor' content update?"

  3. Character customization options lists jumpclones as one of the fields where players can build different characters within their account by training for it, adding individual implants that fit into specific roles with specific ships potentially adding up to 14 different character builds. How do you see this playing out in the long run, will it still float?
    4. Question: "Jumpclones are currently used by the players mostly as a tool to avoid the consequences of their choice in implants. Cheating on 'don't fly what you can't afford to lose' by keeping expensive attribute-implants safe in a jumpclone, and maintaining multiple clones with hardwire-implants, min-max tailored for different roles. Is this isn't 'working as intended', what measures will CCP take against this?"


  4. To iterate on the above questions; The Inferno patch aimed at increasing conflict, but there are still a large number of players that have easy access to risk-free travel across New Eden - essentially giving these players little reason to ever put themselves at risk even while living in Null-sec as well as being able to safely transport moon goo to trade hubs. Do you intend to wrangle the safety out of these players at some point and returning EVE to hard mode? I'd imagine that living in Null would be ... you know ... dangerous? Players hint at removing local could help. Would you agree?
    5. (Local doesn't influence null-logistics, those all go through risk-free bridge-networks, jumpfreighters and cloaky&nullified T3.)

    Question: "Inferno will encourage a lot of increased fighting in high-sec and low-sec empire. But many people in null feel that the 'perfect intel' from the local channel keeps them from having more good fights as well. This issue is almost as old as the game itself, will CCP finally take steps towards reducing the tactical influence of local in null?"

  5. The current path of iterating on ship training routes and fixing training paths into specific patterns and bundling it up with iteration on ships only really points to one thing when you regard the recent removal of the Amarr frigate mining bonus. Are you prepared to disclose the reason at this point or is it still too early?
    6. (Unclear question. Points at what?)

  6. Inferno seemed to be aimed at high-sec warfare (FW and corp wars). Alot of bugs and issues were fixed, but it would seem that there are still things you can do to enhance it. Is it a done deal or do you plan on adding more to it?
    7. Question: "Inferno is aimed at increasing conflict in empire space. We know Ally Contracts are coming, but can CCP hint at some other wardec-features coming in the future?"

Operation WRITE DOWN ALL THE THINGS!!!  Check out the list at http://bit.ly/wdatt Collecting and compiling all fixes and ideas for EVE. Looking for more editors!
Tobiaz
Spacerats
#37 - 2012-05-22 11:45:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Tobiaz
Malcom Vincent wrote:

  • New modules were released and it looks like more is coming. Have there been any major concerns as to the intended design of the modules and how they play into the intricate EVE Economy? Do you see any concerns for Mudflation? Will you release them on a case-by-case basis as they get tested out on Sisi or in bulk? Can you share your thoughts as to what made you decide on which modules to ad? Can you expand on the decisions that went into the 'Lockbreaker' module?
    • (Too many questions, make up your mind. Some are already answered in the dev blog.)

    Best question: "Could CCP explain their reasoning of why they felt the game needed a 'Lockbreaker' module and in what situation then envision it to be used? Many players in the feedback comment about it being useless for large fleet battles because of considerably increased locking time.

  • What do you have in store for Marauders? And what about them ORE ships?
    • (How 'bout them? Lol

    Question: "Marauders have been thoroughly displaced in their PvE role by the Pirate battleships and T3 cruisers. Is CCP planning to restore Marauders to their respectful purpose, careful not to trip over excessive powercreep, or will Tiercide bring completely new roles to this expensive class of ships?"

    Question: "Has CCP future ideas about improving the line of ORE ships to better protect itself against empire gankers, perhaps at the cost of some ore-yield efficiency? Or can we expect to see some additions to the Noctis-line?"
    [/list]


    Management


    1. Recently, CCP employees has taken over the RP postings which was usually handled by the ISD's; Interstellar Correspondents (Team IC). Do you need more voluntary applicants for this team and are there other ISD teams you need populated again?
      2. Question: "Recently, CCP employees has taken over the RP postings which was usually handled by the ISD's; Interstellar Correspondents (Team IC), are there any ISD teams that are really in need for some volunteers from the community?"


