These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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 Meeting Minutes - Summer 2012

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Dersen Lowery
The Scope
#121 - 2012-08-03 00:24:07 UTC
Read to the end. Good stuff. Thanks for all the hard work, guys. I liked the long read. I also liked the presentation of the first meeting as dialog so that we can "hear" the various conferees, followed by summary + key quotes for the rest of the report.

When you got toe Gallente battleships I was looking forward to seeing what you were thinking about the Dominix. Nothing, apparently. Ah, well.

I laughed at the huge redaction of all specific Incarna content. CCP are obviously terrified of raising expectations about that again.

Also, please do the cloaky POS with a jump drive. That is way too cool.

Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.

I voted in CSM X!
Sven Viko VIkolander
In space we are briefly free
#122 - 2012-08-03 00:27:22 UTC
Here's a fact: gate camping is boring and cyno is too easy. The heart of low sec pvp is small gang (as in 2-5 people) and solo, and fostering gate camps, if anything, are a way to discourage low sec small/solo pvp and a way to encourage blobs. If sentry gun changes would make is easier for people to get into low sec, then this might improve pvp there--since more people coming in means more targets, esp. for soloers that will scan them down and do the hard work of killing them.

Capitol One
Blue Canary
Watch This
#123 - 2012-08-03 00:27:37 UTC
Kaycerra wrote:
Capitol One wrote:
Fon Revedhort wrote:
Typherian wrote:
Completely agree with this. Thank you CCP for buffing the blob again. As it stands a triage carry is one of the only ways for a small group to fight a far larger group. Making gate guns a threat to the triage is simply ********. If this goes through its going to turn lowsec into the stupid blob fest that is 0.0 (or just make it even more empty)

What prevents a far larger group from using a triage carrier as well? I can't even be sure whether the latter one wasn't more common.

It's lame, you can replace a carrier with whatever else and it still would make as much sense - that is, none. Falcons allow to fight outnumbered, Anciliary shield boosters allow to fight outnumbered, nano allows to fight outnumbered etc. We've heard all of this.

What really promotes small groups is emphasis on skill-demandant things, like current positioning/MWDing.


Let's say you have a 10 man Pirate BS gang fighting on a gate. They can't in a Triage because "LOL GATEGUNS U DEAD", They bring in 10 pantheon carriers. Actually the battleships would probably die still, so they would just bring 30 pantheon carriers.

As cool as carriers are, that would completely invalidate any other pirate engagement on a gate.

I'm so sad panda Sad


Your previous post made a lot of sense. This one?

"Lets say you have a 10 man gang. They cant do X, so they bring 30 ships"

I knew right there, that no thought was put into this.


Oversimplified scenario making. My point was that a 10 man BS gang with Triage would die to gateguns in a fire. So I made the point of instead of dropping a single Triage, a group like that would be forced to deploy several Pantheon carriers.

In other words, more blob instead of smaller sized fleets to counter the overwhelming dps of gateguns.
Issler Dainze
Tadakastu-Obata Corporation
The Honda Accord
#124 - 2012-08-03 00:31:34 UTC
So I am very happy these are out. I wanted to offer the observation that I think the player base would be very happy with the folks they elected to the CSM 7 if you could see the session videos. The sessions were very well run and I think very productive.

I know the minutes are pretty long but it was what we all promised this election. You now know who thinks what and I believe that will be very useful should some of the CSM 7 choose to run again.

For me all of the CSM 7 members were new to me and I didn't know at first what to expect, but after working with them and especially seeing the quality of their interaction with CCP at the summit I think the CSM 7 is the best to date. I hope you see that in these minutes.

Now if we can just get all the cool stuff talked about into the game! Big smile

Issler
Kaycerra
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#125 - 2012-08-03 00:32:56 UTC
Capitol One wrote:
Kaycerra wrote:
Capitol One wrote:
Fon Revedhort wrote:
Typherian wrote:
Completely agree with this. Thank you CCP for buffing the blob again. As it stands a triage carry is one of the only ways for a small group to fight a far larger group. Making gate guns a threat to the triage is simply ********. If this goes through its going to turn lowsec into the stupid blob fest that is 0.0 (or just make it even more empty)

What prevents a far larger group from using a triage carrier as well? I can't even be sure whether the latter one wasn't more common.

It's lame, you can replace a carrier with whatever else and it still would make as much sense - that is, none. Falcons allow to fight outnumbered, Anciliary shield boosters allow to fight outnumbered, nano allows to fight outnumbered etc. We've heard all of this.

