These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

New Dev Blog: CSM December summit – meeting minutes are out

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
SkyMeetFire
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#41 - 2012-01-17 19:05:30 UTC
John Nucleus wrote:
Big smile"CCP acknowledged the imperative of a second midslot on the Retribution"Big smile

Also, how about just putting 2 mid slots by default to anything meant to fight wars, like the Coercer for example?


This would be very nice to make the Coercer a bit better in frig fleets, but I feel this is nowhere near as necessary as with the Retribution. The Retri is, if I remember correctly, the only T2 ship with a single midslot. This has always been a huge issues with the ship. I'm also glad that AFs and EASs are also being looked at, as I'm personally a big fan of the ships but disappointed with the cost vs performance increase from T1 to T2 ships in this range.

I like the idea of capital tackle module in some ways, it would provide an interesting dynamic to capital fights, and could force more capital kills. What I don't agree with, however, is the introduction of another capital ship to fill that category, as it seems like too much of a niche roll for another cap ship. What about making a highslot capital tackle mod that Dreads can fit? Make it so a dread pilot can fit either this or a siege module, but not both. Allow it to provide a small boost to DPS and tanking ability, and make it force a dread AND its target be stationary like the siege module (perhaps increase the mass on both?) This allows the dread pilot the option of providing DPS or providing tackle, and increases value of Dreads overall. This might increase their usage in capital conflicts even more.
Chard Kalan
Doomheim
#42 - 2012-01-17 19:07:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Chard Kalan
An email for security verification? Are you kidding me? That's a stupid idea and does nothing to prevent players from getting their accounts hacked. Implement a proper two-form verification process or GTFO.
GM Homonoia
Game Master Retirement Home
#43 - 2012-01-17 19:08:02 UTC
Ryunosuke Kusanagi wrote:


1) Master account. - Biggest question here is what happens in the master account is ... compromised? What exactly is tied to the master account, how much information is shared between accounts?


This is all theory as of yet as no true designs exist yet. However, the master account is you, as a person. The master account has all the normal information your normal accounts have; thus your name, birth date, etc. This is the exact same information one would get if a regular account gets compromised. The only extra information one would have is the user names of all your other accounts. However, at the moment, if one of your accounts is breached, chances are very high that the rest is accessed as well.

There are some security concerns, of course, but it also allows you, the player, and us, to manage those accounts in a much better way. If done right, it can also enhance security or increase the awareness for a need of proper security. Pretty much if you stick to good security practices your accounts should be as safe as they can be:

- Long, unique passwords
- Don't use the same user names and passwords anywhere else (this is the cause for almost all account security issues DO NOT USE THE SAME USER NAME AND PASSWORD ANYWHERE ELSE)
- Don't click on links you do not trust
- Don't use third party links to access our websites
- Don't EVER share your login information, not even with CCP employees through official CCP channels (like petitions); we do not need to know your password (we may need your user name and email, but that is all), in fact we cannot even see your password.

Senior GM Homonoia | Info Group | Senior Game Master
Aineko Macx
#44 - 2012-01-17 19:12:06 UTC
The minutes are full of win, generally :)

@GM Homonoia:
We're still waiting on some info about the use of the auth tokens we got at fanfest...

iveeCore 3.0: The PHP engine for industrial activities and CREST library
Dwindlehop
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#45 - 2012-01-17 19:12:09 UTC
Abdiel Kavash wrote:
I am not sure I like the idea of shifting alliance-level income to come mostly from member taxes. For me, one of the major selling points of 0.0 (and EVE in general) is the fact that as an individual, I don't need to subject myself to the grind so common to other games. Instead, I am able to participate in fun stuff (i.e. killing people), and rewards from said fight give a more or less passive income to my alliance. That money then comes right back to me in form of replacement ships, capital subsidies, and whatnot.

Essentially, the money is not gained because people do the same repetitive task over and over (and let's face it, you can't design a money-making mechanic that wouldn't get repetitive after a year or two). The money is gained because an entire corporation, alliance, or coallition can cooperate and achieve long-lasting political and military power.

tl;dr: More passive income on alliance/corp level -> less time required for individuals to grind ISK -> more time for people to fight -> promotes warfare, conflict, and all that fun stuff.

