These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Bagehi
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#101 - 2012-01-17 22:07:33 UTC
Crasniya wrote:
TorTorden wrote:
I think lost assets should be exactly that, a small drop 20% in freight containers and the rest destroyed.

I you are logged off in a station that is destroyed. You are podded and get log into your medical clone.


So... everyone ragequits when five years of work gets tossed out in three days, and the game ends? Good job. People can't live in destructible stations if there's a high likelihood of losing all your stuff.

Zaxix wrote:
NO, no, no, no, no to the idea for a "spool up timer" for all capital ships. Or, more particularly, a NO for jump freighters. 60 seconds I'm supposed to sit there? With no weapons, no mods, no invul, no help? No thanks. At most, not jumping until invul expires (as it always has been) seems reasonable.


tldr: I want invulnerable freight and no personal risk to ridiculously easy transportation of large amounts of materials.


The failure of this argument is people live in POS's, and they are able to be destroyed. If you read about some of the giant piles of loot people pull out of a POS in w-space when they are taken down by a hostile fleet, you would change your mind. When they lose their wh, they pack up what they have left and start over. Null should be the same. There is no reason if shouldn't be.
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
#102 - 2012-01-17 22:09:56 UTC
Zaxix wrote:

I had expected to hear more about changes to the CSM that would enable non-sov-alliance members to have a voice. The proposed (or maybe finalized, I'm not clear on that) solution seems guaranteed to install the 7 members of the 7 largest alliances in perpetuity. With the tools available to average, small corp/alliance players, there is simply no way to reach out to a sufficient number of new or casual players. Not enough people read these or other forums for anyone using them as a campaign tool to realistically have a chance at gathering the number of votes necessary to compete, and there are no other means for mass communication in EVE (a problem EVE businesses have in general with advertising their services). If you need evidence of why other voices are necessary, just look at the minutes. Where's the discussion of the game from the point of view of hisec players, casual players, and the rest of majority of EVE?

Popular election mechanics tend to have this result, which is why the best qualified candidates rarely get nominated, let alone elected, and issues of general concern are rarely given precedence over special interest groups, even in RL. This is a bad way to run a country, and even a worse way to run a business.

In a company, you would never consider filling the top positions by general popular election, so why do it with the CSM? The CSM should reflect the widest representation of the Eve player base, not just the loudest or biggest political group.

Here is a suggestion:

Assign each of the 7 seats of the CSM to represent a specific area or aspect of the game, particularly in areas which CCP recognizes an emphasized need for player feedback for the upcoming year or release(s). So, perhaps four of the seats are specifically assigned to represent "high sec", "low sec", "null sec", "WH space" issues, respectively. The three other seats can be assigned to "ship balancing", "NPE", "crime and punishment", "market issues", etc. - a large group of issues which changes for each CSM, perhaps depending on what is highest on the agenda for the next release.

Each candidate can only run for one seat. A prelim election is open to anyone who wants to write a campaign statement. A runoff election is held for the top ten candidates, based on the prelim results, for each seat.

Players get to vote for three seats only - picking the three areas/aspects of greatest interest/concern to themselves.

Exploits - ex. an alliance trying to get someone elected in each seat without actually intending to properly represent that seat - can be easily monitored by CCP at the meetings, and any bad apples replaced by the alternates.

Still not a perfect method, but perhaps better than what is currently being proposed?
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#103 - 2012-01-17 22:14:20 UTC
Bagehi wrote:
Crasniya wrote:
TorTorden wrote:
I think lost assets should be exactly that, a small drop 20% in freight containers and the rest destroyed.

I you are logged off in a station that is destroyed. You are podded and get log into your medical clone.


So... everyone ragequits when five years of work gets tossed out in three days, and the game ends? Good job. People can't live in destructible stations if there's a high likelihood of losing all your stuff.

Zaxix wrote:
NO, no, no, no, no to the idea for a "spool up timer" for all capital ships. Or, more particularly, a NO for jump freighters. 60 seconds I'm supposed to sit there? With no weapons, no mods, no invul, no help? No thanks. At most, not jumping until invul expires (as it always has been) seems reasonable.


tldr: I want invulnerable freight and no personal risk to ridiculously easy transportation of large amounts of materials.