What really promotes small groups is emphasis on skill-demandant things, like current positioning/MWDing.


Let's say you have a 10 man Pirate BS gang fighting on a gate. They can't in a Triage because "LOL GATEGUNS U DEAD", They bring in 10 pantheon carriers. Actually the battleships would probably die still, so they would just bring 30 pantheon carriers.

As cool as carriers are, that would completely invalidate any other pirate engagement on a gate.

I'm so sad panda Sad


Your previous post made a lot of sense. This one?

"Lets say you have a 10 man gang. They cant do X, so they bring 30 ships"

I knew right there, that no thought was put into this.


Oversimplified scenario making. My point was that a 10 man BS gang with Triage would die to gateguns in a fire. So I made the point of instead of dropping a single Triage, a group like that would be forced to deploy several Pantheon carriers.

In other words, more blob instead of smaller sized fleets to counter the overwhelming dps of gateguns.


Indeed, it does force a trade off, but then, they have a greater risk involved too, but I see what you mean, and do tend to agree, that it steers, or forces combat, into a more niche set of scenarios, rather than allowing as much diversity.
Yeep
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#126 - 2012-08-03 00:39:59 UTC
Fon Revedhort wrote:

Quote:
>> Hot-drops are too easy - I think we're reaching a place where there's a broad consensus on this being not a cool outcome for everyone except the guy jumping in.

Posted - 2011.05.12 16:01:00

So?..


As someone who was on both sides of a capital hot drop back when the capacitor penalty from jumping in actually meant something I'd be sad to see the element of suprise disappear. However I would agree that the pentalties for the aggressor need to be adjusted given the availability of T2 and the size of capital fleets.
Klarion Sythis
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#127 - 2012-08-03 00:47:37 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:

Klarion Sythis wrote:
On POS changes, I wish that were a much higher priority for CCP, but the transcript allowed me to see that the CSM agreed and voiced that opinion. The POS changes sound very exciting overall, but still several concerns to sort such as small POSes being used to create fortess systems with 2 week timers in W-Space. That would make invasions excruciatingly boring and time consuming. Docking in POSes would represent a significant loss in intel for W-Space if there weren't still some way to count pilots or ships. Cloaking POSes would be...interesting.


If the minutes are somehow giving you the impression that starbases aren't a high priority, then there's some miscommunication going on. They're a big damn job to do and they need a lot of runway to get them right, but we're working on it as fast as we can.

I don't doubt it's still a high priority, but many had hoped that this was underway rather than in the idea stages after reading about POS revamps in Seleene's blog. Anyone who uses POSes frequently or has seen one go Skynet should also understand the amount of work that creating a new system represents, so if it's just in the idea stages, so be it and we'll appreciate the time and effort taken to do it right.

The impression of priority came from seeing the feature list of the Winter Expansion and again, many had hoped for a 'money shot' feature as Seleene put it. If Tech or Sov had been on the list then that would seem like something to base an expansion on. Afterall, it was stated that the team that would work on the POSes is currently working on Crimewatch instead.

The Inferno release was aimed at high sec, FW, and mercenaries so it seemed like the expansion could be a big win for some groups whose needs could easily be overlooked. I can dig that. If the crimewatch and contract systems need some work because they're old and need revamping, I'll at least understand, but I just can't get excited about that unless it were paired with a higher profile feature.

The features of the Winter Expansion just seemed "meh" and bigger and more excited things are being put on the back burner for it. Maybe these features are a lot more exciting to other people, but that's where my impression came from.
Alx Warlord
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#128 - 2012-08-03 00:48:16 UTC
I read all the pages and I got to say that it was a good meeting and things are going to the right direction!!!

I can't wait to see the future!!!!

Keep the good work CCP and CSM!!!!

Please read these!

New POS system New SOV system
Omega Tron
Edge Dancers
Pan-Intergalatic Business Community
#129 - 2012-08-03 00:49:27 UTC
I just picked up the CSM7 meeting minutes on download after I got off work today. I have just gotten up to page 9 and already this is the best CSM/CCP document of a summit meeting that has been produced in the last five years. Please don't take another 5 years now to do this again. In these 9 pages I've laugh about 5 times and had a dozen serious thoughts about the ideas of the exposure of the real person or the EVE Avatar. So I sure hope this continues. The wait has been worth it for this product -- good work everyone.

Finally just to add my 2 ISKs in -- I vote for the person and what they say they will represent from the players to CCP. I don't vote for an EVE Avatar.

