These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Jita Park Speakers Corner

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page123Next page
 

CSM9 summer summit

First post First post
Author
RUS Comannder
Writing Memoirs
#21 - 2014-08-15 23:20:29 UTC
I wonder if it would be too much to ask each CSM if they could, in a very short message, tell us how they developed the bullet points they want to present. I'm not asking what the ideas or areas of the game they want to address, but rather how they came about building their list.. The main thing I'm interested in is will they be representing themselves, themselves and a few friends, Their CEO/corp/ alliance, chat from some chat rooms, a specific part of space (hi.low.null,WH... In other words, what has informed them of things which need work, their own experience or who are they represent.

No one has asked me what I think and none of them I have written to have responded. Unless it is happenstance, I don't feel represented.

My first desire is to see ALL bots out of the game and a tutorial portion which must be completed, just a few minutes, so every player will know they have ONE strike and then an appeals process held in Siberia at which they must be present with a day's notice.

Closely behind or maybe equal - make RMT a little tougher on the enforcement side and a lot more active on the detection side. Even though a goal of zero happenings may not ever be achieved is not a reason to let up on trying and improving methods.

Give a lot of thought to offering a version with CO-OP play with about 40 players, 20-30 on each side who are assigned to the side with the fewest Humans at login and really tough AI who all will be slightly better equipped and trained, on average than the opposing human team, Give each round a constellation of 5 or 6 systems using hi, lo & null and a mission. That is essentially what you do with Incursions, but make this so it is separate from the rest of New Eden to keep interlopers out and not have contested sites. Be more creative with the missions so they are not choreographed like a dance routine. Have no recruitment by agenda laden FCs, Let players seeking a round to play have a list of missions currently running and who the members of the leadership are on both sides. Players can sign up for either side and will go in as losses occur keeping the human sides even. Good leaders are always more enjoyable to follow, so instead of agenda laden FCs, deciding who can and cannot play, players will choose the FC they want to follow and FCs select their replacements. Have Shield and Armor rounds. Let the game begin when each side has a certain number of players, maybe just one on each side. First one is the FC. Have the server constantly assessing the strength of the teams and adjusting the number of NPCs with slightly better equipment and training. Let each player be individually rewarded based on participation and critical participation. Participation would be just dps and damage done, but nothing extra for the player who happens to hang back to deliver the killing blow. Logis rewarded by the amount of repairs made not counted in ships repaired, but the real repairs. Let critical participation be when a player does the most damage to a critical enemy player or the most damage done to a significantly larger ship. Perhaps critical participation is taking more chance to rescue a damsel from a more heavily fortified position, or moving ore from one place to another thus taking control of a sentry gun from the enemy. Get rid of ten minute POS bash even in current incursions. Make a big dent in the wallet or standings so corps won't roll in to sabotage one side by killing fleetmates so their corpmates on the other side can do well. Something like an auto transfer of ISK from a saboteur's wallet to cover the expense caused by friendly fire and if the saboteur's wallet is not thick enough, hit the wallets of the corpmates in that mission. Use the strength of the NPCs to even out the shiny titan, carrier and dreadnought side against the all Drake opponent side. Have every NPC death replaced by a warp-in ship and fit that moves the balance between the two fleets more toward even. Also have some space set aside for pure player VS NPC, but let the proceeds from those missions either have lower values than PvP CO-OP or make the PVE CO-OP missions hard.

This could be offered as a totally separate game with a payment structure allowing CCP to profit while being thought of as a value to players. Much of the work is already done, though the balancing, restitution, waiting lists will require a lot of new coding, but I'm guessing a well set-up PvP/ PvE CO-OP server separate from the existing New Eden assets with mutual skill advancement, maybe implants crossed over or maybe a choice to crossover some or all implants and corp membership. Names would crossover or a player may start a new toon. Perhaps a first login one time only opportunity to crossover ISK, ships,etc... but never a crossover from the CO-OP side to the NEW Eden side. Create a NPC market priced with average prices from all of New Eden. No industrial activity or salvaging in CO-OP space. Players could only sell items bought from the CO-OP market, not any crossed over.

Please, I am offering this in this forum because I have not been able to be sure any of the CSM have not just deleted my messages and this seems all new to them. Please start another forum if anyone wants to comment or discuss the idea. I don't want to or be thought of as trying to hijack this forum.

