These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#181 - 2012-01-18 02:27:58 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:


The problem they're attempting to solve is a non-issue. It simply doesn't need to happen in any form.

-Liang



yeah you say that untill the boost the hell out of tirage mod II...

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
Kitt JT
True North.
#182 - 2012-01-18 02:28:55 UTC
A great read. However i have to say:

NO DESTRUCTABLE STATIONS

What inevitably happen is a massive griefing campaign by pl/goons/alliancenamehere to systematically kill player stations.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#183 - 2012-01-18 02:29:22 UTC
MeBiatch wrote:
Liang Nuren wrote:


The problem they're attempting to solve is a non-issue. It simply doesn't need to happen in any form.

-Liang



yeah you say that untill the boost the hell out of tirage mod II...


I don't see how the proposed Triage II boost has anything at all to do with the topic at hand? Triage carriers can still be taken down in the totally normal ways.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Talia Nachtigall
State War Academy
Caldari State
#184 - 2012-01-18 02:39:07 UTC
The Drake is fine! Why the hell does it need to be nerfed? A Hurricane can stand toe to toe with it, a Harbinger can, and so can a Myrmidon. Jesus christ. Screw up this game more?!

Don't pray for my soul. ;)
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#185 - 2012-01-18 02:40:58 UTC  |  Edited by: MeBiatch
Liang Nuren wrote:
MeBiatch wrote:
Liang Nuren wrote:


The problem they're attempting to solve is a non-issue. It simply doesn't need to happen in any form.

-Liang



yeah you say that untill the boost the hell out of tirage mod II...


I don't see how the proposed Triage II boost has anything at all to do with the topic at hand? Triage carriers can still be taken down in the totally normal ways.

-Liang


the fact is the longer a corp holds a class 6 system the more cap ships they will build... theoretically said corp could have enough triage carriers (right now dreads are eating carriers alive so chances are you are looking at a resist boost to triage II to tank about two dreads) and ballagorns for nueting and dreads for dps... plus sub cap support tech II/faction ships... to make said system for fraking knox!

you have to be extreamly lucky to even get a window to invade one of these systems and with mass restrictions there is only a finite about of ships you can get in... having a mass reduction mod that is destructible after one use that can only be put on a carrier that has to be refit at a pos only would IMO be a welcome addition to wh space...

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
Sobach
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#186 - 2012-01-18 02:51:37 UTC
MeBiatch wrote:
the fact is the longer a corp holds a class 6 system the more cap ships they will build... theoretically said corp could have enough triage carriers (right now dreads are eating carriers alive so chances are you are looking at a resist boost to triage II to tank about two dreads) and ballagorns for nueting and dreads for dps... plus sub cap support tech II/faction ships... to make said system for fraking knox!

you have to be extreamly lucky to even get a window to invade one of these systems and with mass restrictions there is only a finite about of ships you can get in... having a mass reduction mod that is destructible after one use that can only be put on a carrier that has to be refit at a pos only would IMO be a welcome addition to wh space...


and theoretically I can have 1000 titans with 2000 triage carriers and 5000 dreads in a k-system and it'll also be a "fraking knox", so what's your point?

truth remains that anyone who actually live in w-space knows that a system is nowhere near as secure as some people like to make them out to be
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#187 - 2012-01-18 02:56:43 UTC
yeah which is why ccp is nerfed supercaps... and hopefully will nerf them even more...

i am looking forward to a captial super cap tackler... to me super caps pointing super caps just makes it so who has the most supercaps wins... making it on a regular cap it makes it more accessible to lesser alliances....

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
Misanth
RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE
#188 - 2012-01-18 03:03:20 UTC
Amelia Diamant wrote:
Misanth wrote:
Agree with your first point, but as for point 2 and the "power projection" argument: JF's supply wars, production, alliance income etc. It's a force multiplier. When you are building supercaps or hauling big amounts of moon minerals, the JF's are part of the power projection.


I understand your point of view, and I agree in general terms. But both supercaps and moon minerals are primarily a Nullsec concern. The spool up change changes nothing to nullsec travel - the possibility of being camped in already exists there due to bubbles. So while I don't really agree with your specific examples, your point is fair enough.

My primary concern is how the change will affect lowsec work, though. I primarily move assets in lowsec, and this will cripple my ability to do so in a timely manner.