CCP's sand box is EVE Online.  The sand is owned by CCP.  We pay them a monthly fee to throw the sand at each other.  That is all that is here, so move along. Nothing more to be seen.
DarthNefarius
Minmatar Heavy Industries
#130 - 2012-08-03 01:21:30 UTC  |  Edited by: DarthNefarius
CSM_minutes wrote:

CSM & CCP Meeting minutes, May 30th – 1st June 2012
Page 87 of 165
Soundwave sheepishly mentioned CCP broke incursions and showed the CSM a graph depicting the drop off in incursions activity. There were many “Ohhh snaps” around the table. Ripard Teg’s
analysis of incursion activity pre/post patch was mentioned by the CSM. The massive drop off of Vanguard sites was praised since they were relatively risk-free ISK.
Two step compared Incursion sites to WH sites and how quickly players de-risked both types of content. “That one with the frigates…you’d have to work to die in that."
Soundwave pointed out that people do die in incursions at rates higher than some other kinds of PvE content. He felt the main driver of incursions was social in nature, and the group PvE that the incursion sites provided was a good thing. The loss of it made him “a little bit sad” so fixes to de-nerf incursions would come out in June.

Soundwave also wants to take a look at the LP store to make them more of an ISK sink, possibly giving people a way to cut around tags in offers by spending more ISK.
UAxDEATH would like to know how any of that related to null sec,


If CSM was supposed to be about damage control it failed the Incursion community without any comments helpfull here.
The June 'rollback' was a farce and I tend to think the outcry about the OTAs in CCP Affinity's DEV blog was the only real usefull feedback which will result in any help to the dying Incursion communities...
I like to reiteriate the last sentence I quoted I think that appropriately shows the CSM7's view of HI SEC:
" UAxDEATH would like to know how any of that related to null sec,"

Thanks very much CCP Affinity for the Incursion changes of Inferno 1.2 thank you for nothing CSM7
An' then Chicken@little.com, he come scramblin outta the    Terminal room screaming "The system's crashing! The system's    crashing!" -Uncle RAMus, 'Tales for Cyberpsychotic Children'
Ztnef
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#131 - 2012-08-03 01:34:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Ztnef
Quote:
CCP Greyscale moves on to explain his work on sentry guns. Sentry guns will now shoot anyone with a criminal flag, suspect or otherwise. Sentry guns will also start with smaller amounts of damage, and ramp up with time. Ideal tuning will be to where triage carriers will die at around 4 1/2 minutes. This way, if you want to use triage carriers in lowsec on gates you can, but you must commit to the cycle for a length of time before starting your reps, if you want to deactivate triage before the sentry guns kill you and jump out. CCP Greyscale also points out that another goal is to make it so that the first couple of hits won't kill an interceptor immediately, enabling a quick tackle, and then a warp out.


Since a typical triage carrier can tank roughly 20k dps and gate guns can kill it in "4 and a half minutes" this would mean that gate guns would be able to one shot ships which are non capitals in 3 mins? This would be due to perfect tracking and would cause low sec fights to rarely occur. Instead of buffing the damage on gate guns or making the damage increase over time why not make gate guns have tracking and factor in sig radius. This would allow frig pvp to occur without the full dps of gate guns.
Warde Guildencrantz
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#132 - 2012-08-03 01:38:55 UTC
It would be nice if some talk about lowsec piracy could be had at future meetings.

Where is our pod-scanner that can tell us what implants a ransom target has so we can toll them accordingly?

About the new gate gun setup:

What about the pirates who enjoy low sec fleet ops? Do we get screwed if we shoot ANYONE on a gate since gate guns will just continue to increase their damage until they volley each of our fleets ships one by one? Do you really need to put such a constraint on pirate warfare? Is being -10 that bad? The gate guns should start off weak, and end up as they currently are. Otherwise, you will just steal all potential for non-camping ops from pirates. We will be forced to ONLY camp and not stay on gates for long because anything we shoot will get us the carrier-popping gate guns and we would have to leave gate after a minute or two (which is normal of a camp, but on an OP we just can't do anything?)