    2. You recently downsized the team somewhat. Since Fanfest you seem to have been on track when it comes to EVE Online though. I imagine it was a painfull decision to make; was it worth it?
      3. (Get ready for a PR-pitch...)

    3. A few months ago CCP Ytterbium was assigned to readress skills vs ship lines. Recently he was tasked to FW though. Why isn't he finalizing the progress? Is the art team not ready with the next line of ships? How did the work turn out in the end? Is he satisfied, is the team?
      4. (CCP Ytterbium's tiercide doesn't touch the actual model-design, so the art team isn't involved. And what work exactly should he be satisfied about?)

    Dust 514


    1. Since Beta is well underway; what are some of the major hurdles you've encountered so far in terms of community, game play and the tech involved? Can you share the thoughts that was put into the realization of executing a successfull planetary bombardment?
      2. (Asking EVE-devs for Dust info, is not likely to get you anything useful)

    Operation WRITE DOWN ALL THE THINGS!!!  Check out the list at http://bit.ly/wdatt Collecting and compiling all fixes and ideas for EVE. Looking for more editors!
    Malcom Vincent
    Generic Alt Corporation 421
    #38 - 2012-06-15 12:52:21 UTC
    We've recieved the first part of the interview back, with answers on Game Design from CCP Soundwave.

    Waiting for more before compiling.

    Upstarting Blogger: Ormehullet Guides and more is coming
    Ciar Meara
    PIE Inc.
    Khimi Harar
    #39 - 2012-06-15 12:59:00 UTC
    Tobiaz wrote:
    Malcom Vincent wrote:
    Im prepping a new interview for the coming month with CCP employees.

    I'll close this thread in a few hours, so if you have questions to ask. List them now.


    If you speak any art devs, ask them why they are totally moving away from asymmetric ship models (updates Scorpion, almost every new Caldari ship since Trinity, planned hideous Imicus model) and are also removing unique T2 models (Sacrilege, Crane, Curse).

    You can also look here for ideas: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SyqOQ09grn4n-JoKm7h9701p9GIRNcW6e1BQG_ZfCSE/edit

    edit: the Condor is also up for a planned symmetry fix, and I bet the Raptor and the Crow will lose their T2 model-parts.


    What is this heresy! I will not stand for it, all things in life are assymmetric and thus it shall remain so!

    Dear GOD!

    - [img]http://go-dl1.eve-files.com/media/corp/janus/ceosig.jpg[/img] [yellow]English only please. Zymurgist[/yellow]
    Tanya Powers
    Doomheim
    #40 - 2012-06-15 13:24:54 UTC
    CCP Ybert...thingstuffzIcan'tspellz Cry and his team did a great job with T1 frigates, some could use a little more of this or that but overall they did exactly what we are asking for ages.

    I would like to know if new destroyers implementation (T1 versions of course) could possibly be Navy versions witch would bring some more variety in Navy versions but over this it could give younger and older players great ship basis for more stuff thx to ship stats increase significantly like all Navy ships versions.

    Are there plans to introduce at some point new pirate/navy version ships?

    -Carrier (no super or Titan)
    -Dreadnaught
    -Battlecruiser command ships
    -destroyers
    -logistics
    -reccons

    Black Ops: are there any plans to make them more persistent in the war scheme?

    -shouldn't jump bridges be limited even more, just like Titan bridging to make Black Ops something desirable in your fleets?

    -better bridging bonus, fuel bay, fuel consumption (without of course replace JB's and Titan bridging by Black Ops)

    Marauders: plans about marauders changes?

    -silly sensor strength
    -sillier tractor beam bonus
    -bonus changes so it can fit capital guns and maybe siege?

    Drones:
    -drones UI - AI
    -sentry changes = make them follow the ship but tracking penalty while moving

    While we're at it: Dominix new model ? (I get sick each time I look at it)

    THA GRID

    -plans on changes for this pesky window wasting my screen?
    Previous page123Next page