These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Dev blog: CSM8 - 1st Summit Minutes Published

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Lors Dornick
Kallisti Industries
#81 - 2014-01-03 12:13:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Lors Dornick
Yongtau Naskingar wrote:
Freelancer117 wrote:
Session 17: Reasonable Things Review

Discussion on the first point – allow players to log out to character select - was short. In
the words of Veritas, “No”. The reasons why this is technically infeasible are baked into
the very core of the game and would literally require what amounts to a ground-up rewrite
to fix. Mynnna relayed an anecdote from lunch about how it would be ten
programmers working for six months for 15 seconds of payoff for the players. This was
confirmed by Veritas. Soundwave said “Someday”, thus creating, with a single word, the
largest expectation management problem CCP has or ever will have.

This is why I love reading the summit minutes, thanks for sharing Cool

Funny how the launcher can launch the client with the player logged in, but the client relaunching itself is somehow too hard.


The client could launch a new copy of itself and then kill off the original, but it would just be a slower and more complicated version of just clicking quit and launch.

The issue is that the once a character is selected the client can not revert to client select without restarting the client, which is exactly what the launcher does.

CCP Greyscale: As to starbases, we agree it's pretty terrible, but we don't want to delay the entire release just for this one factor.
Ransu Asanari
Perkone
Caldari State
#82 - 2014-01-03 12:21:05 UTC
Glad to see these out, good insights. I really liked a lot of the discussions around making PvE more like PvP (less rats, smarter, harder to kill).

The discussion around the "EVE Learning Cliff" and players with less social connections leaving before they finish the training tutorials. I like the idea of the sessions being run right now to get newer players involved in different "professions" that have CCP guidance - like the most recent one taking players out to do Exploration. Keep it up guys!

So I'm going to pull out my usual axe to grind... Missiles are mentioned twice in the minute. Once during the Mauraders rebalance, and once during the gunnery skill decoupling.

So it doesn't seem like it was considered how the change would impact the balance between training missiles and gunnery, as it was one of the key differentiators between generalization and specizliation. A joke about how all players would stop training Ravens for guns shows pretty much that nobody gives a crap about missile users.

I'm going to leave this here again - please fix missile SP, and give us a proper hull progression.

Ali Aras, I'm talking to you specifically, since you took my question about this away from the CSM Town Hall - hopefully you've brought this up with CCP.

Malcanis, now I know why you aren't responding to discussions, other than to troll people. Glad you're not running for CSM again.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#83 - 2014-01-03 12:21:30 UTC  |  Edited by: James Amril-Kesh
Lors Dornick wrote:
Yongtau Naskingar wrote:
Freelancer117 wrote:
Session 17: Reasonable Things Review

Discussion on the first point – allow players to log out to character select - was short. In
the words of Veritas, “No”. The reasons why this is technically infeasible are baked into
the very core of the game and would literally require what amounts to a ground-up rewrite
to fix. Mynnna relayed an anecdote from lunch about how it would be ten
programmers working for six months for 15 seconds of payoff for the players. This was
confirmed by Veritas. Soundwave said “Someday”, thus creating, with a single word, the
largest expectation management problem CCP has or ever will have.

This is why I love reading the summit minutes, thanks for sharing Cool

Funny how the launcher can launch the client with the player logged in, but the client relaunching itself is somehow too hard.


The client could launch a new copy of itself and then kill off the original, but it would just be a slower and more complicated version of just clicking quit and launch.

The issue is that the once a character is selected the client can not revert to client select without restarting the client, which is exactly what the launcher does.

I'm not sure what you people think will be accomplished by discussing this further.
CCP knows their code. We haven't even seen it. Nothing you say is anything more than speculation on the subject. If they say it's unfeasible, leave it at that. There's 75 other pages full of much more important material to discuss.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Ray Malukker
Doomheim
#84 - 2014-01-03 13:38:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Ray Malukker
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:
On the player retention thing, I will point out that measuring "engagement" by measuring wether a player reached or don't an arbitrary milestone ingame is not exactly failproof.