TunDraGon ~ Low sec piracy since 2003 ~ Youtube ~ Join Us
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
#133 - 2012-08-03 01:58:03 UTC
The good:
* Transparency on who said what, particularly CSM positions on issues. (Didn't need to include banter and jokes though)
* That CCP thinks off grid boosting shouldn't exist.
* POS ideas show promise

The bad:

I could write a lot here, but really it comes down to CCP not really demonstrating a vision for EVE that I can be even remotely excited about. Selene made some suggestions regarding RP and events that sounded good, but CCP Sisyphus immediately jumps in saying they don't want to inconvenience players that don't want to be involved in events. This just reaffirms my belief that much of CCP consciously or unconsciously are primarily trying to make EVE appealing to Themepark/WoW type MMO gamers, and in the course of doing that they will lose players like me.
Tanaka Aiko
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#134 - 2012-08-03 01:58:17 UTC
finished !

what was the more strange while reading this was that there's good jokes inside :P
Granix Uvelian
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#135 - 2012-08-03 02:01:49 UTC
Posting in WIN thread to verify that I indeed made it to the end of EPIC pdf.

Thank you CSM and CCP for agreeing to post the minutes 'as stated' instead of condensed. It gives a better understanding of the flow of the conversations and context of various points than prior minutes did.

Super excited for the new POS proposals and 2013 in general. I would echo that Winter 2012 is looking a little weak for FiS, and appears (on the surface) more key to DUST development than anything else. I can understand that considering the desire to push DUST out the door in 2012. Just saying that EVE winter 2012 is looking a little 'light'.

But hey, gotta leave 'em wantin' more.

Agree that 3rd party developers could help you a lot more with corp management if you push CREST out the door sooner. The EVE community has some of the best web developers I've seen when they get their minds focused on a particular game feature. From marketing tools to intel or asset management we have a wide variety of options as players. The only thing they lack... the ability to actually accomplish specific in-game tasks.

I can fiddle with a 3rd party market program designed for EVE, but if I still have to manually click through hundreds of orders.... boring... just sayin'.

Thanks again for a great read.

True warrior signing out.

G
Tuscor
13.
#136 - 2012-08-03 02:19:16 UTC
Not a big fan of the 'Arena PVP' idea!

Doesn't it fly in the face of the sandbox concept, and wont it deduct from the real hunting and tackling type pvp out in 'real space'. World PVP in WoW suffered hugely when Arenas and battlegrounds were implemented, it would suck for something similar to happen here.

We have RvB, we have 1v1s on offer. Nothing stops people from arranging more of this type of thing.

Arena pvp always feels kind of set up and cheap compared to the real thing.
Gilbaron
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#137 - 2012-08-03 02:35:37 UTC
i am more than a bit worried about the dust514 part, this does not sound like the game should be launched anytime soon :(
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#138 - 2012-08-03 02:55:19 UTC
not sure why the incarna prototype is nda i watched a video about it a few months ago...

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

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#139 - 2012-08-03 02:56:20 UTC
Tuscor wrote:
Not a big fan of the 'Arena PVP' idea!

Doesn't it fly in the face of the sandbox concept, and wont it deduct from the real hunting and tackling type pvp out in 'real space'. World PVP in WoW suffered hugely when Arenas and battlegrounds were implemented, it would suck for something similar to happen here.

We have RvB, we have 1v1s on offer. Nothing stops people from arranging more of this type of thing.

Arena pvp always feels kind of set up and cheap compared to the real thing.



i think arena is a dirty word... but saying concord sanctioned player vrs player contracts sounds move eveish...

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

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
Bloodpetal
Tir Capital Management Group
#140 - 2012-08-03 03:02:59 UTC

@ CCP


LIKES ::

New POS'!
New Crimewatch (90% of it)
Balancing Efforts!
Technetium Balance!
NPE Content!



Unhappy Discussion ISSUES ::
Escalating Sentry Gun DPS
POS Force Fields
Arenas with Betting


Escalating Sentry Gun DPS ::
I really don't have a clue why you want to do this. At first I thought it was to make Gate camping more viable in Low Sec with the lower DPS at the start. But when I thought about it, I just don't understand the GOAL of this? Please explain.


POS Force Fields ::
Please remove them. Make them an anchorable item like you suggested please. This makes them more viable in a large scale. The creation of Jumpable POS' that can be combat fit + anchorable force fields would radically change 0.0 warfare for the better IMHO. The dynamic will be less focused on MOONS, MOONS, MOONS, and become a more intricate weave of positioning and logistics based on already created tactics, but now decouple from the arbitrary limitations of a moon.


Arenas With Betting ::
Eh, this really is trouncing onto the Sandbox hard core. Let players take up the challenges of these kinds of things. You're just taking player content away. Find ways to enable players, not just feed some PVP addiction.




Where I am.