The failure of this argument is people live in POS's, and they are able to be destroyed. If you read about some of the giant piles of loot people pull out of a POS in w-space when they are taken down by a hostile fleet, you would change your mind. When they lose their wh, they pack up what they have left and start over. Null should be the same. There is no reason if shouldn't be.


Wormholes provide a level of reward commensurate to that risk. Nullsec does not.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon

Vanessa Vansen
Vandeo
#104 - 2012-01-17 22:15:26 UTC
Quote:
The CSM suggested adding the option of allowing two (or three) characters to train on the same account for the price one PLEX per month for one extra character training. CCP responded that while having the option was a good idea it still would mean that less value would be gained from that PLEX than paying for a full account, as it would not be possible to use two characters on the same account at the same time. The CSM responded that it didn’t matter, this would be a valuable thing, especially since it would mean characters would not need to be transferred between accounts.


And the CSM is right about that ... at least from my point of view Big smile
Bagehi
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#105 - 2012-01-17 22:17:22 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
Bagehi wrote:
The failure of this argument is people live in POS's, and they are able to be destroyed. If you read about some of the giant piles of loot people pull out of a POS in w-space when they are taken down by a hostile fleet, you would change your mind. When they lose their wh, they pack up what they have left and start over. Null should be the same. There is no reason if shouldn't be.


Wormholes provide a level of reward commensurate to that risk. Nullsec does not.


That should not be the case.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#106 - 2012-01-17 22:18:48 UTC
Sizeof Void wrote:
Zaxix wrote:

I had expected to hear more about changes to the CSM that would enable non-sov-alliance members to have a voice. The proposed (or maybe finalized, I'm not clear on that) solution seems guaranteed to install the 7 members of the 7 largest alliances in perpetuity. With the tools available to average, small corp/alliance players, there is simply no way to reach out to a sufficient number of new or casual players. Not enough people read these or other forums for anyone using them as a campaign tool to realistically have a chance at gathering the number of votes necessary to compete, and there are no other means for mass communication in EVE (a problem EVE businesses have in general with advertising their services). If you need evidence of why other voices are necessary, just look at the minutes. Where's the discussion of the game from the point of view of hisec players, casual players, and the rest of majority of EVE?

Popular election mechanics tend to have this result, which is why the best qualified candidates rarely get nominated, let alone elected, and issues of general concern are rarely given precedence over special interest groups, even in RL. This is a bad way to run a country, and even a worse way to run a business.

In a company, you would never consider filling the top positions by general popular election, so why do it with the CSM? The CSM should reflect the widest representation of the Eve player base, not just the loudest or biggest political group.

Here is a suggestion:

Assign each of the 7 seats of the CSM to represent a specific area or aspect of the game, particularly in areas which CCP recognizes an emphasized need for player feedback for the upcoming year or release(s). So, perhaps four of the seats are specifically assigned to represent "high sec", "low sec", "null sec", "WH space" issues, respectively. The three other seats can be assigned to "ship balancing", "NPE", "crime and punishment", "market issues", etc. - a large group of issues which changes for each CSM, perhaps depending on what is highest on the agenda for the next release.

Each candidate can only run for one seat. A prelim election is open to anyone who wants to write a campaign statement. A runoff election is held for the top ten candidates, based on the prelim results, for each seat.

Players get to vote for three seats only - picking the three areas/aspects of greatest interest/concern to themselves.

Exploits - ex. an alliance trying to get someone elected in each seat without actually intending to properly represent that seat - can be easily monitored by CCP at the meetings, and any bad apples replaced by the alternates.

Still not a perfect method, but perhaps better than what is currently being proposed?


CCP Does not get to veto members of the player organization meant to help guide/pollce them. That's a no brainer.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon

RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#107 - 2012-01-17 22:22:57 UTC
Bagehi wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
Bagehi wrote:
The failure of this argument is people live in POS's, and they are able to be destroyed. If you read about some of the giant piles of loot people pull out of a POS in w-space when they are taken down by a hostile fleet, you would change your mind. When they lose their wh, they pack up what they have left and start over. Null should be the same. There is no reason if shouldn't be.


Wormholes provide a level of reward commensurate to that risk. Nullsec does not.


That should not be the case.


Rewards should be (and are) higher in WHs than Null.