Thanks!
Mike Azariah
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#22 - 2014-08-15 23:55:53 UTC
Niko Lorenzio wrote:
Hang me by the noose but I would argue NDA shouldn't exist in EVE Online. I know it's hard to tell from the forum posts but this is a mature dedicated community. We would rather have early discussion on a proposed feature and have it dropped than not have a discussion at all.


I see you are new here, let me show you 'local' or the forums General Discussion

WE are mature . . . to a point but then the http://handcannononline.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/internetdick_det_1024x1024.jpeg Greater Internet Theory of John Gabriel starts to kick in.

Not to mention the part about people thinking that if something is mentioned in passing then it must be about to ship and resulting chaos ensues.

You also assume that the only thing we (the CSM) see is purely in game assets and not more corporate type information that CCP might not want their competition to have easy access to.

The NDA is there for CCP's protection and sanity. CSM came in knowing we would know things and be unable to talk about them but we signed the paper so we could see what could be done.

m

Mike Azariah  ┬──┬ ¯|(ツ)

Rekkr Nordgard
Borderland Militia
Zero Hedge Union
#23 - 2014-08-15 23:57:29 UTC
So we should expect the minutes to be released sometime early 2015 then?
Niko Lorenzio
United Eve Directorate
#24 - 2014-08-16 00:30:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Niko Lorenzio
Mike Azariah wrote:
Niko Lorenzio wrote:
Hang me by the noose but I would argue NDA shouldn't exist in EVE Online. I know it's hard to tell from the forum posts but this is a mature dedicated community. We would rather have early discussion on a proposed feature and have it dropped than not have a discussion at all.


I see you are new here, let me show you 'local' or the forums General Discussion

WE are mature . . . to a point but then the http://handcannononline.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/internetdick_det_1024x1024.jpeg Greater Internet Theory of John Gabriel starts to kick in.

Not to mention the part about people thinking that if something is mentioned in passing then it must be about to ship and resulting chaos ensues.

You also assume that the only thing we (the CSM) see is purely in game assets and not more corporate type information that CCP might not want their competition to have easy access to.

The NDA is there for CCP's protection and sanity. CSM came in knowing we would know things and be unable to talk about them but we signed the paper so we could see what could be done.

m


Haha, that's why I said forums are a bad example of that. Also the reason I don't give forum posting alts any attention. If they hide their virtual character behind another fake character then I don't take anything they say seriously.

You can't deny the fact that behind all that noise there is very good and constructive feedback. One that would be a lot more useful in planning phase of a feature rather than after it's announced. Anything related to CCP as a company of course should be NDA, I did not realize you even had access to such things; when you start discussing features which will radically affect your players I think a little more input and early feedback would benefit everyone.

Not that I don't trust or think the CSM is not doing a good job but a dozen individuals cannot possibly make up for thousands of players and crazy ways they deal with things.

The CSM XI Election are now open until March 25th, 2016. Consider Niko Lorenzio for CSM XI.

CSM matters, your voice matters, your vote matters!

Niko Lorenzio
United Eve Directorate
#25 - 2014-08-16 03:30:16 UTC
One more request/question.

Why is that we still don't have an official CSM channel in game? I know we have forum section dedicated for communicating with CSM but a channel would seem like a perfect addition to quickly get in touch with any/all CSM members online.
It would also increase exposure to the CSM, make it easier to campaign and allow for player that don't want anything to do with the forums to casually meet and talk to the CSM members.

What do the members of CSM think about this idea? Do you think that such a channel would be too intrusive to your personal game time?

The CSM XI Election are now open until March 25th, 2016. Consider Niko Lorenzio for CSM XI.

CSM matters, your voice matters, your vote matters!

mr roadkill
Silent but Violent
#26 - 2014-08-16 06:09:29 UTC
mr roadkill wrote:
Will the integrating mechanics between EVE and Merc Gameplay be on the agenda? If so - Will the CPM be involved as well?

This subject needs to be discussed by both parties why not hit them all up at once.

Alot of people playing Mercs dont feel the integration mechanics leave enough room for EVE pilots to care what happens on the ground. for example in FW a system will flip weather you have merc support or not.

I realize this was done for a reason, that CCP didn't want to break EVE should Merc gameplay fail.... however from a MERC point of view it fails partially down to the fact that Mercs are not needed to achieve anything.

I.e. EVE mechanics need to change to make merc players more utilized - Be they DUST or Legion (if it gets the go ahead).