Fair enough. But, camped in.. well that's part of EVE. You can get camped in in highsec too. P

AFK-cloaking in a system near you.
Akbhar
Steam-Powered
#189 - 2012-01-18 03:08:25 UTC
I am all against respec of skill points in any way. Having skillpoints assigned to a specific skill does not harm you in any way but they did help you some time ago. There was a reason you did skill those skills and only because you don't need them now, that should not mean you can take your decision back. Maybe some time in the future your Supercarrier will hopefully be no more and you want those points back. Solution to that is resepc again?

Sure the ruleset changed, which is unfortunate but the same holds for almost all rebalancing effords made to the game. Some people might actually have skipped some Galente training, because hybrids did suck... might not be the same but i think you can get my point.

Additional to that as far as I heard old Players (i guess Super pilots are old players for the most part) are running out of options to skill stuff anyways so why accelerate this process?


I really don't like the FW is the test for Null Sec thingy. I really don't want to be the guinea pig and I can not understand why one would want to make 2 different systems equal.


Haven't read all yet, might reply again later
Misanth
RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE
#190 - 2012-01-18 03:08:36 UTC
Kitt JT wrote:
A great read. However i have to say:

NO DESTRUCTABLE STATIONS

What inevitably happen is a massive griefing campaign by pl/goons/alliancenamehere to systematically kill player stations.


I'll respectfully agree to disagree. At least in my view, it would be a major improvement for this game if every player built outpost in the whole game was destroyed. Just like it'd be a major benefit if we were rid of all capitals, jumpbridges, sov upgrades, etc. It'll too leave alot of people crying, but doesn't make it less true.. P

AFK-cloaking in a system near you.
mkint
#191 - 2012-01-18 03:10:11 UTC
CSM on the SP refund: "we're done winning EVE with our supercap blobs. Now we want something else to make us keep winning, and we want it for free."

Maxim 6. If violence wasn’t your last resort, you failed to resort to enough of it.
Moatra
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#192 - 2012-01-18 03:13:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Moatra
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.



In the meeting notes, CCP mentioned the possibility that the current Skill system might not be as necessary a feature as has always been assumed. I wholeheartedly agree with this assessment.

I have found that the times when I am most likely to get bored with EvE and deactivate my subscription are those times when I find a new aspect of the game that I want to play, but will take months to skill for. I don't mind paying for the skill books to do something, but waiting for skills is very passive and unsatisfying.

This is especially true when expecting new players to want to stay in EvE. Real life waiting to play (most aspects of a game) is not a feature, nor a reward. Ugh
Issler Dainze
Tadakastu-Obata Corporation
The Honda Accord
#193 - 2012-01-18 03:18:31 UTC
So good read. I wanted say props to the current CSM. I am not in agreement with most of the direction and focus they want for Eve but I respect their efforts.

They have stayed consistent and focused. They clearly take the responsibilities seriously. And they have definitely changed the future of Eve.

Good job CSM! We don't have to agree with you but you are working hard on doing what you were elected to do!

If nothing else you will make the interest the player base shows in the next elections a new record high!


Issler
mkint
#194 - 2012-01-18 03:40:31 UTC
Moatra wrote:
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.



In the meeting notes, CCP mentioned the possibility that the current Skill system might not be as necessary a feature as has always been assumed. I wholeheartedly agree with this assessment.

I have found that the times when I am most likely to get bored with EvE and deactivate my subscription are those times when I find a new aspect of the game that I want to play, but will take months to skill for. I don't mind paying for the skill books to do something, but waiting for skills is very passive and unsatisfying.

This is especially true when expecting new players to want to stay in EvE. Real life waiting to play (most aspects of a game) is not a feature, nor a reward. Ugh

The SP system rewards loyalty (which is good).

Asking for SP reimbursements is being a greedy little bastard who doesn't want to be held responsible for the consequences of the decisions they made. EVE has no room for those people, and they need to GTFO. Including the CSM bastards clamoring for more gimme's.

Maxim 6. If violence wasn’t your last resort, you failed to resort to enough of it.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#195 - 2012-01-18 03:50:03 UTC
MeBiatch wrote:

the fact is the longer a corp holds a class 6 system the more cap ships they will build... theoretically said corp could have enough triage carriers (right now dreads are eating carriers alive so chances are you are looking at a resist boost to triage II to tank about two dreads) and ballagorns for nueting and dreads for dps... plus sub cap support tech II/faction ships... to make said system for fraking knox!

you have to be extreamly lucky to even get a window to invade one of these systems and with mass restrictions there is only a finite about of ships you can get in... having a mass reduction mod that is destructible after one use that can only be put on a carrier that has to be refit at a pos only would IMO be a welcome addition to wh space...