Some alliances are not run like yours. I agree that an income which is 100% member taxes is as busted as an income which is 100% non-sov alliance-level. An alliance needs wiggle room to determine what activities form its income, depending upon its space, membership, and goals.
Scrapyard Bob
EVE University
Ivy League
#46 - 2012-01-17 19:13:22 UTC
Master accounts are a bad idea until we can tie a key fob to our account (even TOR has a key fob for logging in).

They were advertised at the 2011 Fan Fest, given away in some goodie bags, but we haven't heard much of anything since then.
Ryunosuke Kusanagi
#47 - 2012-01-17 19:13:57 UTC
BeanBagKing wrote:
Great stuff! I want to take the time to respond to it in full when I'm not in the middle of a school week, so it might be a few days. I hope CCP/CSM keeps paying attention to this thread through the weekend. Almost everything I saw though I liked (Sub hunting \o/)

Grarr Dexx - There is a definite distinction between someone training for a FOTM fit and someone having a skill intensive and expensive asset completely altered by CCP. The distinction I see here is that a FOTM ship/fit/etc can be rendered obsolete by other players. For example if I trained Abaddons all the way up, armor fit, T2 large pulse, etc. It works well for a while but someone comes up with a counter for it, it's now obsolete and I have to train for a shield arty fit. That's a FOTM, something that works well, that people like, but doesn't last. There is no way that players who spent a year or more training for a supercap could have anticipated the changes CCP made to their play style. It was completely out of player control from a game perspective. This wasn't people training for a flavor. To put it another way, actions IN EVE should have consequences you have to live with. Actions by CCP however should not punish a player.

That said, I don't think I agree with skill reimbursement here anyway. I don't think this is something that should be bandied about because any future change CCP makes to a ship could be used as a basis for players to ask for reimbursements. Slippery slope and all that.

Ryunosuke Kusanagi - Regarding point 3 in your post. Re-read that section again, CSM were against adding more supercaps.



I know... that is why i said it the way I did, that it was ccp's idea to add the supercap tacklers :)
Ryunosuke Kusanagi
#48 - 2012-01-17 19:19:08 UTC
GM Homonoia wrote:
Ryunosuke Kusanagi wrote:


1) Master account. - Biggest question here is what happens in the master account is ... compromised? What exactly is tied to the master account, how much information is shared between accounts?


This is all theory as of yet as no true designs exist yet. However, the master account is you, as a person. The master account has all the normal information your normal accounts have; thus your name, birth date, etc. This is the exact same information one would get if a regular account gets compromised. The only extra information one would have is the user names of all your other accounts. However, at the moment, if one of your accounts is breached, chances are very high that the rest is accessed as well.

There are some security concerns, of course, but it also allows you, the player, and us, to manage those accounts in a much better way. If done right, it can also enhance security or increase the awareness for a need of proper security. Pretty much if you stick to good security practices your accounts should be as safe as they can be:

- Long, unique passwords
- Don't use the same user names and passwords anywhere else (this is the cause for almost all account security issues DO NOT USE THE SAME USER NAME AND PASSWORD ANYWHERE ELSE)
- Don't click on links you do not trust
- Don't use third party links to access our websites
- Don't EVER share your login information, not even with CCP employees through official CCP channels (like petitions); we do not need to know your password (we may need your user name and email, but that is all), in fact we cannot even see your password.


nono, from reading the minutes, that is what you (CCP) are trying to implement, these are just some questions that are arising from such ideas. if a master account system is implemented, what account information on the other accounts linked to it are shared? :)
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#49 - 2012-01-17 19:20:36 UTC
Thanks for the minutes, good read and some very nice content.

Drones as module icons would solve my biggest gripe with the drone UI, dropdown menus are terrible in the heat of combat. Overall the UI team had a stellar list <3

Big up to Basementben and the rest of the Art Team, looking forward to all the goodies!

Only thing I maybe missed was rethinking armor rig penalties, to balance out the tank forms.

Nice to see the company heading to a good direction Cool

.
Grady Eltoren
Hogyoku
#50 - 2012-01-17 19:24:18 UTC
A few thoughts for the CSM, CCP, Players to ponder/comment on:

Overall - great tone. Good topics. Good progress.

My only major problem was that no-one seems to think that group cohesion and Corporation rights/POS rights are tied together? I know we all love theft in EVE, but there needs to be some more itterations on allowing strangers with a common goal to group up in a corp and move forward.

PLEASE RE-EXAMINE CORP RIGHTS and PERMISSIONS and EXPAND ON IT.