How engaged is someone who only runs missions, but has run in excess of 1,500 missions over 5 years?

How engaged is someone who only mines rocks, but has done it for years upon years?

Is it engagement enough to write in excess of 400 posts at the forums each month? Spend like 20 hours a week writing and reading about EVE?

Of all the silly things CCP ever did to me, calling me "not engaged" because I never went to null or reached some other random milestone ingame may be of the silliest.

If I was not engaged, Dr Whatsyourname, I would not have given in excess of 1,000 euros to your company.

And now it turns I am not even deemed worthy of keeping as a customer because "I am not engaged enough" and my kind leaves too often. Roll

That's pathetic.

I have a suggestion. If most people will not cross the social wall, or will not enter the sandbox nor miss it... have a revolutionary idea, free of charge: deliver them exactly what they want with a EVE twist rather than shake your head and say "too bad, they weren't engaged enough" as they leave.



^^^^^^^^^ THIS!! I agree with you, this is my 6th or 7th char ingame if I wasn't engaged then this char wouldn't be here
has 6 accounts so don't you dare call me NOT engaged!!TwistedEvil

Yea, though I walk into the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me

Psalm 23:4
Ray Malukker
Doomheim
#85 - 2014-01-03 13:49:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Ray Malukker
mynnna wrote:
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:
On the player retention thing, I will point out that measuring "engagement" by measuring wether a player reached or don't an arbitrary milestone ingame is not exactly failproof.

How engaged is someone who only runs missions, but has run in excess of 1,500 missions over 5 years?

How engaged is someone who only mines rocks, but has done it for years upon years?

Is it engagement enough to write in excess of 400 posts at the forums each month? Spend like 20 hours a week writing and reading about EVE?

Of all the silly things CCP ever did to me, calling me "not engaged" because I never went to null or reached some other random milestone ingame may be of the silliest.

If I was not engaged, Dr Whatsyourname, I would not have given in excess of 1,000 euros to your company.

And now it turns I am not even deemed worthy of keeping as a customer because "I am not engaged enough" and my kind leaves too often. Roll

That's pathetic.

I have a suggestion. If most people will not cross the social wall, or will not enter the sandbox nor miss it... have a revolutionary idea, free of charge: deliver them exactly what they want with a EVE twist rather than shake your head and say "too bad, they weren't engaged enough" as they leave.


You mention reading and posting on the forums a lot. I would guess that'd be one thing that sets you apart from other players with an otherwise similar in-game profile who flame out and leave due to lack of engagement.


I don't really response to posts, I don't talk ingame 90% of the time, but I feel I am engaged to game 6 accounts 7 chars. I am kind of anti social, because of PTSD & TBI from getting blown up in war. That does NOT mean I am not engaged with game, just plays it MY way, in that last month alone CCP got over 200 USD off me. So I think I am engaged to/with gameAttention

Yea, though I walk into the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me

Psalm 23:4
mynnna
State War Academy
Caldari State
#86 - 2014-01-03 14:16:35 UTC  |  Edited by: mynnna
Ray Malukker wrote:
mynnna wrote:
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:
On the player retention thing, I will point out that measuring "engagement" by measuring wether a player reached or don't an arbitrary milestone ingame is not exactly failproof.

How engaged is someone who only runs missions, but has run in excess of 1,500 missions over 5 years?

How engaged is someone who only mines rocks, but has done it for years upon years?

Is it engagement enough to write in excess of 400 posts at the forums each month? Spend like 20 hours a week writing and reading about EVE?

Of all the silly things CCP ever did to me, calling me "not engaged" because I never went to null or reached some other random milestone ingame may be of the silliest.

If I was not engaged, Dr Whatsyourname, I would not have given in excess of 1,000 euros to your company.

And now it turns I am not even deemed worthy of keeping as a customer because "I am not engaged enough" and my kind leaves too often. Roll

That's pathetic.