This allows people to decide on their level of risk aversion. (Or aversion to horrifying logistics. Yiikes, WH peeps)

Nullsec (with having stations and all) support an encourage collecting stuff. There are more viable (and commonly used) small gang fleet doctrines in null because of the storage and security a station gives you. So the loss would be greater.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon

Caliph Muhammed
Perkone
Caldari State
#108 - 2012-01-17 22:26:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Caliph Muhammed
1) There is no way to implement a war that both caters to those who want to fight wars for a living and cater to those who do not wish to fight wars. If I want to wage war against those who don't which would take precedence?

It sounds like consentual pvp is on its way, if so you can hang it up, and prepare for another 20% downsizing.

2) It may very well be in CCPs best interest for plex to be low, but it sure as hell isn't in mine if i'm buying the plex to sell in game. The day I buy from a company that seeds the same item they are selling is the day I no longer buy them. That choice is yours but the free market will dictate the price of plex or you won't sell plex.

3) A cloak hunting ship. You'll kill solo play, especially in null. I didn't read the removal of local was coming so I have to ask. If they know i'm in system and once they see i'm not on dscan they break out the cloak hunting ship how on earth does one gather Intel?


I sincerly hope the single sentence contradictions in just those three points aren't CCPs new direction, my account will be closed for sure.

And considering I spent a month training cloaking to 5 if you gimp it or change it after the fact i'd like a skill point refund. Along with the ECM skills ive devoted time to as they only shine on cloaky ships and with gimped combat and survivability you can keep em'. If not screw you. I'll find another game.

All in all the minutes avoid detailing the significant changes while highlighting insignificant garbage.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#109 - 2012-01-17 22:33:46 UTC
Caliph Muhammed wrote:


2) It may very well be in CCPs best interest for plex to be low, but it sure as hell isn't in mine if i'm buying the plex to sell in game. The day I buy from a company that seeds the same item they are selling is the day I no longer buy them. That choice is yours but the free market will dictate the price of plex or you won't sell plex.



So far, they've been manipulating PLEX prices by reducing RL prices on PLEX. Or did you not notice that?

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon

Kane Plekkel
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#110 - 2012-01-17 22:37:04 UTC
I made a post detailing an idea for helping out newer players stay in the game longer. The thread is here, please leave feedback.

This is my Raven. There are many like it, but this one is mine. My Raven is my best friend. It is my life. I must ma-pop ... This is my pod. There are many like it, but this one is mine. My pod is my best friNONO STOP IT GO AWAY!!

Darakoni Darshiva
Exit-Strategy
#111 - 2012-01-17 22:39:35 UTC
"The CSM suggested that supercarriers be allowed to dock in outposts which have an appropriate upgrade. The
CSM noted it that it did not wish Titans to ever be able to dock, but that supercarriers were now less powerful
and more common and should thus be treated more as regular ships rather than special snowflakes."

This.

"No such thing as time poor, prioritise your life, Eve first, then Beer and Food, and finally se.. sleep"

Trebor Daehdoow
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#112 - 2012-01-17 22:40:00 UTC
Zarnak Wulf wrote:
I also did not like the suggestion for EAF. Please don't make them dedicated ewar for supercaps.

The problem is, nobody really flys them at present; there are fewer active EAF than there are Black Ops BS. So CCP would like to find a new niche for them.

Terranid Meester wrote:
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.

It is actually a significant concern for CCP with regards to inactive accounts. There is always the chance that someone will decide to reactivate, and at the time they stopped playing, while their stuff in a nullsec station might be hard to get at, it was at least safe. So the idea was to have a system that let people blow stuff up and get rewarded, but didn't totally screw over the people who had their stuff trapped.

Liang Nuren wrote:
Please don't implement some kind of color coded system to get information across in PVP. There are a non-trivial number of color blind people playing Eve that would suddenly be at a MASSIVE disadvantage in PVP.

You will note that in that same section, CSM pushed hard for improvements for people who are color-blind. This has been a pet issue of mine since CSM5; I personally would like CCP to define some "EVE colors" that are used whenever the UI provides color coded information, and allow a player to set the colors in the ESC menu.

Bagehi wrote:
My biggest concern for master accounts is the ease with which corps/alliances would be able to require API of EVERY character owned by a player, thus making certain play styles more difficult (such as spying), or simply making players choose one play style, as a null corp/alliance may have a problem with a player doing FW on the side, or moonlighting for a merc group with a different character, or variations on those themes.