Other topics:

1) Ship Balancing overall is great. Keep it up.
a) EWAR ships as the only ship to jam up a capital would be a cool idea. Make it like an inty speed wise but bonuses to EWAR instead of tackling.
b) Cruiser and Frigate buffing - they MAY need it. Maybe SOME ships do like the scythe or Cellestis...but I want to caution you against buffing them too much as they already have an advantange...PRICE. Those hulls can be very cheap. IF you buff them you risk nerfing T2 versions which are, FOR THE MOST PART, well balanced.
c) Command ships need a buff - just for the time it takes to train them and not to mention the fact that they tank worst and most of their T1 counterparts. As far as their role VS. T3 - I agree there needs to be more seperation. But how about just make two command ships for each race instead of one command ship that does both? Just an idea.
d) Battleships - I want to mention them because they were not mentioned. For the most part they seem balanced but WATCH THEM when rebalancing the lower ships. They risk becoming nerfed. Also - their T2 counterparts (Marauders and B.Ops) NEED LOVE. You know this. Now please fix it. Why were they not talked about? Marauders are expensive PVE boats which is fine...but does that mean that Black Ops should be only Expensive PVP boats? If that is the case please look at them both and the time it takes to train them and thus risk vs reward associated. Both are RARELY used.

2) Aurum discussion - I see no problem with Aurum as another currency or MT's. I DO HOWEVER think CCP NEEDS to keep rolling out some of these art projects players can buy. Obviousy V3 skins are a few months off, but please keep the doll clothes rolling in as INCARNA in full WILL HAPPEN some day...best to work on the system now.
2a) I also loved the idea of ALLIANCE ship skins. That whole discussion was a WIN.

3) Mine-sweeper -esque ship to find AFK/Cloaked vessels. Generally I am in favor of this and could see it being a HIGHLY specialized training ground to achieve. However I am not sure I like the idea because it will open another can of worms with mechanics. I still propose my solution like I did in the large discussion on the "Future of 0.0" awhile back, and that is to allow infastructure upgrades to 0.0 that allow Alliances to gather intel and find Cloakers or if SOV is high enough, then cloaking can be disabled in a system maybe? Also, get rid of local in 0.0 unless the residents install an IHUB upgrade.

4) Motivation for 0.0 - should be territory but I agree with some prior posters that you have to be careful about the feedback loops here. We all don't want to be Goons ya know. With that said, I am surprised Small holding was not brought up here as a detterent. I am not too worried though about powerblocks because of Meta gaming and the poor leadership I see in alliances overall. Most of them seem to hang themselves with a long enough rope because the game is such a tough one to play.
Chard Kalan
Doomheim
#51 - 2012-01-17 19:25:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Chard Kalan
GM Homonoia wrote:
Ryunosuke Kusanagi wrote:


1) Master account. - Biggest question here is what happens in the master account is ... compromised? What exactly is tied to the master account, how much information is shared between accounts?


This is all theory as of yet as no true designs exist yet. However, the master account is you, as a person. The master account has all the normal information your normal accounts have; thus your name, birth date, etc. This is the exact same information one would get if a regular account gets compromised. The only extra information one would have is the user names of all your other accounts. However, at the moment, if one of your accounts is breached, chances are very high that the rest is accessed as well.

There are some security concerns, of course, but it also allows you, the player, and us, to manage those accounts in a much better way. If done right, it can also enhance security or increase the awareness for a need of proper security. Pretty much if you stick to good security practices your accounts should be as safe as they can be:

- Long, unique passwords
- Don't use the same user names and passwords anywhere else (this is the cause for almost all account security issues DO NOT USE THE SAME USER NAME AND PASSWORD ANYWHERE ELSE)
- Don't click on links you do not trust
- Don't use third party links to access our websites
- Don't EVER share your login information, not even with CCP employees through official CCP channels (like petitions); we do not need to know your password (we may need your user name and email, but that is all), in fact we cannot even see your password.


Terrible idea without a PROPER form of secondary verification. If I understand this correctly, should the Master Account be compromised, then every account linked to it is automatically compromised as well. Is this correct? While it might be a pain in the backside dealing with multiple, individual accounts, you're placing all the eggs in a single basket here, and not providing a way to keep the eggs from spilling out.
Dwindlehop
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#52 - 2012-01-17 19:25:22 UTC
Quote:
* CCP Dr.EyjoG pointed out that all of the discussions and comments were assuming that the EVE skill
point system was in itself correct. He wondered if it might be fruitful to question this assumption.