I have a suggestion. If most people will not cross the social wall, or will not enter the sandbox nor miss it... have a revolutionary idea, free of charge: deliver them exactly what they want with a EVE twist rather than shake your head and say "too bad, they weren't engaged enough" as they leave.


You mention reading and posting on the forums a lot. I would guess that'd be one thing that sets you apart from other players with an otherwise similar in-game profile who flame out and leave due to lack of engagement.


I don't really response to posts, I don't talk ingame 90% of the time, but I feel I am engaged to game 6 accounts 7 chars. I am kind of anti social, because of PTSD & TBI from getting blown up in war. That does NOT mean I am not engaged with game, just plays it MY way, in that last month alone CCP got over 200 USD off me. So I think I am engaged to/with gameAttention


Almost any research CCP does is going to result in some generalizations - that's just a fact of life. Rather than feeling offended that you're lumped into a group you may not consider yourself to be part of, look at it this way - any attempt to do *things* to try to retain engagement from those less engaged players will probably also result in *things* being more interesting for you personally as well, as you and they both enjoy (or perhaps don't, contributing to lack of engagement) the same activities. Bear

Got some comments on the PvE stuff too but that'll have to wait, I'm late for work as it is.

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal
Freelancer117
So you want to be a Hero
#87 - 2014-01-03 14:17:58 UTC
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:
It has taken so long for the minutes to come out, that most of it is just old news.

This songs sums it up really.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6E994cE_xYI


Lol, me thinks this to:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUZEtVbJT5c


Royal Choral Society: 'Hallelujah Chorus' from Handel's Messiah

CCP Dolan The Deliverer of the Minutes Cool

Eve online is :

A) mining simulator B) glorified chatroom C) spreadsheets online

D) CCP Games Pay to Win at skill leveling, with instant gratification

http://eve-radio.com//images/photos/3419/223/34afa0d7998f0a9a86f737d6.jpg

http://bit.ly/1egr4mF
Jowen Datloran
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#88 - 2014-01-03 14:26:17 UTC
Hm, so it would be best if I take a break (again) and return in 2015?

Mr. Science & Trade Institute, EVE Online Lorebook 

Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#89 - 2014-01-03 14:36:12 UTC
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:
CCP Dolan wrote:
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:
On the player retention thing, I will point out that measuring "engagement" by measuring wether a player reached or don't an arbitrary milestone ingame is not exactly failproof.

How engaged is someone who only runs missions, but has run in excess of 1,500 missions over 5 years?

How engaged is someone who only mines rocks, but has done it for years upon years?

Is it engagement enough to write in excess of 400 posts at the forums each month? Spend like 20 hours a week writing and reading about EVE?

Of all the silly things CCP ever did to me, calling me "not engaged" because I never went to null or reached some other random milestone ingame may be of the silliest.

If I was not engaged, Dr Whatsyourname, I would not have given in excess of 1,000 euros to your company.

And now it turns I am not even deemed worthy of keeping as a customer because "I am not engaged enough" and my kind leaves too often. Roll

That's pathetic.

I have a suggestion. If most people will not cross the social wall, or will not enter the sandbox nor miss it... have a revolutionary idea, free of charge: deliver them exactly what they want with a EVE twist rather than shake your head and say "too bad, they weren't engaged enough" as they leave.


We actually have a pretty nuts amount of data on what "engagement" means (which I cut all mention of out of the minutes, because NDA, muahahahahah). Long story short is that all of those things are "engagement" that we measure. It may have gotten lost on my cutting room floor, but the whole idea is "what are things that people who stick around for a long time and help contribute to the universe like to do". People who post, mine, PvE, manufacture, etc. all fit that idea of "engagement".

Heck, check out my old KB, for a while pretty much all I did was post, and I considered myself to be a pretty engaged player.


Thanks for the clarification, I was pretty upset about that thing (and I readed the minutes' section three times before posting here, because I am... huh... engaged about them).


Hmmm...what is more plausible:

1. A document that was delayed months to get the wording precise, vetted through god knows how many eyes and versions to get the complete vison that CCP and the CSM has for non-null sec cartel players.
2. A CCP employee jumping in a few hours later spinning "oh no, we never meant that at all".

