These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
stoicfaux
#61 - 2014-04-05 01:05:46 UTC
Quote:

CCP mentioned that the optimal income from missioning was blitzing.

And why exactly do we think that's true...?

Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
Beofryn Sedorak
#62 - 2014-04-05 01:12:39 UTC
Because LP is valuable.
stoicfaux
#63 - 2014-04-05 01:20:54 UTC  |  Edited by: stoicfaux
Beofryn Sedorak wrote:
Because LP is valuable.

Yes, I'm aware of LP. I'm also aware about how much can be made by not blitzing.

What I want to know is why does CCP think blitzing is optimal? Do they have actual data/statistics? Is that statement based on a hypothetical mission runner or on aggregate metrics for all mission runners for the last year? Are they referring to null-sec SoE items? Or those 3,000+ isk/lp items that only sell one unit once every blue moon? Does blitzing include cherry picking missions?

Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#64 - 2014-04-05 01:35:42 UTC
on sov mechanics ...
i would think something like having a central capital system - inner - outer systems would make sense so..

Capital system - is HQ system the last system you have to take to take sov of that region ..
- has the biggest well armed station available .. death star style

Inner systems - maybe 3-5 systems with the best industry stations available good defences available to build and with generally best PI/moons etc..

Outer systems - 7+ systems - outer lying systems with more rats and only small outposts mainly for storage .. little defences

a little basic but you get the idea..

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
mkint
#65 - 2014-04-05 01:47:55 UTC
Harvey James wrote:
on sov mechanics ...
i would think something like having a central capital system - inner - outer systems would make sense so..

Capital system - is HQ system the last system you have to take to take sov of that region ..
- has the biggest well armed station available .. death star style

Inner systems - maybe 3-5 systems with the best industry stations available good defences available to build and with generally best PI/moons etc..

Outer systems - 7+ systems - outer lying systems with more rats and only small outposts mainly for storage .. little defences

a little basic but you get the idea..

Wouldn't work. Wouldn't change anything. It wouldn't incentivize new conflicts, smaller fleets, make things any more dynamic, or give smaller groups a progression path.

The best thing that could be done to sov is to remove it entirely. Shift system upgrades to corporate ownership. Thus, an alliance can be what the word means... a cluster of corps working together for the benefit of the corp, rather than a cluster of corps working for the benefit of the one guy who runs the whole alliance. It would incentivize, or at least facilitate, a corp dropping alliance and switching to an alliance that could fit it's needs better.

Maxim 6. If violence wasn’t your last resort, you failed to resort to enough of it.
Suzuka A1
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#66 - 2014-04-05 02:16:43 UTC
Myxx wrote:
What I get from this is that CCP has essentially ceased any new content creation and that expansions are now just large bugfixes and QOL patches.

Am I correct? I see no proof otherwise.


There is a very large number of older players who would argue that this (fixing/changing existing mechanics which have been broken, stale, or never updated) is the best thing to happen to the game in a long time. Continually adding new content only delays the inevitable.

Never forget the battle of Z9PP-H  What actually happened: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgcUwTmHY74 Battle Report: http://www.kugutsumen.com/showthread.php?42836-They-Might-Be-Giants-The-Southwest&p=497626&viewfull=1#post497626
Myxx
The Scope
#67 - 2014-04-05 03:14:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Myxx
Suzuka A1 wrote:
Myxx wrote:
What I get from this is that CCP has essentially ceased any new content creation and that expansions are now just large bugfixes and QOL patches.

Am I correct? I see no proof otherwise.


There is a very large number of older players who would argue that this (fixing/changing existing mechanics which have been broken, stale, or never updated) is the best thing to happen to the game in a long time. Continually adding new content only delays the inevitable.

Unless they intend to redo the pos code, or redo the industry interface, its pretty much pointless to me.

If you look at my character creation date, this character is indeed quite old. Not adding new content makes many others less interested in the game.

you can only redo sov for the nth time before it becomes pointless. I would argue redoing sov again IS pointless, given that the people that own sov are just going to min/max it and blue each other, very much like right now.

I'd rather they added new stuff in and actually expanded the game to become interesting again.
mynnna
State War Academy
Caldari State
#68 - 2014-04-05 03:45:09 UTC
Harvey James wrote:
on sov mechanics ...
i would think something like having a central capital system - inner - outer systems would make sense so..

Capital system - is HQ system the last system you have to take to take sov of that region ..
- has the biggest well armed station available .. death star style

Inner systems - maybe 3-5 systems with the best industry stations available good defences available to build and with generally best PI/moons etc..