There are a lot of reasons why this is mostly hogwash, not the least of which is that WHs are restricted to the number of people you can reasonably support in a single system. Building all the cap ships in the universe doesn't mean that you have the manpower to wield them. Just because its hard to assault doesn't mean that its literally impregnable.

Frankly what this would do is increase casual blobbing in lower class wormholes that would never have the manpower to defend themselves. The AHARM CSM member that said they'd use it to kick every other corp out of WH space? He was probably bang on.

It would be bad for the game.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Moatra
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#196 - 2012-01-18 03:57:01 UTC
mkint wrote:
Moatra wrote:
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.



In the meeting notes, CCP mentioned the possibility that the current Skill system might not be as necessary a feature as has always been assumed. I wholeheartedly agree with this assessment.

I have found that the times when I am most likely to get bored with EvE and deactivate my subscription are those times when I find a new aspect of the game that I want to play, but will take months to skill for. I don't mind paying for the skill books to do something, but waiting for skills is very passive and unsatisfying.

This is especially true when expecting new players to want to stay in EvE. Real life waiting to play (most aspects of a game) is not a feature, nor a reward. Ugh

The SP system rewards loyalty (which is good).

Asking for SP reimbursements is being a greedy little bastard who doesn't want to be held responsible for the consequences of the decisions they made. EVE has no room for those people, and they need to GTFO. Including the CSM bastards clamoring for more gimme's.




I don't disagree that Skill Points reward loyalty. I also don't want to see respecs. I do, however, question that skill points are needed. Skill Books, yes, but points... no.
Miss President
SOLARIS ASTERIUS
#197 - 2012-01-18 03:58:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Miss President
Seems there is not much being done on BOTs, I saw nothing that tells me CCP is serious about bots and something specific and effective will be done in near future.

I may be wrong, I'd like for CCP to come out and present raw data - and specific SHTF if you're a bot in eve plan. Otherwise it's all talk, plans etc with no specific goals and deadlines that can be presented to the community to show something realistic is going on.

Banning bots is a priority, CCP main concern here seems to be keeping bots paying for accounts, well guess what - bots don't pay, they only raise plex prices that negatively affects honest players.
Maleficent Frog
Doomheim
#198 - 2012-01-18 04:09:42 UTC
As to the "Supercapital Re-balancing" issue i do not have enough experience with combat ships to know one way or the other but what i feel and know here is that capital ships also includes non-combat orientated capital ships like the jump freighters and the Ore Industrials. i am not sure that a change to a 60sec spool timer is at all in fairness a good idea to ships that cannot be expected to live alone and with no ability to defend themselves while waiting out the timer out side a stations safety.

Perhaps capitals do need this change, perhaps they do not.

But there is a great difference between an Aeon and a Rhea.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#199 - 2012-01-18 04:12:19 UTC
Miss President wrote:
Seems there is not much being done on BOTs, I saw nothing that tells me CCP is serious about bots and something specific and effective will be done in near future.

I may be wrong, I'd like for CCP to come out and present raw data - and specific SHTF if you're a bot in eve plan. Otherwise it's all talk, plans etc with no specific goals and deadlines that can be presented to the community to show something realistic is going on.

Banning bots is a priority, CCP main concern here seems to be keeping bots paying for accounts, well guess what - bots don't pay, they only raise plex prices that negatively affects honest players.


On the third one, higher Plex prices also positively affect honest players who buy Plex with IRL money and sell them in game. Not everything's quite black and white. Bots are bad, but CCP does get their ~$17 a month from a Bot who plexes the account.

"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
Elzon1
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#200 - 2012-01-18 04:12:44 UTC
"spool-up timer"- good

"replacing Drone alloy drops with bounties"- good

"R32 Alchemy as a possible fix for the Technetium bottleneck"- good

"alliance taxation like the existing corporate tax mechanic"- good

"supercapital point"- OK

"supercapital siege mode"- fine

"new capital ship class"- lets wait a while still

Electronic attack ships should effect supercaps- sure

buff assault frigs- yes

nerf the drake- someone doesn't like drakes

Cloaky hunters- long overdue, make EVE more EVE, you shall never be safe Twisted

Destructible outposts- not such a good idea