It is abundantly clear that current CCP management truly believes that the null sec cartels are the ONLY player base they have to cater to, and that the 90% of the non-cartel base will happily, or even unhappily, accept whatever dregs are handed them, rather than unsub.

The only way CCP will ever understand what the player base wants is with demographic representation, meaning at least 60% of the CSM is made up of high sec players, and the null sec cartels have a max of 2 reps.

I also find it quite telling that the rep from the largest null sec cartel made very sure he was in on the security session, and Sillman's comment says it all" It is impossible to estimate the scope of the Botting/RMT problem.".
Adrian Dixon
Arbitrary Spaceship Destruction
-affliction-
#90 - 2014-01-03 14:41:46 UTC
Still reading throught the minutes but I have a couple of points;


The UI needs a lot of work but one of my biggest gripes at the moment is with the D-Scan window.
I would like to see a drop down box in the D-Scan window that lets me choose one of my saved overview profiles and scan using that profile. Currently I have to switch between one of my overview tabs, none of them are optimal for D-scanning. Being able to save multiple overview settings for different D-Scanning situations would give more possibilities to the player. I D-scan differently in wormholes nullsec, lowsec highsec, trade hubs, mission hubs mining systems all depending on the different populations and topography of systems and what I am looking for.

With regard to the launcher, Almost everyone I have heard talk about the launcher prefers to use the workaround by launching the game through \bin\exefile.exe only using the launcher when patching is needed. I do miss the animated login screens and cool music.

Anchored POS's etc should be hackable by players. Perhaps if you hacked a object in highsec to steel it you could go suspect.
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai
#91 - 2014-01-03 14:48:38 UTC
Heh. Session 18, PvE. What a interesting (if depressing) read.Sad

After reading that section twice, I am left with the impression that PvE is in wrong hands. It looks like people in that meeting was talking about what would PvE be if people who does PvE didn't did PvE... What?

And hell, they are serious. They pretend that PvE becomes like PvP, which makes every sense if you're in the game for PvP (use the same ship to grind ISK, hoozah!), but in the case that you're in it for the PvE, will just kick your nuts out of your mouth.

I don't feel like accounting how much have I invested, exactly, in those PvE fits which CCP Affinity deems that "make no sense". But if he (she?) thinks that they make no sense, then maybe he shouldn't be working on PvE. Shocked

Using different tools (highly specialyzed, and expensive in time, skills and ISK tools) for PvE is a key to understand why someone may keep doing PvE for years, even if it is abysmally poor as EVE's PvE.

I've run missions on several Apocalypses, 2 Apocalypse Navy Issue (both destroyed), a Golem, a Legion (destroyed), a Nightmare, a Rattlesnake (sold), an Arbitrator (old version), a Machariel, a Punisher (old version), an Arbitrator (iterated version), a Rattlesnake (again) and now a Vargur. I may even move into a Paladin (NOOO, BATTLESHIPS V NOT AGAIN!!!) if they don't nerf Marauders before that. "Same sh*t, different tool" has been keeping me busy for years. But alas!, that means that I am heavily, extremely heavily, invested in PvE fittings.

As much as I would like to get new sh*t (and so new tools to develop and use), that doesn't means that I feel like kissing goodbye my fleet and everything I've invested on it (hundreds of euros, thousands of hours, 1,500+ missions...) just because PvE is being iterated by people (CSM and developers) who think that PvE should not be a specialyzed career and "everything" should be (ship to ship combat)PvP, or (stsc)PvP-like. Ugh

I am OK if you expand the garden, but don't thread on my PvE flowers. Sad

And i would just love that "player driven/emergent PvE content" was something in the talks, someday. Players will always be able to create much more content than developers, and EVE being a sandbox, I wonder why all the fun should be tied to (stsc)PvP.