Fact of the matter here is EVE already puts a price --- in isk --- on additional skillpoints. Pod pilots can choose to invest in implants to receive additional skillpoints. If CCP added the ability to purchase skill levels for an up-front fee, then corporations could reduce or remove their SP requirements, becoming more friendly to new players. If skill levels could be purchased by third parties and traded to new players, then corps could guarantee new hires have a base set of skills by gifting needed skill levels to them.

Balance it however it makes sense so the uber-rich can't buy supercap pilots at will. It would be so useful to be able to gift a couple million SP for a friend in a Buddy program trial account so he could experience some of the content (Incursions, small-gang PVP) that makes EVE great without a four-week cockblock to skill up appropriately. It's tough to get friends interested in EVE when I have to admit it takes a while to get to the good stuff.

NPE should focus getting the new player to learn by doing.
GM Homonoia
Game Master Retirement Home
#53 - 2012-01-17 19:25:57 UTC
Ryunosuke Kusanagi wrote:
GM Homonoia wrote:
Ryunosuke Kusanagi wrote:


1) Master account. - Biggest question here is what happens in the master account is ... compromised? What exactly is tied to the master account, how much information is shared between accounts?


This is all theory as of yet as no true designs exist yet. However, the master account is you, as a person. The master account has all the normal information your normal accounts have; thus your name, birth date, etc. This is the exact same information one would get if a regular account gets compromised. The only extra information one would have is the user names of all your other accounts. However, at the moment, if one of your accounts is breached, chances are very high that the rest is accessed as well.

There are some security concerns, of course, but it also allows you, the player, and us, to manage those accounts in a much better way. If done right, it can also enhance security or increase the awareness for a need of proper security. Pretty much if you stick to good security practices your accounts should be as safe as they can be:

- Long, unique passwords
- Don't use the same user names and passwords anywhere else (this is the cause for almost all account security issues DO NOT USE THE SAME USER NAME AND PASSWORD ANYWHERE ELSE)
- Don't click on links you do not trust
- Don't use third party links to access our websites
- Don't EVER share your login information, not even with CCP employees through official CCP channels (like petitions); we do not need to know your password (we may need your user name and email, but that is all), in fact we cannot even see your password.


nono, from reading the minutes, that is what you (CCP) are trying to implement, these are just some questions that are arising from such ideas. if a master account system is implemented, what account information on the other accounts linked to it are shared? :)


Can you give an example? Do you mean in game or real life information? And from your perspective or from CCPs perspective?

The theory is you will have 1 account and all game accounts are under that 1 account. So whatever is on those accounts is tied to the master account.

Senior GM Homonoia | Info Group | Senior Game Master
Takeshi Yamato
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#54 - 2012-01-17 19:26:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Takeshi Yamato
Liking it for the most part, but there are some exceptions:

- Another ship whose only purpose is to tackle capitals? Or even worse, making supercarriers able to tackle supercapitals?
First of all, there already exists a shipclass who were introduced just for that job. If they can't do their job, maybe it's time to look into what's preventing them to do it? Fix stuff that's broken instead of introducing more stuff.

One problem with supercapitals is that they are too self-sufficient - if they can tackle other subcapitals, it only makes them more self-sufficient. This seems like the opposite of what's needed.

Maybe finally come to the realization that a "super ship" of any kind is just not a good idea?

- EAFs being able to apply EWAR to ships otherwise immune? Sounds very gimmicky, and how would it fix EAFs that are otherwise hurting. If those ships normally immune to EWAR benefit too much from this immunity, maybe its time to remove the immunity?

- No mention of offgrid gang link boosting? (or did I miss it, search function doesn't work for me in the pdf)
Ayari
Perkone
Caldari State
#55 - 2012-01-17 19:28:47 UTC
Quote:
Cloak Hunters: CCP brought up the possibility of a future cloak-hunting ship or mechanic as a hypothetical; this
was described as ‘more like finding a submarine than pulling a blanket off’ a cloaked ship. The CSM was
cautiously positive about the idea of a cloak-hunting vessel of some kind.


Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Terranid Meester
Tactical Assault and Recon Unit
#56 - 2012-01-17 19:29:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Terranid Meester
More stuff I don't agree with than agree.