Outer systems - 7+ systems - outer lying systems with more rats and only small outposts mainly for storage .. little defences

a little basic but you get the idea..


I would think your posts about sov are even worse than your posts about ship balancing.

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal
Drone 16
Holy Horde
#69 - 2014-04-05 04:03:58 UTC
I don't mission but it seems to me that blitzing should not be the best way to get mission income. You put "content" into the game and then advise players to blitz past it? Seems strange...

It puts the peanutbutter on itself or it leaves the bonus round... - E1's greatest Hits
mynnna
State War Academy
Caldari State
#70 - 2014-04-05 04:06:12 UTC
Drone 16 wrote:
I don't mission but it seems to me that blitzing should not be the best way to get mission income. You put "content" into the game and then advise players to blitz past it? Seems strange...

Acknowledging the fact that players have worked out that blitzing missions is better income than other approaches isn't the same thing as encouraging or advising it.

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal
Suzuka A1
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#71 - 2014-04-05 04:07:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Suzuka A1
Myxx wrote:
Suzuka A1 wrote:
Myxx wrote:
What I get from this is that CCP has essentially ceased any new content creation and that expansions are now just large bugfixes and QOL patches.

Am I correct? I see no proof otherwise.


There is a very large number of older players who would argue that this (fixing/changing existing mechanics which have been broken, stale, or never updated) is the best thing to happen to the game in a long time. Continually adding new content only delays the inevitable.


you can only redo sov for the nth time before it becomes pointless. I would argue redoing sov again IS pointless, given that the people that own sov are just going to min/max it and blue each other, very much like right now.

I'd rather they added new stuff in and actually expanded the game to become interesting again.


The only problem with that is sov was only revamped once (to my knowledge) with the Dominion expansion on December 1, 2009 and so sov has not been 'interesting' on any level for years, resulting in all of EVE's sov holding corps and alliances wanting it to become interesting again, but at the same time fixed in a way that it will not have to be touched for a very long time.

Edit: I forgot to say, revamped incursions, missions, UI, or (dare I say) mining could be considered to make the game interesting again without the need for new stuff (made from scratch).

Never forget the battle of Z9PP-H  What actually happened: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgcUwTmHY74 Battle Report: http://www.kugutsumen.com/showthread.php?42836-They-Might-Be-Giants-The-Southwest&p=497626&viewfull=1#post497626
Jethrow Toralen
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#72 - 2014-04-05 04:16:50 UTC
Quote:
CCP Xhagen:
Good to know.

My line of thinking can also be described as "is the reason for forming a corp a social one or a game mechanic one?" and then the second thought is "would there be any benefit of having a social group, more than just a chat channel, without the baggage that corps are (i.e. the assets, wars, etc.)?"


Re: the second thought, is what you are really asking: 'Is there any benefit of having NPC corps'? I ask, because their characteristics overlap with the characteristics you mention - 'a social group, more than a chat channel and without the baggage that corps are'.

I hope you will ask members actually in NPC corps for feedback before you do anything drastic with them. There is a vast gulf as Seneschal says (but I think from a different perspective) between player and NPC corps. If it weren't for NPC corps I can honestly say I would not have readily dropped a 6 month sub on the game - perhaps not at all.

The NPC corp my playing char is in (UC) has been extremely welcoming, social, helpful and has many veteran members happy to answer questions and give pointers. With no hierarchy there is occasional trolling but that is minor. Tthe sort of player corps I can immediately join as a new player are:

a) small and inexperienced corps who don't require an API and are grateful for anyone
b) established corps who welcome new players (eg Eve Uni) who are wardec'd permanently.
c) established corps who accept new players into their offshoots as grunts and providers of cheap resources

a) is really a case of the blind leading the blind; b) I would love to try, but don't want to feel under siege while I am exploring what the game has to offer. Not averse to PvP, but this is like the honeymoon period... and I don't wanna be consummated every time I undock! c) I am not prepared to hand over a full API to be someone's isk-slave.

My friend started at the same time as I did and joined a PC corp - he has now quit it - I watched him mine for hours and sell his stuff cheap to the offshoot corp and then not be supported in any way by the parent corp when the offshoot corp was effectively shutdown by for-profit and for-lulz wardec'ers.

We are both now staying in NPC corps until we can get 5 mill SP and join (what appear to be) decent corps. For me it will be longer because if I am obliged to hand over a full API to someone it will be on a completely fresh account. If we didn't have a NPC corp to tide us over during this time, we would be 2 more rookie dropouts bringing down the EVE retention rate.
Kethry Avenger
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#73 - 2014-04-05 04:17:02 UTC
1) How will updates to the minutes be communicated?