PS: are you wondering why PvE are not social and yet stay in game? Socialyizng requires time and skill, and people with both resourcess usually use them in real life rather than in virtual worlds. So IMHO there is no wonder that MMOs and EVE are riddled with people without time and/or skills to be social ingame...

Roses are red / Violets are blue / I am an Alpha / And so it's you
Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#92 - 2014-01-03 15:07:31 UTC
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:

1. A document that was delayed months to get the wording precise, vetted through god knows how many eyes and versions to get the complete vison that CCP and the CSM has for non-null sec cartel players.
2. A CCP employee jumping in a few hours later spinning "oh no, we never meant that at all".

3. dinsdale and ishawar, two of the most notably insane people on eve-o, just went with what the voices in their head said instead of what was on the page

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.
Ilania Ongrard
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#93 - 2014-01-03 15:17:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Ilania Ongrard
For those that prefer audio format, I'v made a text to speech version of the minutes.

You can find it here:

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6b2f4NGiffzZWRqUUVTYXk5SUk
(Should be publicly available without logging)

A word of warning, it's quite long one 2.5h and since it's a TTS audio file it may require a aquired taste for listening.
Lisara Khatam
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#94 - 2014-01-03 16:07:39 UTC
My hat is off to CSM Mike Azariah for continuing to push the Login Screen issue. You have my vote for CSM9.

The discussion behind the EVE-DUST link being so heavily NDAed that we really can't garner any information, why even give an idea behind it? From previous information given, like Warbarges and Player Marketplace, why is everything behind DUST hidden?

I understand that both the CSM and CPM have a hard job to do with the link between both games. But with the "slow" development between the connections, it has now become a factor of WHEN more of the link will occur, but IF.

I honestly want to hear more about how I, as both an EVE player and a DUST player, can have more interactions between the two.

Also, since the personal deployables have been identified as "Project 1", why is it NDAed? Unless the other 8 deployables haven't been revealed yet.
scimichar
Deep Hole Explorers of New Eden
#95 - 2014-01-03 16:49:26 UTC
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:


The only way CCP will ever understand what the player base wants is with demographic representation, meaning at least 60% of the CSM is made up of high sec players, and the null sec cartels have a max of 2 reps.




There's nothing stopping high sec players from getting a monopoly on the CSM. Null sec blocs are just more organized than them.
Ali Aras
Nobody in Local
Deepwater Hooligans
#96 - 2014-01-03 16:55:30 UTC
Honestly, even if nobody from highsec is interested in running, y'all could form a union / voting bloc. With enough power, especially with some demonstrated ability to move votes (in the last election, delivering 3000 first places would have been a "seat"; delivering 1000 would have been Very Useful), you will be courted by *someone*.

http://warp-to-sun.tumblr.com -- my blog
mynnna
State War Academy
Caldari State
#97 - 2014-01-03 17:12:00 UTC  |  Edited by: mynnna
Ali Aras wrote:
Honestly, even if nobody from highsec is interested in running, y'all could form a union / voting bloc. With enough power, especially with some demonstrated ability to move votes (in the last election, delivering 3000 first places would have been a "seat"; delivering 1000 would have been Very Useful), you will be courted by *someone*.


Elaborating on this, a fact that is perhaps known & out there but not much commented on is that eight candidates - Ali, trebor, mike, malcanis, ripard and three of the others (I don't remember all who) all cross-endorsed and encouraged their supporters to vote for the others. In this way, they formed a bloc of sorts.

There is nothing, strictly speaking, stopping anyone else from doing this. Just need the willingness to run, willingness to cooperate with some other like-minded candidates and, most importantly, the willingness to reach out and get people who might not normally vote to get engaged.

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#98 - 2014-01-03 17:33:30 UTC
mynnna wrote:
Ali Aras wrote:
Honestly, even if nobody from highsec is interested in running, y'all could form a union / voting bloc. With enough power, especially with some demonstrated ability to move votes (in the last election, delivering 3000 first places would have been a "seat"; delivering 1000 would have been Very Useful), you will be courted by *someone*.