Quoting for attention. Seems like you have to ***** about the NDA or minutes round here to get a responce.
Mike Azariah
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#27 - 2014-08-16 07:51:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Mike Azariah
Niko Lorenzio wrote:
One more request/question.

Why is that we still don't have an official CSM channel in game? I know we have forum section dedicated for communicating with CSM but a channel would seem like a perfect addition to quickly get in touch with any/all CSM members online.
It would also increase exposure to the CSM, make it easier to campaign and allow for player that don't want anything to do with the forums to casually meet and talk to the CSM members.

What do the members of CSM think about this idea? Do you think that such a channel would be too intrusive to your personal game time?


There was one, back in the day, and it was very very quiet so it withered on the vine

http://csm9.org/contact.php this page (not to mention the wensite it is part of) is a good start. Not all of us monitor all the various means of communication. Me, I try for twitter, answer most of my evemail, and patrol parts of the forums. That is why you see more of me than the others

As to representing? Whenever I am in a fleet I talk openly and ask questions. You can ask several incursion communities if they have heard from me lately. I appear on multiple eve radio casts as well as Podside and High Drag. With the NDA clutched to my breast I do my best to answer questions that come my way.

Whoever you think represents you . . . contact them.

BUT

You great idea for a ninja cap killer that can tank blappy dreads and has immunity to all e-war is nice . . . and called a Polaris. Even if we agree that it would be cool . . . some ideas we don't take right to CCP because we KNOW the answer.

Kind of the reverse of the legendary Goon philosophy. We don't want to make your game better, we want to make THE GAME better.

m

Mike Azariah  ┬──┬ ¯|(ツ)

Niko Lorenzio
United Eve Directorate
#28 - 2014-08-16 13:08:15 UTC
Mike Azariah wrote:
Niko Lorenzio wrote:
One more request/question.

Why is that we still don't have an official CSM channel in game? I know we have forum section dedicated for communicating with CSM but a channel would seem like a perfect addition to quickly get in touch with any/all CSM members online.
It would also increase exposure to the CSM, make it easier to campaign and allow for player that don't want anything to do with the forums to casually meet and talk to the CSM members.

What do the members of CSM think about this idea? Do you think that such a channel would be too intrusive to your personal game time?


There was one, back in the day, and it was very very quiet so it withered on the vine

http://csm9.org/contact.php this page (not to mention the wensite it is part of) is a good start. Not all of us monitor all the various means of communication. Me, I try for twitter, answer most of my evemail, and patrol parts of the forums. That is why you see more of me than the others

As to representing? Whenever I am in a fleet I talk openly and ask questions. You can ask several incursion communities if they have heard from me lately. I appear on multiple eve radio casts as well as Podside and High Drag. With the NDA clutched to my breast I do my best to answer questions that come my way.

Whoever you think represents you . . . contact them.

BUT

You great idea for a ninja cap killer that can tank blappy dreads and has immunity to all e-war is nice . . . and called a Polaris. Even if we agree that it would be cool . . . some ideas we don't take right to CCP because we KNOW the answer.

Kind of the reverse of the legendary Goon philosophy. We don't want to make your game better, we want to make THE GAME better.

m


Oh I know, I participate and listen to those. I was just thinking of reaching a wider audience and making CSM members more accessible to the rest of the community. That's still a shame about the channel as it would also allow for casual comments in passing. I've caught you being wrong on some mechanics several times, but not wrong enough to warrant a mail or a forum post etc.

I'm not sure what idea you're referring to, I never proposed such a ship as that would be insane. I'm guessing you're referring to my posts on the Sov Mechanic thread. Those were just random darts being thrown around to trigger ideas/discussion, not part of a single proposed ship. I always think about how mechanics affect the game and argue for those that would improve everyone's experience even if it's at the cost of my own.

The CSM XI Election are now open until March 25th, 2016. Consider Niko Lorenzio for CSM XI.

CSM matters, your voice matters, your vote matters!

Josef Djugashvilis
#29 - 2014-08-16 13:22:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Josef Djugashvilis
The CSM9 summer minutes in advance:

'We discussed stuff which we are not at liberty to tell you.

The few bits we are at liberty to tell you, you will have already seen in the game by the time the official minutes are released.

Thank you for your time'.

This is not a signature.