2) Dolan or Delegate Zero(?) update the EVE, community, CSM, meeting minutes page please. HERE.
Vivi Udan
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#74 - 2014-04-05 04:29:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Vivi Udan
mynnna wrote:
Drone 16 wrote:
I don't mission but it seems to me that blitzing should not be the best way to get mission income. You put "content" into the game and then advise players to blitz past it? Seems strange...

Acknowledging the fact that players have worked out that blitzing missions is better income than other approaches isn't the same thing as encouraging or advising it.


I believe Drone 16 is refering to this quote on page 12

CSM Minutes wrote:
SoniClover countered that some mastery of the
missions was desirable, and that previous tests with more randomization in missions were not
received that well.


Both of you make good points, but the solution still requires CCP to make a change to PVE. Specifically, fundamental changes that not only affect High Sec but every PVE experience in the game so that old and new players alike understand they are playing a massive multiplayer online game and not an over simplified "spaceship simulator"

ex. PVE more PVPish

The Mittani of House GoonWaffe, First of His name, King of the Goons and VFK, Master of griefing, Lord of the CFC, Warden of the West, and Protector of Deklein.
Beofryn Sedorak
#75 - 2014-04-05 05:03:25 UTC
Kethry Avenger wrote:
1) How will updates to the minutes be communicated?

2) Dolan or Delegate Zero(?) update the EVE, community, CSM, meeting minutes page please. HERE.


+1 for updating the minutes list
Kethry Avenger
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#76 - 2014-04-05 05:16:31 UTC
CCP Xhagen wrote:
SeneschaI wrote:
finally! yay!
"Session 16" wrote:
Xhagen threw out a question to the CSM regarding the differences between corporation mechanics and the social aspect of corporations.
Not as much 'differences' as 'handicaps' (mechanics that are beta programming dinosaurs) crippling the social aspects of corporations to the point where the CSM blindly agreed there's a "difference" between npc and player corps.

Really? The comparison shouldn't by all rights even be in the same ballpark as an NPC corp. Makes you wonder how much reflection bitter vets have for the blinkered view they acquire.

The fact the question elicited comments about NPC corps being comparable is proof positive people aren't looking at solutions beyond bandaids. The system is horrible. the fact that Xhagen's question provoked tepid response is horrifying to me and everyone who's been a CEO who at least tries to give power to the people (not just greedily hoard them for the directors/ceo as is the wont of the current overly complex, full of loopholes, paranoiac surrealistic nightmare mechanics)

The actual response to Xhagen's question should have been a resounded "There's a vast gulf!"

Good to know.

My line of thinking can also be described as "is the reason for forming a corp a social one or a game mechanic one?" and then the second thought is "would there be any benefit of having a social group, more than just a chat channel, without the baggage that corps are (i.e. the assets, wars, etc.)?"


Well, I've posted this in comments of a couple blogs but maybe it will get a reasonable response here.

/puts flame suit on

I think there needs to be a place in EVE for a corp lite or stepping stone corp.

I think this corp should have protection from war-decs but be limited to highsec in many ways. It should primarily be as an in game tool to help strengthen social bonds, share resources, and give players a sense of identity to build upon before moving on to more open game play.

This corp-lite would get all the in-game tools to set up roles, hangars, corp-contracts, eve-mail, shared calendar and such.

They could not be war-decced, but they can not war-dec either. This is done because they pay a tax to CONCORD for permanent protection. Tax amount should be set by devs with better ideas about economics than me. Lower than NPC corp tax though. And the Corp could add a tax on top of the npc tax.

If possible I would tax everything. Bounties, mission rewards, refining, market orders. This type of corp should be at a competitive disadvantage to corps exposed to the greater risk of war decs.

This type of corp could not anchor or place any corp assets in space. If you want access to space stuff be a full fledged corp. Corp offices can only be placed in highsec space.

At a time when the corp decides it wants to swim with the bigger fish it could then become a regular corp. This would be a one way one time switch. No going back. You break your contract with CONCORD you lose their protection forever.

This corp should still of course be open to awox, scamming, suicide ganking and such.

I do think CCP needs to improve the corp tab and corp management tools to add more granularity and customization to help prevent awoxing and scamming but they should still be possible.

To answer you question directly CCP Xhagen
Quote:
is the reason for forming a corp a social one or a game mechanic one?


