EVE Information Portal

Always interesting, but regarding the whole suppression of corp member aggression I would suggest thinking ouside the box and revising at the same time other mechanics.

I totally agree that being in a corp should not be an agreement for being able to aggro and be aggro. But what about fleets ? Aggroing fleet members is still triggering flags and CONCORD response while being a much more situational and tactical position, also more easily escapable. So why not make fleet members able to aggro eachother ?

It wont delete infiltrating corps or ganking unsuspecting members, but at least it wont be a constant menace as you have to accept the fleet invite.
Moreover it will release some pressure from the logi player using some guns...

Accepting a fleet should be : "i'm ok for fighting alongside these guys for the next minutes/hours and thus accept the risk of some friendly fire occuring" It will also make open fleets more risky and force mining corp to work their diplomacy side if they want to open their fleet to blues.

Very nice. Thank you for doing the summit & the minutes!

Nullsec

---

The direction(s) for nullsec sound very cool but I was a bit confused, with things like these maps:

http://www.gfycat.com/FlashyInstructiveGrackle

and then I was really surprised to hear that "not having names on the map" was even an option. Why wouldn't I or other players want that?

I can't really imagine how the point generation and the upkeep of structures with those changes would work. That being said I think ultimately it ends up in a discussion about how much every single activity in eve factors into that and how different kinds of content are weighed , which is bad because you'd be judging different playstyles.

But the idea of your structures and infrastructure being safe as long as you live in the system, are around and are somewhat defending it successfully and this "active eviction" or invasion talk sounds really interesting.

Granularity is also something I would very much like to see. Intermediate levels from mobile depot to pos to outpost. Again I am not sure how control of different objects in space would work. The most likely thing for me would be planet ownership associated with all things orbiting it, stations, belts etc.

I am also in favor of having game mechanics like bounty, coms, intel, navigation and all the stuff that just "happens" be dependant on structures you have to put up, maintain and keep safe by being around.

Community / Organized Play / PVE design

---

Occupancy and the idea of spreading pve content over larger regions in combination with the movement changes kind of contradict each other don't you think?

Growth

---

Concerning the growth team stuff and the skins: I thought it was already established that there are different kinds of people who will pay for different kinds of things.

I am sure there is a market for super rare and expensive skins from the NES as well as rented skins for corporation and alliance members and one time use skins as rewards or drops. Please don't lock groups of players out by only providing skins through +30% in price in isk or real money.

"Revisiting systems"

---

Just as a general feedback, I joined after retribution so I know eve from that point on, I don't feel like you really have "revisited and iterated on systems" as much as you might think. At least it didn't really feel that way.

The exception: The industry changes were really nice and kudos for removing the loot spew.

Things like warp speed / balance / ship changes, that's not iterating on how the systems work, that's just what inputs and outputs they give.

I mean I believe you might be doing a lot of code maintanence that players don't and shouldn't hear about but in terms of

"Hey we introduced this feature and we're changing it in a critical way because it's not working out as we thought."
That doesn't really happen. Things that I think would be on that list are PI and ISIS (which are partially hidden by the windows you have open, ISIS only has 2 scroll states) ISIS really only has UI issues, The whole Dust integration that happened and now there are like 20 planets where you can bring the second to smallest ship class and only if you are in FW...

I guess compared to the amount of promise and PR build up these ideas have the amount of impact on gameplay they have and had is fairly small. PI as a passive activity you do for 5 minutes and planet shooting with all those conditions, aren't really a lot more than well polished prototypes.

In short "putting it out there, see what the players think and iterate on it" really didn't see a lot iterating from my point of view.

---

Overall I'm really happy with what's being done though.

Wow...no more awoxing? What's the next step, can't aggress players in highsec?

Not that this was that unexpected considering the way Eve has been going recently, but still, what happened to HTFU? Are we going from adaptation and survival to grinding and hugs?

No, I'll actually spend it all in an orgy of ganking before I biomass.



Just when carebears throw a fit, right? One is totally legit, and one is totally not.



I am not threatening anything. I play this game exclusively for non consensual PvP. Everything else is secondary or tertiary as a concern in my eyes.

If the thing I like in the game is removed, it is a simple fact that I will cease playing it.



"Changes" does not equate to the removal of a playstyle. If missioning were quite simply removed tomorrow with no replacement, I would fully expect the mission runners to quit the game.

The difference being of course, that I don't actively go around asking for some people's playstyles to go away entirely.

Can we please go back to the constructive posts re: the minutes? Thanks.

My first impression, is that I don't like the idea of standings decaying.

I spent a fair amount of effort to get my Blood Raider standing up to above 9. I did this, to add some measure of authenticity to my rp shenanigans.

If I have to maintain those standings, then that means I have to stay in Delve, and not interact with the vast majority of people that my shenanigans would be applicable to.

Similarly, an acquaintance feels some level of achievement in having shot so many npcs, that they are at -10.00 standing to the npc factions.

Also, my standings mean that members of my corporation, may install jump clones in blood raider stations, which again, adds a measure of authenticity to things.


So, if the positive standings that I put effort into achieving, decay into nothingness, because I don't want to be tied to a station in Delve, then I would be unhappy.


to describe the effort that I put in: I flew out to Delve in an Executioner frigate, with some blueprints. I refined mission loot to build better ships (punishers and coercers), to do missions with, fitting them with mission loot, when that loot was superior. It was an enjoyable adventure. Everyone I knew said it couldn't be done. They were wrong. lol.

Access to "Jessica" would be awesome. Alliance battle reports. Cluster news. All rendered in a eve video would be great.

Yes. This is why some of us have been shaking the bushes and talking to people about POS to compose a document for CCP about how players actually use, see, and view their POS vs what metrics say about them. They are not jumping into the POS changes but looking to turn it into the homes and wanted objects that they should be.

Actually, we have been asking in public. The discussions with people tend to be in private, due to opsec, but the asking was public.

Well - the asking being public isnt really helpful. Its the results of discussions or the discussions themselves that matter. And i simply dont see the 'opsec' part you state. No need to state systems and/or positions or details that might give too much away. Things can easily be 'generalized' for bullet points - but not knowing who delivers that input in the end makes it not very representative.