Personally I don't think npc stations in 0.0 should be different to outposts in terms of disabable services [I don't think they should regenerate either but be repairable]. It would drive conflict even more and sort out those who would fight for their right to live in a station and those who do not [the losers can always move elsewhere/ use a pos instead etc]. Although the CSM suggesting that station service ehp not be dropped sounds counter-intuative as it suggests they are only making this point to further their own null-sec goals and thus reduce the enjoyment for smaller alliances/gangs. I.e the current CSM seem to be self-serving in that current session.

Destructible outposts I agree with but not the way the loot is resolved that drops. Have it like how ship loot drops.
Its not as if people cannot evacuate their goods if they are paying attention. There seems to be a case of this CSM trying to make things too complicated. While I enjoy a certain amount of knowledge to accomplish things and some complexity, too much will just leave people confused and reduce the overall smooth flow of mechanics. EAF's being able to hold supercapitals for example when personally I just think they need some loving in sig and ehp for example.


Supercapitals having some warp core strength seems a more decent idea as it still allows hics a role and adds a role to other ships [keeping a supercap pinned down]. Im not sure of the supercap docking idea, because personally if you choose to fly and train for it then thats your decision and those things should remain in space in my opinion [just because they are more common doesn't mean they should be allowed to dock] unless the outpost docking bay allows for Pearl Harbour attacks. You should know the consequences of choosing to fly such a thing and act accordingly.

It good to see the CSM acknowledge that they are not game designers although there are some good ideas there too [imo]. Nothing really regarding the iteration of PI which is a great shame.
Ryunosuke Kusanagi
#57 - 2012-01-17 19:31:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Ryunosuke Kusanagi
@GM Homonoia

Quote:
Can you give an example? Do you mean in game or real life information? And from your perspective or from CCPs perspective?

The theory is you will have 1 account and all game accounts are under that 1 account. So whatever is on those accounts is tied to the master account.



okay an example. I would have 3 accounts, one account as the master, and two sub accounts. If my master account is compromised, what systems are in place to keep the other 2 accounts from being compromised as well. What account information on the other two accounts are tied to the master? Usernames? Character information?
leich
Nocturnal Romance
Cynosural Field Theory.
#58 - 2012-01-17 19:33:15 UTC  |  Edited by: leich
TOOOOOOO MUUUUCCCCCHHH TEXT.

Is there not an abridged version for lazy people like me that want to know what was said but dont want to read 40 pages of highly detailed BS.

ALSO

Please do not make any changes to low sec.

Changes to low sec are not required. Ive already read someone metioning changes todo with PVE in lowsec. What is this PVE Thing Low sec is all about the PVP.

Dont let people who dont live in lowsec dictate what happens in low sec.
Indeterminacy
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#59 - 2012-01-17 19:41:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Indeterminacy
I don't understand what is preventing a sov holding alliance from assaulting an NPC 0.0 alliance in its staging area(s). Can someone please explain why systems and stations can't be camped? Staging towers seiged? etc...

And if the discussed changes were made to NPC 0.0 stations...why would these iceberg alliances not simply stage in low-sec in response?

As for reallocating SP, why not use a system just like the attribute re-map system and allow players x number of SP remaps in y amount of time? Perhaps limit the remap to some % of the toon's total SP?
Callidus Dux
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#60 - 2012-01-17 19:42:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Callidus Dux
That "Veteran Program" sounds very interesting. This would be good idea. I have a proposal to this: Begin listening to the veterans. Sad

Reintroduce standings info from other players (standing tab for faction and corp standings)!
At least CCP should know the name DOSPERADO and what he did for CCP. If not; this would be a shame. X

To: remove of learning implants:
Do not remove the learning implants. Because one of the PvP’er claims it would be too expensive to bring his clone in PvP, you follow this dumb argumentation?
“I am a PvP’er and can not achieve such an expensive implant; so no one other should also do!”
For a PvE’er it would be nonsense to use a clone with slave implants. You must remove this sort of implant too if you want to remove my learning implants.
There are much other expensive implants on the market. Every one with special capabilities. One more than other helpful for total other jobs. To remove all non PvP-implants would be dumb.

You should think about to implement further jump-clone possibilities before you remove established items.

“I have not skilled it- So nerf it!” or “Not useable for me- remove it!” This is not an argument; this is only a dumb claim to annoy other people for things that someone else can not use but also won’t permit other peoples to use it.