This is an interesting concern, thanks for pointing it out. One would hope that CCP would be sensitive to this and not provide Master Account level APIs that would cause these problems, or perhaps would set up the Master Account APIs so that individual keyIDs would only provide information for specific sub-accounts (and not reveal the existence of other sub-accounts)

Lili Lu wrote:
I WILL REPEAT NO ******* GODDAMN SKILL RESPECS. THAT IS ALMOST AS BAD A CHANGE AS P2W WAS.

While I cannot speak for everyone on the CSM, those who are in favor of Partial Skill Respecs want it to be limited to a few million SP and/or some small % of your total SP, and, like remaps, be possible once a year or so.

The major uses for this would be to (a) deal with game design changes that render some of your SP unusable, (b) permit faster access to new game features (ie: when PI came out, you could have respec'd into PI skills) and (c) make a significant change of career easier (especially for purchased characters).

Private Citizen • CSM in recovery

Trebor Daehdoow
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#113 - 2012-01-17 22:41:04 UTC
Zaxix wrote:
I had expected to hear more about changes to the CSM that would enable non-sov-alliance members to have a voice. The proposed (or maybe finalized, I'm not clear on that) solution seems guaranteed to install the 7 members of the 7 largest alliances in perpetuity.

Much as I don't like the reduction to 7 (given that I am not a member of a large alliance, and will be running for CSM7!), one aspect of the evolution of CSM during CSM5 and CSM6 has been the greatly increased role of "Alternates", such that the label is simply being dropped.

In CSM7, the only difference between CSMs will be that "Top 7 available CSMs go to Iceland".

Zaxix wrote:
I'm also surprised by the discussion of "teaching corporations." The CSM is against giving them any benefits.

The problem is, who decides who is a teaching corp and who isn't? And what benefits should a teaching corp get?

The bottom line is, any time there is human judgment involved by CCP, there is the potential for corruption (or claims of it), which is something that CCP is, for some strange reason, concerned about... Twisted

Jowen Datloran wrote:
I cannot believe the majority of the CSM or CCP believe in this philosophy considering POCOs made their way to low sec.

I had significant discussions with hisec PI industrialists after POCOs were deployed, people who were really upset about the change. While I disagreed with them about the risk-reward, they are entitled to their opinion.

Rixiu wrote:
Reading the minutes I see "the CSM urged CCP to continue discussions with the CSM" and similar much more than I read "the CSM urged CCP to discuss with the playerbase more directly". The CSM want CCP to talk even more to them over talking to the playerbase.

There are some things that, due to NDA and business issues, CCP won't talk to the community about -- or at least, will want to talk to CSM (under NDA) first.

But whenever possible, I for one (and I think I speak for most of the CSM) favor CCP talking to the community as soon and as much as possible.

Private Citizen • CSM in recovery

Rytell Tybat
Doomheim
#114 - 2012-01-17 22:47:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Rytell Tybat
Lots of good stuff in the minutes. Particularly like all the ship rebalancing stuff as well as improvements to Faction Warfare. Future looks promising.

However, something that needs mentioning...
CCP and CSM seem to have skimmed over the possible connection between improving Lo Sec and contraband adjustments. Changes to contraband are an opportunity to help add meaningful gameplay to Lo Sec. Quick fixes, such as the proposed, 'make players responsible for enforcing Customs laws' misses the mark.

Idea There aren't enough (il)legitimate gameplay mechanics to support smuggling. This could potentially be a new play-style if the framework existed for it. Who doesn't want to be Han Solo? EVE mechanics don't currently offer the opportunity to do this (aside from the player imagining he's a smuggler and telling all his imaginary friends thats what he does for a living).

Add ship modules, rigs, skills, and possibly even new ships so that the players can effectively smuggle goods.

Add a skill based mechanic that allows players to outsmart the authorities (as well as other players).

Idea Lo Sec is crying out for black market smuggling. Didn't the whole "corruption" theme go over really well in Las Vegas a couple years back? This is perfect for Lo Sec.

Give players the ability and the financial motivation to smuggle contraband goods from Lo Sec into, and throughout, Hi Sec. Freeing/Taking slaves is great, but a rewards might speed up the process. Need more 'real contraband' then just boosters.

Add a bribery mechanic. I want to bribe customs officials!


