These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Lili Lu
#221 - 2012-08-03 17:54:28 UTC
rogueclone2 wrote:
Centurax wrote:
Ship Balancing

    . . .
  • Drakes: Dont break the Drake, how about a different way of looking at it if the Drake is so good make the other ships as good as it, instead of making a good ship unusable Big smile
  • . . .


Big smile


what this man said right here is good an also the part about SAVE THE DRAKE AttentionAttention


Drake addict tears fuel me.Smile I am looking forward to much more gnashing of teeth and pulling of hair as the day approaches when the BC for all purposes and more, finally has it's reign as the most overused ship in the game end.

You can cry about how whatever alterations are done to the ship and/or its weapon system will make it "unusable" or you can adjust to the reality that the ship will still be usable it just won't be overusable. The sooner you types move on to acceptance the better it will be for you and less your tears will fuel my admittedly sad thirst for them. My enjoyment of your fear and rage though is only proportional to the YEARS that this problem has festered in the game.

Also, there will be new fotm ships created by the rebalancing team as they fail to anticipate what players will be able to figure out in combining modules and ships. Hopefully as those become apparent the balancing team will move much more quickly than letting one ship top the eve-kill usuage stats by a 2 or 3 to 1 margin over the second place ship for litterally years.
Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#222 - 2012-08-03 17:57:42 UTC
BlankStare wrote:
Posted my opinion of the Dust/EVE session on the Dust forums: https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=232811#post232811

You need to be in the beta to see it but it basically boils down to:

  • The lack of decent grouping/social tools in Dust is worrying
  • That Corporations are not yet implemented and apparently still in the conceptual phase is very, very worrying
  • That the CSM hasn't pushed the inclusion of these tools [b]as a very high priority[b] is deeply worrying.


In EVE, the players and their interactions are the game. That in Dust such interaction is not going to be possible (it would seem) from release leaves me doubting whether Dust will ever be considered as being as important a part of New Eden's society as EVE is.

I have grave concerns that CCP is not serious about Dust being a success.


Maybe this was lost in the minutes creation process, but this is just patently untrue. Many of us made it very clear that social interaction needs to be up and running in a concrete form on launch day, and I sincerely doubt CCP would debut Dust 514 without this.

I know some of the discussion details (anything remotely touching release schedules) were withheld because of NDA considerations (Even commenting on the lack of a feature in the beta could be construed as breaking NDA, so be careful what you post here in EVE forums), but this is certainly not an issue the CSM is ignoring by any means.

The beta is just that, beta. CCP has said all along that much functionality is already built into the game and waiting to be "unlocked", so I think we need to take the beta with a grain of salt and not panic because its not where we'd like to see it quite yet.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary

Centurax
CSR Engineering Solutions
Citizen's Star Republic
#223 - 2012-08-03 17:58:39 UTC
Marconus Orion wrote:
Centurax wrote:
Blackops Battleships: At this point the best change that could be made to them is let them use covert ops cloaks.

NO!!!!

Slapping a covert ops cloak on a ships is not a way to 'fix' it. Not only would it send that ship well beyond in the the over powered zone, it would hardly give it a role. There is far too much cloaking going on in this game to begin with. I would much rather see local gone and the black ops battleship have something special about it to give a small fleet a slight advantage over a larger fleet to enable it to do some damage to the blob or something.

Really tired of this 'slap a covert cloak on it to fix it' mentality.


Firstly it is not a mentality that I have that the covertops cloak will fix the ship, I perhaps could have chosen my words better or added a bit more explanation, but as far as any ship class it is the one change that is probably most requested, is that Blackops should have always had Covert ops cloaks.

But that aside, I agree that there are many issues with Blackops battleships, but could someone clarify what they think makes them so overpowered, because I personally think they could do with a bit more of a damage boost, make them more like covert ops Marauders that would probably be one way to go in my opinion. But if the only thing that makes them Overpowered is the ability to drop a whole load of Stealth bomber on a target, then that is a different problem. I know there was talk of Making Blackops into anti capital bombers, maybe that is something that would make it a bit more special.

Vanessa Vansen
Vandeo
#224 - 2012-08-03 18:03:11 UTC
Some 0.02 isk of mine ...

Industry
- get rid of the ME, PE, copy, invention, reverse engineering slots ... just provide research slots that might be used for each

Starbase/POS
- research slots (see above) will allow using slots the way you want
- provide research equipment (consumed and non-consumed) that improves the duration of research
- jumping ... immediate jump but 48 hours delay until next jump sounds more preferable to me
- jumping2 ... how do you get back into high-sec? that should work out somehow, otherwise the whole process of taking down and setting up a POS would have to be done for that
Centurax
CSR Engineering Solutions
Citizen's Star Republic
#225 - 2012-08-03 18:07:17 UTC
Lili Lu wrote:
rogueclone2 wrote:
Centurax wrote:
Ship Balancing

    . . .
  • Drakes: Dont break the Drake, how about a different way of looking at it if the Drake is so good make the other ships as good as it, instead of making a good ship unusable Big smile
  • . . .