Sion Kumitomo
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#30 - 2014-08-16 14:23:11 UTC
If there's any risk of the minutes being released in a timely manner, I hereby pledge to do my level best to sandbag them or lose them in a black hole.

We brainstormed all kinds of different ways to say that the minutes were delayed, would be a real shame not to get to use them.

On twitter @siggonK

Sugar Kyle
Middle Ground
#31 - 2014-08-16 14:31:41 UTC
Niko Lorenzio wrote:


Oh I know, I participate and listen to those. I was just thinking of reaching a wider audience and making CSM members more accessible to the rest of the community. That's still a shame about the channel as it would also allow for casual comments in passing. I've caught you being wrong on some mechanics several times, but not wrong enough to warrant a mail or a forum post etc.

I'm not sure what idea you're referring to, I never proposed such a ship as that would be insane. I'm guessing you're referring to my posts on the Sov Mechanic thread. Those were just random darts being thrown around to trigger ideas/discussion, not part of a single proposed ship. I always think about how mechanics affect the game and argue for those that would improve everyone's experience even if it's at the cost of my own.


I believe he was being general.

I actually do have an in game chat channel and I'm normally on daily for convos or mail.

Member of CSM9 and CSM10.

Ripard Teg
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#32 - 2014-08-16 21:42:11 UTC
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:
The CSM9 summer minutes in advance:

'We discussed stuff which we are not at liberty to tell you.

The few bits we are at liberty to tell you, you will have already seen in the game by the time the official minutes are released.

Thank you for your time'.

Again, the Minutes are not intended to be part of CCP's marketing effort, nor are they expected to release information about game features in advance. The Minutes have three points:
* to give EVE players insights into how the game is developed so that they both have a better understanding of the realities of the limitations of what can be done in X time;
* to give EVE players insights into how features get developed and in particular the various ways that a feature could be developed before the final option/possibility is selected; and,
* to increase accountability among individual CSM members so that you can see which CSM members are advocating your interests and which are not.

Now as a side benefit, the Minutes do occasionally hint at upcoming features or development directions because it turns out CSM members are EVE players and past and current CSM members get off on that kind of thing. But it's not the main point to the exercise.

With this in mind, go read sessions 9 (Ship Balancing), 12 (UI), 15 (Future of Big Fights), and 18 (Art) from the last summit and you'll see what I think are more or less ideal Summit Minutes. There were other sessions in that set that I was happy with (4, 6, 16, 17, etc) but I was particularly happy with those first four.

aka Jester, who apparently was once Deemed Worthy To Wield The Banhammer to good effect.

Josef Djugashvilis
#33 - 2014-08-16 21:45:39 UTC
Ripard Teg wrote:
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:
The CSM9 summer minutes in advance:

'We discussed stuff which we are not at liberty to tell you.

The few bits we are at liberty to tell you, you will have already seen in the game by the time the official minutes are released.

Thank you for your time'.

Again, the Minutes are not intended to be part of CCP's marketing effort, nor are they expected to release information about game features in advance. The Minutes have three points:
* to give EVE players insights into how the game is developed so that they both have a better understanding of the realities of the limitations of what can be done in X time;
* to give EVE players insights into how features get developed and in particular the various ways that a feature could be developed before the final option/possibility is selected; and,
* to increase accountability among individual CSM members so that you can see which CSM members are advocating your interests and which are not.

Now as a side benefit, the Minutes do occasionally hint at upcoming features or development directions because it turns out CSM members are EVE players and past and current CSM members get off on that kind of thing. But it's not the main point to the exercise.

With this in mind, go read sessions 9 (Ship Balancing), 12 (UI), 15 (Future of Big Fights), and 18 (Art) from the last summit and you'll see what I think are more or less ideal Summit Minutes. There were other sessions in that set that I was happy with (4, 6, 16, 17, etc) but I was particularly happy with those first four.


My comment was not intended to disparage the CSM or CCP.

It is simply my description of the nature of the beast.

This is not a signature.

DJentropy Ovaert
The Conference Elite
CODE.
#34 - 2014-08-16 22:05:04 UTC
Ripard Teg wrote:

aka Jester, who apparently was once entrusted to Wield The Banhammer to good effect.


Most tasteless signature ever. To be honest, it's just like bullying and having to read it makes my rights feel violated.
Ripard Teg
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#35 - 2014-08-16 22:30:25 UTC
DJentropy Ovaert wrote:
Ripard Teg wrote:

aka Jester, who apparently was once entrusted to Wield The Banhammer to good effect.