I'm posting this to make the point that "Smuggling" is a possible great fix for 2 things CCP and the CSM, based on the Summit minutes, appear to be currently struggling with. Adding a smuggling profession (comprable to exploration) would give a large number of players another reason to travel into Lo Sec. At the very least it would give pirate organizations an additional revenue source.
Caliph Muhammed
Perkone
Caldari State
#115 - 2012-01-17 22:49:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Caliph Muhammed
RubyPorto wrote:
Caliph Muhammed wrote:


2) It may very well be in CCPs best interest for plex to be low, but it sure as hell isn't in mine if i'm buying the plex to sell in game. The day I buy from a company that seeds the same item they are selling is the day I no longer buy them. That choice is yours but the free market will dictate the price of plex or you won't sell plex.



So far, they've been manipulating PLEX prices by reducing RL prices on PLEX. Or did you not notice that?


And yet the price i've gotten for plex hasn't changed. Offering a discount to me doesn't mean i'm going to offer the discount to the public. Quite the opposite.

Ive sold 12 plex this month. No one dictates what i'm willing to sell it for save for the market. If the price is lower than I want I don't sell them. People that have cash to buy plex with are not hamstrung to selling them. You try and dictate to me what I can get for my item be assured you will have less plex on the market and you'll pay more regardless as the supply drops. And it won't be a forgive and forget month to month basis. I'm not going to play that game. You either sell the plex and btfo or keep your plex and i'll keep my money. The plight of the "i can't afford to play so I need plex player" isn't even on my radar. Arrogant perhaps, but my cash supply will benefit me and me only. Period.
Snowflake Tem
The Order of Symbolic Measures
#116 - 2012-01-17 22:52:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Snowflake Tem
Nice discussion with the art dept. I agree completely with need to prioritise the appearance of noob ships.

One a similar note, one of the first careers I got into as a new player was cleaning up after mission runners salvaging.
I'd like to suggest that some effort goes into re-skinning existing models with appropriate wrek skins rather than the ugly generic collection of girders that currently passes for a destroyed ship. The story of destruction would be better told that way. It would be much more satisfying to see from the aggressors viewpoint too.

Also on the art theme, why does the warp effect now draw over your gang fleet mates? A huge sense of camaraderie has been diluted by segregating the fleet in warp.

Finally, I've mentioned it elsewhere but the star-field needs to be sharpened up a notch, not much, just the blur curve tightened somewhat. They do not appear cold enough for the EVE universe.
Rasz Lin
#117 - 2012-01-17 22:52:32 UTC
Sreeg sucks.
There are systems in Citadel with 30-50 bot CNR and Tengus at all times. All with random names, ALL in 1 man corps with corp ticker made up of random numbers. All made by a script, all using same bot.

Sreeg SUCKS AT HIS JOB.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#118 - 2012-01-17 22:53:02 UTC
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
Gud Stuff

Trebor for Jesus.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon

RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#119 - 2012-01-17 22:54:46 UTC
Caliph Muhammed wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
Caliph Muhammed wrote:


2) It may very well be in CCPs best interest for plex to be low, but it sure as hell isn't in mine if i'm buying the plex to sell in game. The day I buy from a company that seeds the same item they are selling is the day I no longer buy them. That choice is yours but the free market will dictate the price of plex or you won't sell plex.



So far, they've been manipulating PLEX prices by reducing RL prices on PLEX. Or did you not notice that?


And yet the price i've gotten for plex hasn't changed. Offering a discount to me doesn't mean i'm going to offer the discount to the public. Quite the opposite.


They tend to offer it, and the price decreases. Good for you if you get in before the price drops much.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon

XavierVE
No Corporation for Old Spacemen
#120 - 2012-01-17 22:55:09 UTC
EAS idea is boneheaded, but that's usual from the geniuses in the CSM.

Quote:
The problem is, nobody really flys them at present; there are fewer active EAF than there are Black Ops BS. So CCP would like to find a new niche for them.


Hyenas rock in small gang PvP, and are basically the only good tool currently in the game for stopping people from gate crashing. If you idiots in the CSM screw up the very best tackler in the f'n game just to play supercapz warz, I swear to buddy christmas, I will cut you all.

It's called: Make a new ship, stupid. Don't screw up an existing class that works perfectly fine as it is.

Goddamn the CSM is such a pointless game-killing enterprise.