Big smile


what this man said right here is good an also the part about SAVE THE DRAKE AttentionAttention


Drake addict tears fuel me.Smile I am looking forward to much more gnashing of teeth and pulling of hair as the day approaches when the BC for all purposes and more, finally has it's reign as the most overused ship in the game end.

You can cry about how whatever alterations are done to the ship and/or its weapon system will make it "unusable" or you can adjust to the reality that the ship will still be usable it just won't be overusable. The sooner you types move on to acceptance the better it will be for you and less your tears will fuel my admittedly sad thirst for them. My enjoyment of your fear and rage though is only proportional to the YEARS that this problem has festered in the game.

Also, there will be new fotm ships created by the rebalancing team as they fail to anticipate what players will be able to figure out in combining modules and ships. Hopefully as those become apparent the balancing team will move much more quickly than letting one ship top the eve-kill usuage stats by a 2 or 3 to 1 margin over the second place ship for litterally years.



Almost never fly a Drake personally, but that wasn't my point, change the Drake, by why break (balance) what works, because a few people think they are overpowered. My point was the Drake is a good ship, the idea is that instead of making it something different, is make the other battlecruisers in line with it. Everyone complains that a ship is too powerful make it easier to kill, why cant we take the other approach, what makes that ship so good, how can we replicate that on the other ships.
Ford Chicago
Ziz Zag Ziggurat
#226 - 2012-08-03 18:16:25 UTC
That is an unbelievably obnoxious and intrusive watermark.
DarthNefarius
Minmatar Heavy Industries
#227 - 2012-08-03 18:18:17 UTC
Hatsumi Kobayashi wrote:
DarthNefarius wrote:
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


Nice of you to selectively quote things in order to give them a completely different meaning; right after the comma at the end of your bolded quote comes "followed by other CSMs asking to get back on topic" BECAUSE THIS SESSION OF THE SUMMIT WAS ABOUT NULLSEC, NOT INCURSIONS OR HI SEC.

Way to be a complete bad.



Hmmm I did pull this out of the NULL not the CONTENT section, but the last time I checked Incursions are still in NULL in my journal ( and not a single NULL SEC MOM has died since they were 'broken' ) but I think I've proven my point that if something is damaged that doesn't affect this CSM individually they are not around for the rest of the community which it affects.
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'
Marconus Orion
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#228 - 2012-08-03 18:28:20 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Marconus Orion wrote:
I see extremely little to no talk about power projection in the minutes. Was this brought up at all during the talks about sovereignty or anything? No one is concerned about a coalition transversing the entire galaxy in a matter of a few minutes? Nothing said about effort free intel gathering? Or was this stuff NDA?


Many Faction Warfare folk would be MORE than happy to throw up cynojammers across half of lowsec......but Elise said he'd come poop on our parade. Cry

Nerf his throwing ability of poop.
Lili Lu
#229 - 2012-08-03 18:42:48 UTC
Centurax wrote:
Almost never fly a Drake personally, but that wasn't my point, change the Drake, by why break (balance) what works, because a few people think they are overpowered. My point was the Drake is a good ship, the idea is that instead of making it something different, is make the other battlecruisers in line with it. Everyone complains that a ship is too powerful make it easier to kill, why cant we take the other approach, what makes that ship so good, how can we replicate that on the other ships.

Because it is not balance that is working. Balance is where the top 20 ships used in the game are bunched together in overall numbers. Balance is not what we have now where the Drake outnumbers the second place ship by a multiple of 2 or 3 to 1, and then all the other 19 ships used are within a much closer span.

Also, it is not just a few people that are pointing out that the empreror has no clothes. And it is the devs themselves that finally in the last year admitted that the usage disparity cannot continue. Drakes not only vastly outnumber other ships in usage. They are also used in ways that move them beyond what other ships in their class are typically used for. And all this not to mention the outlier benefits they have enjoyed in pve ever since their introduction.

Addtionally, you can't simply keep buffing everything. I'm actually a bit concerned with the current tech I frigate buffs. They push the need for destroyer buffs and cruiser buffs . . . People like buffs. Buffs are candy. But you can have too much of a good thing. In particular with BCs if the other 7 tier 1 and 2 BCs were buffed such that they could compete with Drakes for usage it would seriously degrade further the utility of HACs. So then we are left buffing HACs. But then BSs are toast so then we buff BSs. . . . Eventually you are back with Ttians and SCs (or simply BSs) able to munch on anything subcap and well do you start another round of buffs?