Both. Social groups can make better use out of game mechanics, and game mechanics shared socially create better social groups. This synergy creates bonds to the game and to new friends which theoretically creates people who keep paying CCP which in turn lets you make the game better and so on.

Quote:
"would there be any benefit of having a social group, more than just a chat channel, without the baggage that corps are (i.e. the assets, wars, etc.)?"


If CCP would like to grow the customer base there needs to be a good set of tools in game to form social groups and share resources without the risk of being greifed out of the game by people who are starting with a massive advantage in time, experience, skill points and isk. NPC corps, character tools, and current in-game CCP back tools are clearly not working.

What I have yet to figure out is why CCP isn't just coping all the tools they see developed and putting them in eve, on eve gate, and in other supported systems. (makes me almost buy into DInsdale's theories. (Not really)) The large coalitions and some independent developers have created some really useful set of tools to help groups of people play together easier. Just make your versions of them, help level the playing field in terms of tools and watch your game grow.
Kethry Avenger
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#77 - 2014-04-05 05:41:15 UTC
Last post of mine was relatively thought out. This is one off the cuff. /doubles up flame suit adds nanobot repair kit



Change the NPC dynamics of EVE. In highsec, we shoot pirate NPC's. In lowsec, we should shoot pirate NPC's and Empire NPC's. In Nullsec we should shoot Empire NPC's. WH no agents, don't die to sleepers.

In Highsec we take missions from Empire NPC's against pirates and rival factions. In Lowsec still Empire NPC's agianst pirates. Good opotunity to add traveling or hidden pirate NPC agents to run missions for Pirate NPC's against empire NPC in lowsec. In NPC nullsec, run missions from Pirate NPC's against Empire NPC's. In Player owned Nullsec, run missions from better NPC's of whatever faction you want to align your self with as Corp/Alliance out of your stations.

I think adding NPC's to player owned stations for mission running will go a long way to helping decrease the size of space an Alliance has to hold to feed its members and generate income.

(why can I run missions for Minmatar, against Amarr in Amarr space while we are at war? The sandbox needs some reality checks. Should be running missions for Amarr against Minmatar from conquered Minmatar station.)




Separate but related thought. Down and dirty way to add multiple stations to current sov system. Whichever station was built first in the system by whoever, is the designated sov station till its destroyed, then then next oldest and so on. Only one station has to be destroyed for system flip. Paid devs can decide what happens with other stations. Do they flip? Do they not flip? Which way is more interesting, balanced and fun.

Also I don't see why with adding station destruction it would have to be destroyed. At the point of destruction there should be some kind of option with a timer and a cheap item could be placed in the station by the conquering fleet to either save or destroy it. Say to save the reactor from melt down or cause the reactor to melt down, or something that sounds cooler. If no item placed the default action happens.
Kethry Avenger
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#78 - 2014-04-05 05:45:33 UTC
Last one for now.

I think the format of these minutes are pretty good compared to most of the previous ones.

The length is good, it is clear whose expressing what idea, and there are some moments of levity.


You all horribly fail in terms of amount of pictures or graphs though.

Ok now to catch up on last nights Vikings.
Akrasjel Lanate
Immemorial Coalescence Administration
Immemorial Coalescence
#79 - 2014-04-05 07:40:40 UTC
It's funny seing the CSM comenting on Live Events yet i don't remember seing them on the field when they were happening.
The last batch was runing from September 2012 till the middle of 2013, don't remember the numbers but that was around maby 20-30 events.

CEO of Lanate Industries

Citizen of Solitude
stoicfaux
#80 - 2014-04-05 11:39:24 UTC
Drone 16 wrote:
I don't mission but it seems to me that blitzing should not be the best way to get mission income. You put "content" into the game and then advise players to blitz past it? Seems strange...


Well blitzing versus 'clear all' isn't all that clear cut, at least in a Vargur in high-sec level 4s in minmatar space.


    First number LP value, 2nd number is blitzing income, 3rd is non-blitzing
  • 0 isk/lp: 42M/hour versus 71M/hour
  • 800 isk/lp: 71M/hour versus 88M/hour
  • 1,000 isk/lp: 78M/hour versus 93M/hour
  • 2,000 isk/lp: 115M/hour versus 115M/hour
  • 3,000 isk/lp: 151M/hour versus 137M/hour


Blitzing numbers: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=334784&find=unread
Clear all numbers: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=320422&find=unread

Even with the expected reprocessing nerf, the numbers were competitive. Why is why I'm curious about CCP's reasoning behind "blitzing is optimal" comment.

/statistically_invalid_sample_size_be_damned

Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.