Most tasteless signature ever. To be honest, it's just like bullying and having to read it makes my rights feel violated.

The very best thing about my apparently being trusted to take up Mjolnir was that I only realized three months later that James 315 spent years bragging that no member of the New Order had ever been banned.

Can't exactly brag about that any more, can he?

In other news: cry more.

aka Jester, who apparently was once Deemed Worthy To Wield The Banhammer to good effect.

Mike Azariah
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#36 - 2014-08-17 05:43:38 UTC
Niko Lorenzio wrote:


I'm not sure what idea you're referring to, I never proposed such a ship as that would be insane. I'm guessing you're referring to my posts on the Sov Mechanic thread. Those were just random darts being thrown around to trigger ideas/discussion, not part of a single proposed ship. I always think about how mechanics affect the game and argue for those that would improve everyone's experience even if it's at the cost of my own.


Oh, I was not attacking you. Not in the least. I apologise if it came across that way. But we all have seen proposals that are so ludicrous that they make facepalming innadequate. I was speaking in the more general sense about those.

Again, sorry if you felt that I was making a personal attack

m

Mike Azariah  ┬──┬ ¯|(ツ)

mynnna
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#37 - 2014-08-17 06:37:41 UTC
Mostlyharmlesss wrote:
Good job to the 7 people signing up to participate in the CSM and then being unable to actually attend the meetings in person!

You realize that it's explicitly setup that only 7 people go to the summit, right? It's not like the other 7 just couldn't attend. Lol

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal

Flamespar
WarRavens
Imperium Eden
#38 - 2014-08-17 10:50:58 UTC
If I can suggest a topic for the meeting.

At the moment the current vision for EVE seems very alliance focused (and is pretty boring in my opinion).

Can you ask CCP to talk about the vision from the perspective of different player groups? What does having a home in space look like for a solo player? For the small corp? For the casual player?

There is a bit of "CCP is making new space that only the mega-alliances will be able to access" sentiment going round.

Oh and to talk about the need for a compelling link between EVE and Legion (if greenlit). The EVE/Dust link was one of the few things that made Dust exciting and really captured peoples imagination with it's potential.

Niko Lorenzio
United Eve Directorate
#39 - 2014-08-17 14:05:32 UTC
Mike Azariah wrote:
Niko Lorenzio wrote:


I'm not sure what idea you're referring to, I never proposed such a ship as that would be insane. I'm guessing you're referring to my posts on the Sov Mechanic thread. Those were just random darts being thrown around to trigger ideas/discussion, not part of a single proposed ship. I always think about how mechanics affect the game and argue for those that would improve everyone's experience even if it's at the cost of my own.


Oh, I was not attacking you. Not in the least. I apologise if it came across that way. But we all have seen proposals that are so ludicrous that they make facepalming innadequate. I was speaking in the more general sense about those.

Again, sorry if you felt that I was making a personal attack

m


Wow, that is some coincidence. I thought you misunderstood ME in this post. I'm sorry for the misunderstanding and the trouble lol.

I do mention a few crazy and insane cap killing/countering ideas but again I was simply brainstorming in public.

The CSM XI Election are now open until March 25th, 2016. Consider Niko Lorenzio for CSM XI.

CSM matters, your voice matters, your vote matters!

Zenshift
Offworld Accounts
#40 - 2014-08-17 19:01:19 UTC
I'll just parrot a few topics here:

- Discuss implementation of tools to help pseudo-corp communities such as NPSI organizations, Incursion runners and organizers of special events. Expand on the basic chat channel and mailing list and look at temporary bookmarks, calandar events, fleet invites that persist through a disconnect, a more flexible standings sytem (moar colors!), etc.

- The addition of Burner style missions that are not part of the current Level 4 pool. The idea of missions with only a few tough NPCs is good so expand to cruiser size Burner missions (or a fabled faction fit NPC destroyer). That pvp oriented fitting missions could send people out to low / NPC null where Concord or the Empires send pilots out to bountyhunt pirate "bosses". The addition of missions that encourage pvp fitting to lead to PvPvE content where players hunt players hunting tough NPCs.

- Improving corp and alliance UI while maintaining a good level of options for setting roles and organizing membership. Addition of game mechanics that encourage raising capital within a player organization, a revamp of the share system, in-game lottery and bond systems.
Previous page123Next page