Elaborating on this, a fact that is perhaps known & out there but not much commented on is that eight candidates - Ali, trebor, mike, malcanis, ripard and three of the others (I don't remember all who) all cross-endorsed and encouraged their supporters to vote for the others. In this way, they formed a bloc of sorts.

There is nothing, strictly speaking, stopping anyone else from doing this. Just need the willingness to run, willingness to cooperate with some other like-minded candidates and, most importantly, the willingness to reach out and get people who might not normally vote to get engaged.


Here again we run into the shameful inability of deomocratic voting systems to represent idle sacks of fat who can't even be bothered to spend 2 minutes per year clicking a "vote" button

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#99 - 2014-01-03 17:41:02 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
mynnna wrote:
Ali Aras wrote:
Honestly, even if nobody from highsec is interested in running, y'all could form a union / voting bloc. With enough power, especially with some demonstrated ability to move votes (in the last election, delivering 3000 first places would have been a "seat"; delivering 1000 would have been Very Useful), you will be courted by *someone*.


Elaborating on this, a fact that is perhaps known & out there but not much commented on is that eight candidates - Ali, trebor, mike, malcanis, ripard and three of the others (I don't remember all who) all cross-endorsed and encouraged their supporters to vote for the others. In this way, they formed a bloc of sorts.

There is nothing, strictly speaking, stopping anyone else from doing this. Just need the willingness to run, willingness to cooperate with some other like-minded candidates and, most importantly, the willingness to reach out and get people who might not normally vote to get engaged.


Here again we run into the shameful inability of deomocratic voting systems to represent idle sacks of fat who can't even be bothered to spend 2 minutes per year clicking a "vote" button


That's right.

Problem is those idle sacks of fat don't actually exist for the most part, everyone knows that te high sec dwelling majority doesn't exist the way some people really want it to. Lots of high sec characters are alts and even those that aren't but are in fact real people are likely not inclined to hate non-high sec players they way the "insanity" fringe does.
Soldarius
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#100 - 2014-01-03 17:50:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Soldarius
If a particular segment of the Eve population feels it is not adequately represented, it is incumbent upon them to endeavor to find and elect a candidate. Merely complaining after the fact that they are not represented is insufficient.

There are literally tens of thousands of players tooling around in hisec; far more than in all the other areas combined. They could easily take a majority of the CSM seats. But because they are uninterested in the larger game world and mostly (imo) prefer not to interact for whatever reasons, they do not.

I disagree with the idea that PvE and PvP are different things. They are in essence the same. The difference is that PvE can be conducted without any interaction with other players. PvP cannot.

Eve is not a PvE game. Your boat can be violenced anywhere. If you act foolishly and do not take precautions, do not complain when someone takes notice and pops your shiny mission ship or steals your loot, or whatever. This interaction is at the core of Eve, and at the core of all Massively Multiplayer Online games.

Another core concept of Eve is risk versus reward. If you sit in safer areas of space (safer relative to lo/nul-sec) you will not get the higher reward content. Its the same in every game everywhere. Lower security areas give lower level rewards/experience. Complaining that you're not getting A-Type Invulnerability Field drops in hisec has nothing to do with the game; only with the individual's sense of self-entitlement because "they paid for content."

If you want the high level rewards, you have to go to high level areas. In this game, that means either you go to nulsec or w-space and get the stuff yourself, or you save up and buy it from nulsec players on the market.

The self-entitled nonsense that some players spout is what drives a certain segment of the PvP player base to come up to hisec and do things like Hulkageddon, ice interdictions, and industrial cartels. The fact that those same players cry about it on forums rather than doing something about it in game is just icing on the cake. That and the isk it generates for them.

Here is the best advice anyone that plays Eve Online will ever give you:

If you don't like it, do something about it.

To the members of the CSM: Thanks for the notes. Please don't continue with the wierd and difficult to read test transcript. My eyes are bleeding. I cannot begin to express how much of a loss it will be for all of us if Trebor decides not to run again. Having someone with his experience and background on the CSM is a god-send.

http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY