These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

CSM Campaigns

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM 9

First post First post
Author
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#61 - 2014-03-03 00:53:20 UTC
Tikktokk Tokkzikk wrote:
Quote:

The core of Mining shouldn't change. The 'Target an asteroid, and let the mining lasers cycle' isn't a bad mechanic at its core. Not particularly fun, but sometimes relaxing to let run, much like ship spinning.

What about lowsec, nullsec and wormhole mining where you can't sit back and relax?

Quote:
To be frank, respawning asteroid belts offend me. I'd like to see some kind of prospecting mechanism to find a good asteroid field to mine

I've for a long time thought Eve should also be more dynamic.
No one is accepting your missions? You'd probably increase the reward until people do. No one touching an asteroid belt? It would probably slowly grow bigger until someone found and mined it.
Imagine this: Amamake has been untouched for months and the asteroids belts are huge with a high mineral concentration. A scout with a survey scanner estimated the ISK/h to be 400m/h, so his mining corporation hire a mercenary group for protection and make a huge mining op. You now have mining ships trying to mine as much as possible while pirates try to kill them and mercenaries try to keep them alive.



I'd say in low, null and wh, you'd probably not want a more complicated mechanic for the core, sapping your attention.

It may be possible to increase the attention requirements of the activity, but I'd suggest doing it as an optional boost. So you can maintain the current activity, or do it a different way to increase yield. (as long as you can control the rate of asteroid acquiral, then it's not so much of a concern balance wise. )

Dynamic is good. It'll have to be watched carefully, to reduce how gamable it is, but that shouldn't be /too/ much of a problem.

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter

Tikktokk Tokkzikk
V0LTA
WE FORM V0LTA
#62 - 2014-03-03 01:04:15 UTC
Mining is fine in highsec because you have a very great ISK/attention which balance out the terrible ISK/h. In lowsec, nullsec and W-space you need full attention but you still have terrible ISK/h and often more risk than missions and signatures that must be probed down. How would you fix this?
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#63 - 2014-03-03 11:01:52 UTC
Tikktokk Tokkzikk wrote:
Mining is fine in highsec because you have a very great ISK/attention which balance out the terrible ISK/h. In lowsec, nullsec and W-space you need full attention but you still have terrible ISK/h and often more risk than missions and signatures that must be probed down. How would you fix this?



With difficulty.

Higher yields tend to come with lower prices, as the market for the minerals is only so large.


Null and low aren't /quite/ so bad, due to the intelligence provided by local. (and the ability to anchor bubbles in null)

However, if you notice what I've been saying about mining, I dislike beacons in space for people to just warp to and mine. (or warp to and gank miners). Some effort should exist for getting to decent ore.

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter

Sephira Galamore
Inner Beard Society
#64 - 2014-03-03 11:25:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Sephira Galamore
Steve Ronuken wrote:
With difficulty.

Higher yields tend to come with lower prices, as the market for the minerals is only so large.

This might be a bad idea but.. Would reworking the mineral composition in ores and following that a redistribution of ores across different kinds of space or different approaches of mining be a sensible approach?
There could be a unique mineral in wspace.. Or a unique mineral only if you do a special kind of mining (minigame?) that still leaves the other minerals to those mining in the current way.
The difficulty of hauling ores to refineries and minerals to production places should be accounted for via the respective ore / mineral volume.
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#65 - 2014-03-03 12:11:19 UTC
Sephira Galamore wrote:
Steve Ronuken wrote:
With difficulty.

Higher yields tend to come with lower prices, as the market for the minerals is only so large.

This might be a bad idea but.. Would reworking the mineral composition in ores and following that a redistribution of ores across different kinds of space or different approaches of mining be a sensible approach?
There could be a unique mineral in wspace.. Or a unique mineral only if you do a special kind of mining (minigame?) that still leaves the other minerals to those mining in the current way.
The difficulty of hauling ores to refineries and minerals to production places should be accounted for via the respective ore / mineral volume.



W-Space already has unique harvestable materials in the form of the gasses.

Now, it might make sense to increase the places where these materials can be used, but I'd need to look at the figures for harvesting and use to tell.

Additional unique materials doesn't sit right.

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter

Sephira Galamore
Inner Beard Society
#66 - 2014-03-03 12:19:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Sephira Galamore
Steve Ronuken wrote:
W-Space already has unique harvestable materials in the form of the gasses.

Now, it might make sense to increase the places where these materials can be used, but I'd need to look at the figures for harvesting and use to tell.

Additional unique materials doesn't sit right.

You only replied to the wspace part when I just used it as an example.. :(
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#67 - 2014-03-03 13:45:08 UTC
Sephira Galamore wrote:
Steve Ronuken wrote:
With difficulty.

Higher yields tend to come with lower prices, as the market for the minerals is only so large.

This might be a bad idea but.. Would reworking the mineral composition in ores and following that a redistribution of ores across different kinds of space or different approaches of mining be a sensible approach?
There could be a unique mineral in wspace.. Or a unique mineral only if you do a special kind of mining (minigame?) that still leaves the other minerals to those mining in the current way.
The difficulty of hauling ores to refineries and minerals to production places should be accounted for via the respective ore / mineral volume.



Sorry about that Smile Thought I'd written more. I blame people expecting me to actually work in the office Blink

Reworking the mineral compositions might make a difference, but the main problem is: people go for the best isk/hr. Which has the side effect of drawing them all to being similar. One of the reasons the ABCs aren't /that/ much higher than the highsec ores (excluding omber and veldspar), is that they're somewhat over mined. if fewer people mined them, the price would rise, as the constituent minerals would be rarer.


Now, if you introduce a mini game, you really only have the option of increasing the yield (or nerfing the yield in high).

/Unless/ that mini game isn't actually on the mining, but on finding things to mine. at that point, that's where the limiting factor is. Sure, you can, with attention, triple your yield. But if that just means you deplete your find faster, then it's workable. In more dangerous space, you're reducing your window of risk. In high, you're just cutting down on the time you have to actually be mining.

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter

Aineko Macx
#68 - 2014-03-03 19:57:05 UTC
Third party developers need representation, and Steve is the candidate for that!

Your proposed game design changes are a bit too far outside the box, especially in the areas where you have little experience, but I won't hold that against you Blink
mynnna
State War Academy
Caldari State
#69 - 2014-03-03 20:01:58 UTC
Aineko Macx wrote:
Third party developers need representation, and Steve is the candidate for that!

Your proposed game design changes are a bit too far outside the box, especially in the areas where you have little experience, but I won't hold that against you Blink

Willingness to speak up even when it's something you don't know much about isn't necessarily a bad thing. Someone with experience will often as not have their ideas chained by that box. Someone from the outside, unburdened by experience and the biases that come with it, will see things that should be obvious, will think of things the expert never would, and then if they are too far into left field, they can be dialed back a bit.

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal

Agondray
Avenger Mercenaries
VOID Intergalactic Forces
#70 - 2014-03-03 21:45:06 UTC
id like some changes to mining other than miners being a target, i know the macros have to be fought but not every miner is a macro. I myself have quit industry for change in more lucrative jobs. Moving asteroids belts is an ok idea but that's the same as the hidden belts that are no longer hidden and are now primary gankfest.

So my question is how do you cut back the ganking while keeping people interested in mining? Ive seen brand new players get ganked in ventures and quit the game or be forced to move on to something else.

"Sarcasm is the Recourse of a weak mind." -Dr. Smith

Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#71 - 2014-03-04 11:35:45 UTC
Agondray wrote:
id like some changes to mining other than miners being a target, i know the macros have to be fought but not every miner is a macro. I myself have quit industry for change in more lucrative jobs. Moving asteroids belts is an ok idea but that's the same as the hidden belts that are no longer hidden and are now primary gankfest.

So my question is how do you cut back the ganking while keeping people interested in mining? Ive seen brand new players get ganked in ventures and quit the game or be forced to move on to something else.



I don't want people to be able to just pick somewhere from their overview, or their anomaly scanner, to go there to mine. It should require a little more effort to get started. Not a great deal more (for basic ores) but more.

Off the top of my head, I'd think that emplacing scanner deployables around the system, which can then be used to scan for asteroids, with some kind of heat map mini-game, with a cool down. Possibly with better ones being corporation only. Yes, something like the older scanning system, but without the auto timeout. and yes, you'll need to perform maintenance on them to keep them from going pop once a month.


Gankers can still find you, with combat probes. Nothing protects you past that. But the low hanging fruit is removed.

If you don't want that effort, then there would be mining missions.


Bear in mind, this is just me spit balling. The kind of thing which I'd like to see CCP work on. No promises (as that's not how the CSM workd)

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter

Acidictadpole
Perkone
Caldari State
#72 - 2014-03-04 18:02:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Acidictadpole
Steve Ronuken wrote:

I don't like jump bridges. The ship should always go through. So, I think Carriers, super carrier and titans should be able to carry other ships with them when they jump. No 'open bridge, bye bye boys, have fun storming the castle'


I had this idea a while ago, sounds like a similar idea

And for a question:

Since Eve has such a huge focus on interacting with other players, I feel that the tutorial system feels inadequate to truly introduce a player to Eve. Do you think the current tutorial system is sufficient for helping new players get on their feet? If not, what would you propose as a potential mission goal when designing a new tutorial?
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#73 - 2014-03-04 18:25:35 UTC
Acidictadpole wrote:
Steve Ronuken wrote:

I don't like jump bridges. The ship should always go through. So, I think Carriers, super carrier and titans should be able to carry other ships with them when they jump. No 'open bridge, bye bye boys, have fun storming the castle'


I had this idea a while ago, sounds like a similar idea

And for a question:

Since Eve has such a huge focus on interacting with other players, I feel that the tutorial system feels inadequate to truly introduce a player to Eve. Do you think the current tutorial system is sufficient for helping new players get on their feet? If not, what would you propose as a potential mission goal when designing a new tutorial?



The current system is far from perfect, but for getting people to work together, it's problematic to do through an automated system. You don't want to have random people having to depends on other random people to geth through the tutorial. That's just asking for trouble.

Now, what might help is if the Blood Stained stars Arc had more to draw people together, with similar ages.

Perhaps a channel you're automatically joined to for a time after you start. Ideally with people watching, and an instruction not to mess with the newbies on it, under pain of GMs kicking you a lot.

(messing with people is fine. Messing with total newbies isn't.)

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter

Acidictadpole
Perkone
Caldari State
#74 - 2014-03-04 18:35:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Acidictadpole
Steve Ronuken wrote:



The current system is far from perfect, but for getting people to work together, it's problematic to do through an automated system. You don't want to have random people having to depends on other random people to geth through the tutorial. That's just asking for trouble.


(Don't really feel like you answered the question)

I agree, putting people together in the tutorial seems like it would backfire. However, there are a lot of things that could be monitored during the players time with the tutorial, and feedback that the player could give to aura in a fairly consistent manner that would then be able to direct the player further down their path in Eve.

A minor thought I had included Aura asking for feedback after some select missions querying the player for how much they enjoyed doing the tasks in that tutorial. Based on the responses and the players playtime patterns, suggestions could be provided for continuing to play Eve. A recruitment tab popup could be automatically configured based on feedback responses and playtimes, more Arcs like the SOE (for new players) could be created that could also be suggested.
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#75 - 2014-03-05 01:24:58 UTC
Acidictadpole wrote:
Steve Ronuken wrote:



The current system is far from perfect, but for getting people to work together, it's problematic to do through an automated system. You don't want to have random people having to depends on other random people to geth through the tutorial. That's just asking for trouble.


(Don't really feel like you answered the question)

I agree, putting people together in the tutorial seems like it would backfire. However, there are a lot of things that could be monitored during the players time with the tutorial, and feedback that the player could give to aura in a fairly consistent manner that would then be able to direct the player further down their path in Eve.

A minor thought I had included Aura asking for feedback after some select missions querying the player for how much they enjoyed doing the tasks in that tutorial. Based on the responses and the players playtime patterns, suggestions could be provided for continuing to play Eve. A recruitment tab popup could be automatically configured based on feedback responses and playtimes, more Arcs like the SOE (for new players) could be created that could also be suggested.



Lets try that again then:

The current tutorial system does reasonably for getting across many of the basics.

However, it isn't good for for getting across many of the rules of thumb that players teach newbros as a matter of course.

Such as 'fit a single type of tank'. Or 'One kind of weapon only'.

Now, I can't think of a way to do it interactively, so I'd suggest adding two sets of things:

A good set of basic fits. Call them Navy Doctrine. This could be restricted to T1 racial frigates (I'd probably add destroyers and maybe one or two cruisers). Any significant rebalancing would require this to be reworked, which is why it shouldn't be on all ships, as nice as that would be)

The second is a set of videos with the explanations. These would have to be restricted in scope to the the core rules, due to the requirements for localisation.


Possibly add something to do with ewar and warp disruption too, as 'advanced' tutorials.

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter

Lors Dornick
Kallisti Industries
#76 - 2014-03-06 14:21:10 UTC
Steve Ronuken wrote:

The exclusiveness of industry shouldn't be down to fighting with the interface. It's down to the logistics. Running the numbers to make sure that what you're doing is profitable, and a good use of your time.

Very much this!

Being good at industry should be down to gathering facts and market intelligence, running numbers, planning and performing logistics (or have someone run the logistics if it's more efficient), marketing your products or services, creating connections with providers/subcontractors/customers and figuring out how to get your stuff sold with a good profit.

It shouldn't be down to managing a constant grind of repeating clicks.

And of course, you'll have my vote(s) this time too ;)

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.

PaulsAvatar
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#77 - 2014-03-07 13:22:39 UTC
You have my vote.

Thank you for all that you've already contributed.
Tesco Ergo Sum
#78 - 2014-03-07 19:54:24 UTC
Post on your website when the election is, I'm unsubbed from now until then and won't be reading the forums.

Poor service (DDoS response, slow rate of change), BlueSec and rampant GD trolls means it's time for a holiday.
Doctor Caprician
The Denisovan Initiative
#79 - 2014-03-07 22:50:53 UTC
Tesco Ergo Sum wrote:
Post on your website when the election is, I'm unsubbed from now until then and won't be reading the forums..


Yes, please do announce the start of the election on your website. I tend to forget the forums exist (For my mental health), but I'm frequently on your site playing with your tools (That's hot!).
Zhilia Mann
Tide Way Out Productions
#80 - 2014-03-07 23:57:11 UTC
Steve, I think you already know you have my vote(s) but I'd like to pose a bit of a philosophical question. You know you're outside of your depth and experience in several areas, including some that are close to my heart (in particular low sec balancing). If elected, how do you plan to react to proposals and ideas on those topics? Are you more inclined to react based on your limited knowledge and experience, follow other members of the CSM, or poll the community as a whole through some informal mechanism? Or, more broadly, if elected to the CSM what do you consider to be the appropriate balance of supporting your own positions versus actively working with your constituents to get their concerns voiced even if you disagree with them?

Also: you're horribly, horribly wrong about AFK cloaking. Just so you know Blink.

Good luck out there. Let's hope this is your year.