Buffs and Nerfs are both necessary. It is like an ecosystem. If any one species explodes in population and hunt to extinction too many other competing predators or the prey it becomes an unhealthy ecosystem. Do you want to play Drakes and Tengus Online? I don't. And even if you think you do it will become boring. So EVE would lose poeple . . and die. Everything dies, but hopefully this game will not be dying for a good long time. But one way to insure it dies sooner is not to fix usage disparities that make the game unattractive to people who don't want to fly shield tanking heavy missile boats and boring for those that do but come to find that is all they end up fighting with is other Drakes and Tengus. The health of the game is best served by both buffs and nerfs.
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
#230 - 2012-08-03 19:44:15 UTC
Centurax wrote:

Almost never fly a Drake personally, but that wasn't my point, change the Drake, by why break (balance) what works, because a few people think they are overpowered. My point was the Drake is a good ship, the idea is that instead of making it something different, is make the other battlecruisers in line with it. Everyone complains that a ship is too powerful make it easier to kill, why cant we take the other approach, what makes that ship so good, how can we replicate that on the other ships.

Don't be a fool, Drake is 'working' only cause its counterparts are underpowered. Either way. boosting the others or nerfing the drake directly, it will cease 'working' after the fix. It will become a normal ship like, say, harbinger.

Boosting DPS output and tank of all ships by 10 will not suddenly make them 10 times better, just like printing more money and doubling everyone's salary won't make people twice as rich in real life. Is it really that hard to comprehend?

"Being supporters of free speech and free and open [CSM] elections... we removed Fon Revedhort from eligibility". CCP, April 2013.

Vera Algaert
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#231 - 2012-08-03 19:47:23 UTC
Centurax wrote:
Almost never fly a Drake personally, but that wasn't my point, change the Drake, by why break (balance) what works, because a few people think they are overpowered. My point was the Drake is a good ship, the idea is that instead of making it something different, is make the other battlecruisers in line with it. Everyone complains that a ship is too powerful make it easier to kill, why cant we take the other approach, what makes that ship so good, how can we replicate that on the other ships.

that approach to balancing inevitably ends in power creep

.

EvilweaselSA
GoonCorp
Goonswarm Federation
#232 - 2012-08-03 21:27:36 UTC
I'm really unimpressed by the level of pushback the CSM was capable of, especially in the 0.0 section. CCP basically declared they had no intention of iterating on 0.0 in any real form in any reasonable timeframe and the CSM simply sat back and nodded.
EvilweaselSA
GoonCorp
Goonswarm Federation
#233 - 2012-08-03 21:36:02 UTC
Quote:
CCP Bettik said that a lot of the price rises seemed to be based on market speculation and seemed to be a bubble.


holy crap this is wrong

next time, pull the numbers for "minerals produced" and compare it to "minerals consumed": you have the numbers, that tells you what the reality is

a ccp dev sticking their finger in the air to guess at the market effect of the drone region change is crazy
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Khimi Harar
#234 - 2012-08-03 22:15:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Veshta Yoshida
CCP Soundwave wrote:
Just so we're clear, I've never said FW should be a testbed for 0.0, nor do I think it's a remotely good idea. I'm not sure where you got this information but it's blatantly false.

Directly, no .. you have not said it. You have stated, however, on numerous occasions that changes made to FW is to bring it in line with null paradigms and that the good/worthwhile bits will be used when sovereignty gets its time in the sun .. for all intents and purposes you might as well have stated it as quoted.
Just happy you (not you, but CCP) has not fallen into the trap of lazy design and added more EHP grinds as solutions to the multitude of issues still plaguing the FW corner of the sandbox.

Please accept my most humble apologies for misquoting you.

PS: When quoting walls, it is generally advisable to only include the relevant bits while indicating that it is a partial quote. Makes for a much cleaner and efficient forum.
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Once and for all - FW AS A 0.0 TESTBED IS A RUNNING JOKE AMONGST CCP AND THE CSM. Lol

I can't believe people are taking this seriously still. Every time this is mentioned in the minutes, it was with laughter and intense sarcasm.

Everyone needs to get over this, ASAP. We're six months past the initial quote that was taken out of context, and we still have people ranting about this, its ridiculous.

Also, Veshta - grow up. You continually complain the game isn't up to your satisfaction, but resort to base insults at the developers on a continual basis. Has it ever occurred to you that maybe these two might be related? Roll

* Back to our regularly scheduled comments *

See above, and

I continually complain because FW had been blue-balled by Devs for almost three years before you even set foot in the Universe, the complaints is all that's left. If you can find some of my earlier 'work' you'll realise that I wasn't always this shrouded in shadow .. quite the little fluffy bunny/happy go-getter/annoyingly overenthusiastic once upon a time .. personally don't care as endorphins/adrenaline is released by emotions on both end of the spectrum so I still get my jolts Big smile

On a side note: Forum rules need to be changed to state that "any comment regarding or pertaining to CCP staff with the slightest negative connotation is not allowed .. feel free to praise them however".
The *snipped* part was no where near personal attack worthy yet was treated as such .. believe it or not, the last two posts that got censored (in retrospect, rightly so) taught me to moderate myself so intentionally "kept it down" this time around.
Jeb Hataska
Pyke Syndicate
Solyaris Chtonium
#235 - 2012-08-03 22:33:50 UTC
Page 125 of 165 wrote:
The topic quickly bounced over to the idea of having a Frigate logistics class.

Elise rather bluntly stated that Frigate logistics would “be bad no matter what”.

CCP Soundwave countered that he liked the idea and didn’t think a balanced solution was impossible to find.

CCP Greyscale chimed in saying that extreme range would be a good solution for a Frigate logistics class.

At this point Hans interjected and stated that Frigate logistics would finally give people a reason to use all the faction small remote reps they get. On this like, Two step suggested there should be faction large remote reps, to which CCP Ytterbium was apathetic.


  • Idea 1: Logistics frigates don't actively supply shield or armor HP to target ships, as logistics cruisers do. Instead, they boost the effectiveness of their targets' local repair ability.

  • Idea 2: T1 logistics frigates have 2 bonuses:

  • Bonus to range of small remote repairers. The fast cycle time but low HP per second make them somewhat effective for supporting frigate combat because of frigates' low EHP, but definitely lackluster for supporting anything larger (when compared with logistics cruisers).

    Bonus to increase the effectiveness of a Remote Signature Reducer module, which reduces the signature radius of the target ship. This module gives a flat reduction rather than a percentage reduction, making it effective at mitigating damage to frigates--and perhaps to destroyers/cruisers--but not noticeable on larger ships. This could be an indirect buff to the use of Target Painters, which are an easy counter, and possibly to scan resolution ewar.


These are probably not great ideas, but I think Soundwave is right that some solution could be found if frigate logistics were important to have.
Che Biko
Alexylva Paradox
#236 - 2012-08-03 22:34:46 UTC
I still get the idea that CCP moved from fearless to fear when it comes to Incarna.Sad
But I am happy that the CSM emphasized that the main reason players raged over the initial release was the diversion of resources.Cool

I also think the detailed minutes help me have more faith in the CSM. Well, most of them anyway.Smile
Arazel Chainfire
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#237 - 2012-08-03 22:54:39 UTC
Oww... I just read all 165 pages over the past 3 hours. While it was interesting(ish) to see who said what, i found the sections that did a summary of what was gone over at the start far more informative than reading through exact comment lines. Possibly a better way to present things would be have a summary or overview at the beginning of each section, and then more detail down below in case people are still interested in what is being talked about.

-Arazel
Ryunosuke Kusanagi
#238 - 2012-08-03 22:59:08 UTC
Fon Revedhort wrote:
Centurax wrote:

Almost never fly a Drake personally, but that wasn't my point, change the Drake, by why break (balance) what works, because a few people think they are overpowered. My point was the Drake is a good ship, the idea is that instead of making it something different, is make the other battlecruisers in line with it. Everyone complains that a ship is too powerful make it easier to kill, why cant we take the other approach, what makes that ship so good, how can we replicate that on the other ships.

Don't be a fool, Drake is 'working' only cause its counterparts are underpowered. Either way. boosting the others or nerfing the drake directly, it will cease 'working' after the fix. It will become a normal ship like, say, harbinger.

Boosting DPS output and tank of all ships by 10 will not suddenly make them 10 times better, just like printing more money and doubling everyone's salary won't make people twice as rich in real life. Is it really that hard to comprehend?



The other problem, is that most FC's that I know that do Large fleet fights, will most definitely want 150-300 of a single ship type, rather than 300 different ship types. Unfortunately, the Drake is relatively easy to get into for newer players for Large Fleet Fights as opposed to a proper alpha maelstrom. That alone boosts the "number of ships flown" as opposed to other standard BC's.
Copine Callmeknau
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#239 - 2012-08-03 23:03:14 UTC
/me looks at GD

/me waits for CCP stafff and CSM associated with these minutes to be forum banned for rumourmilling Lol

There should be a rather awesome pic here

Orisa Medeem
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#240 - 2012-08-03 23:20:08 UTC
My comments on a few topics:

- Stakeholder
"CCP Unifex: The reality is, if we gave you the recording and you got back to us in 24 hours, the team has already implementing the feedback they got in the meeting and done their sprint planning."

Unifex is right here. The sprint planning in scrum usually happens in the second half of the first day. The point here, though, is that if the CSM spots a serios flaw in something and is able to provide the feedback asap it will be easier for the agile team to fit an adjustment in a lated sprint, before release (in fact, probably before it goes to Sisi).

- EVE Future
"(...) ship customizations (...), for example the question of how much customizability should be allowed has not been answered."

Ok, let's make it simple, you don't need to answer this question right now. Just allow corp & alliance logos, it should be easy to implement. Release that, see how it pans out and only then start wondering how ship skins should work.

"CCP Unifex asked, to simply explore the option, how it would be received to simply completely randomly reseed the moon resources?"

A stagnant map tends to a stagnand status-quo in due time. A one-time, universe-wide reseeding would have temporary effects.

"it is contradictory to provide functionality to people to build up their space and then add a pressure on them to move their ‘homes’ frequently"

The word here is balance. Everything that has a beggining has an end, or at least it should, but the current mechanics are soo focused at rooting people in one place that it leads to stagnation. Give people reasons to settle somewhere and build empires, give them reasons to pack their things and leave, then let them sort it out. Sure, two months is too short, but all you need to do is adjust the implementation to make it a longer timeframe. If people feel a need to move every one or two years on the average, then it has already accomplished what is needed.

"He also added that perhaps a ‘longevity’ perk could be added to clones, meaning that the longer a person is using a clone it would get unique bonuses."

This seems cool and all, but I think in the end it will be just one more reason for people not to join ops.

"Discussion then turned to Arenas, which were envisioned as a tool to promote some sort of organized PvP without ruining the game."

Nooooooooo! The game already have the biggest arena you could as for, just drop a piece of ammo and let the other guy grab it (and even this could be skipped if you are not in hisec).

- The State of Incarna
"CCP Unifex responded that CCP didn’t want players to feel ripped off be devaluing something they already bought."

If you are unsure about how to go repricing older items I suggest you ask your Steam partners. They have a lot of experience doing this with games. One thing I'm certain of: at some point you will get Incarna right and then demand for these items will increase. When that happens it is best if they are at the right price. It's not the best approach to keep them as they are 'just because'.

- Industry and mining
"Trebor then added that as long as the top-level jobs could be prioritized the system could handle most things automatically, but someone who wanted to work a little more could schedule lower-level jobs in a more optimum way (say, interleaving production and research) -- this would be a "think sink" where a player willing to put in extra time and effort could get an edge."

The problem with this reasoning is that six months after it is released there will be someone complaining "why is the game doing xyz in this way when it is clear that doing it in this other way would be better? The game is supposed to be in a highly technologically advanced society and thus all these things would naturally be automated."

- Starbase rework
"Two step asked if there would be a one starbase per grid limit, and CCP said no. They want to allow people to build little "cities" of starbases."

POS wars!!! Anchor a few combat POSes around your enemy's and let them duck it out for hours!

- Null sec
"Two step: “(...) The money stuff needs to get looked at. If that means lowering income across the board…”"

What?!? What is wrong with you people? Nobody in the room disagreed with that? For your information, not everybody is swimming in money.

- Corporation management
"the leader of a corporation should have the ability to drop a member, anytime, anywhere, with no cool-downs or other delays."

There are some edge cases that need to be looked at. The pilot convoes the CEO: "Quick, quick! They tackled my freighter! Drop me from corp!". And the freighter escapes, with just a sliver of structure left. What would be the point of wardec'ing people again?

- Ship balance and iteration
"On the subject of sniping, Greyscale tossed out a high-level idea for a fix to sniping. He asked for CSM input on one such idea, an interdiction probe that would be launched a certain range before the bubble would deploy. In essence it would work as a drag-bubble to protect the sniping fleet, or at least give it ample time to react and reposition."

Carefull, guys. This will without a doubt be used for any number of unintended cases.

- ‘Player to player contracts’
"CCP Soniclover: “This is how I see it, we want to make it smooth. To make it smooth, we would probably have to bypass the existing rules, like whom you can fight in high sec. It would be much less valuable to make a defense contract for a POS if you than had to go declare war on the target as well.”"

This needs to be elaborated. The way it was stated it is too easily gamed.

:sand:  over  :awesome: