These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Zaxix
State War Academy
Caldari State
#301 - 2012-01-18 16:01:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Zaxix
Crasniya wrote:
To the "OMG I want invulnerable jump freighter trips" whiners... instead of having insta-jump capability, why not take the spool-up timer, but in exchange ask for some reasonable defensive accommodations?

What exactly is the problem with 8 yr old 30 sec invul timer?
Ang Min wrote:
Instead of a "spool up timer", which implies you'd have to wait 60 seconds any time you wanted to jump (even if you're leaving from a POS or station), maybe a "jump drive reactivation delay" is better.

Interesting, rational middle ground idea.
Mara Rinn wrote:
[quote=Amelia Diamant]If you're running logistics for an alliance, why is a bunch of guys in battlecruisers and frigates scary to you?Don't you guys defend your supply lines? Don't you have staging POSes specifically to allow freighters to jump in and immediately be swallowed up by the loving comfort of POS shields while under the watchful eye of a sky filled with light/medium batteries?Logistics is already far too easy, all over EVE. There is nothing restricting the flow of traffic in and out of Jita 4-4, no side effect of thousands of ships and hour passing through the Jita-Perimeter star gate system, nothing. There are no ways for sov-holding entities to restrict the flow of traffic into or through their systems.

We're not your everyday alliance. :) And, no, we don't have a mobile overwatch fleet. It's hard enough finding and recruiting freighter and jump freighter pilots without trying to find PvP pilots to do overwatch. Do you know PvP pilots who would be interested in such a dull task? Hell, losec/nosec alliances with hundreds of PvP members have trouble finding logistics and logistics overwatch pilots. As for logistics being too easy, too many things in EVE are essentially work performed now so that you can have fun later. I think pretty much everyone would be better off and happier with the game if they could spend LESS time doing crap like logistics and ISK grinds and get on with the pew pew already.

Bokononist

 

OT Smithers
Did he say Jump
Dock Workers
#302 - 2012-01-18 16:03:04 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
Two step wrote:
I am one of the dissenters on respecs on the CSM, for many of the reasons mentioned in this thread. I view respecs as taking away one of the really interesting, unique things about EVE's skill system.

The right thing for CCP to do with the SC/Titan nerf would have been to refund supercap pilots's drone SP. There is no need to invent a respec mechanism to solve that problem.


They didn't when MoM's lost clone vats. Or when Bombers lost Cruise missiles. Or when anything else got nerfed. Like everyone has said, they had the use of those drone skills. And CCP has never recompensed pilots for a mechanics change (not counting when skills got removed), and shouldn't start now.

Any discussion of respecs needs to be divorced from a discussion of Super pilot drone SP.


B-But that's different! Those were just regular players, not the Eve Elite with special insider lobbyests.
Terranid Meester
Tactical Assault and Recon Unit
#303 - 2012-01-18 16:03:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Terranid Meester
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:

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.


Many inactive accounts have their stuff trapped in an outpost anyway if someone new has control of it. The CSM seem to forgot that EvE is SUPPOSED to be harsh. Why care about a few inactive accounts [some of which will never return] that didn't have the foresight to move their stuff before they deactivated? Its not as if they are currently participating in eve itself at this moment. This is also the same CCP that removed data core accumulation for inactive players.
Slightly Mental
Doomheim
#304 - 2012-01-18 16:07:02 UTC
max

banhammer isnt working as it stands atm
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#305 - 2012-01-18 16:08:00 UTC
Ranger 1 wrote:

The proposal was to use FW to help develop a more workable SOV system than what we currently have. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. ...



The problem is that those who do FW want different things out of eve than those who do sov null sec. So making them similar will at best make both groups fairly unsatisfied.

FW group wants frequent, small scale, quality pvp without the drama and politics of null sec. They also don't want to sign in after a a week or two to find that they can't get their stuff out of a system that was taken over.

Sov null sec groups want Large scale pvp battles that require time dilation to thwart the lag. They accept that these fights will not happen every hour. They accept that eve can be higher maintance to protect their stuff in null sec.

The fact is CCP has never really tried to cater to the fw group. They have constantly been trying to figure out ways to help the null sec group. If the dedication of resources were switched around we might find more people in fw than in null sec. (no one even showing up at a "null sec round table" and listing null sec changes under the heading "little things" etc)

Regardless, both styles of play should be developed with the understanding that different players are after different things in eve. That is how they will broaden eves appeal. If they make the mechanics the same then the subscriber base will just be narrowed.

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815

OT Smithers
Did he say Jump
Dock Workers
#306 - 2012-01-18 16:09:23 UTC
Soulpirate wrote:
Quote:
The CSM and CCP both acknowledged the need to rebalance Drake, which ‘does everything too too well’. CCP is considering giving it a more offensive role like Raven or Caracal where it would lose the shield resistance bonus and the 5% Kinetic damage bonus and instead gain a rate of fire bonus and a missile velocity bonus. The CSM vehemently approved of this idea. CCP and the CSM also agreed that this possible change to the Drake would help add more uniqueness to the Nighthawk, which is presently overshadowed entirely by the Drake.


Boosting the Nighthawk by nerfing the Drake? Huh? What?

The Drake "does everything too well"?? Did you guys leave the cap off the whiteout during these meetings?

The only thing nerfing the Drake will do is put more people in Tengus, not Nighthawks.

If you want to add uniqueness to the Nighthawk, add uniqueness to the Nighthawk.

For fun I just did a D-scan in a level 4 mission system. 16 ships(1 Golem, 1 Noctis, 1 shuttle, 13 Tengus)

Maybe the Drakes are all blitzing level 5 missions somewhere. Roll



CCP has had a hardon against Caldari pilots for a long time. Now they want to nerf the drake, and you are an idiot if you don't see a massive Tengu and ECM nerf on the horizon. And then Caldari will have literally nothing left.
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#307 - 2012-01-18 16:16:31 UTC
Versoth wrote:
Sylthi wrote:
So....... It has been confirmed there will be no NEW content for 2012, only rehashed old stuff that they SHOULD have gotten right the first time. Check.

Hillmar has now made it his OFFICIAL job to do NOTHING constructive or anything even close to resembling actual WORK on the project that pays his (certainly) ludicrous salary. Double check. (Why doesn't he just go ahead and resign? OH, right, sorry, forgot, he lovvulles the FREE MONEY!!! Triple check.)

After all the pain, trouble, taking away from the REAL Eve, millions of dollars, and massive hurt feelings on all sides, Incarna has been abandoned. (That is what "backburner" MEANS in developer speak people.) Wow. Way to shoot yourself in the foot on that one CCP. People give you HELL about what kind of product you AREN'T providing them, and your response is to say: "Fine. You don't get ANYTHING then if you won't be HONORED to provide us with fellatio when demanded." Again, wow. Nice. Way to be real adult about this.

I honestly didn't think CCP could screw up MORE than it already has. But, once again, they did.

I mean, WTF guys. You're an MMO, and you just PROUDLY announced: "No new content for at LEAST a year." This on TOP of what you ALREADY haven't delivered or, worse yet, have already screwed up beyond all recognition. And, the CSM just applauded you guys for it; and all was smiles and giggles up in Iceland. Are you guys ALL really that detached from reality? Do NONE of you see where this is OBVIOUSLY going?

"No new content for at least a year" are the words and kiss of DEATH in MMO-land for cripes sake!!! Big new SCI-Fi titles VERY RECENTLY came out. You don't think they won't accept your PREVIOUS customers with open arms? CCP has ALWAYS succeeded in spite of itself, largely, because there was no real competition in it's genre. Got news for you CCP: THAT IS CHANGING; FAST. None of your competition has gotten "it" exactly right yet. But, it's GOING to happen. And when it does, you'll have NOTHING to respond with. Part of me thinks you actually KNOW that; and are now simply in the mode of delaying the inevitable as long as possible.

Yeah. I guess I am going to have to face facts that after 8 years I have to find a new hobby. Time to let my accounts expire I guess. Don't want to. I really don't. But, its not like news like this from CCP and the CSM is leaving me many realistic options. I mean, there is no hope coming right from the top all the way down "to the floor" at CCP. And the CSM is just cheering them along all the way. And NO, no one can have my stuff; I'd rather set it all on fire.

What complete and utter betrayal CCP; just when I thought you could sink no lower.

Quadruple check, out.



Can I have your stuff?


You'd think after 8 years that he would have gotten at least one thing in his final post correct.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.

Max Kolonko
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#308 - 2012-01-18 16:20:45 UTC
Slightly Mental wrote:
max

banhammer isnt working as it stands atm


I know - because they have problem confirming if you are a bot or not. How do You think they will confirm on kill?
Amseln deBrabant
Ochsenbruegger
#309 - 2012-01-18 16:31:19 UTC
Draco Rosso wrote:
Using faction warfare as a test-bed for nullsec sov?
$^$%%&^$%$%$%#$#$@#
Faction warfare is it's own destination not a $#$$$ test bed for DULL-SEC.
Yes, I'm very mad. We need a FW guy in CSM now!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



+1

from the notes CCP sounded much more real interest and knowledge in FW than any of the CSM did.

Okay thats how it should be, but certainly there needs to be a actual FW player in CSM next time.
Sparkus Volundar
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#310 - 2012-01-18 16:37:14 UTC
Dear CCP, CSM,

Starting on page 5, there is a discussion of ways to reward veteran players and generally loyalty.

To reward vets, I'd suggest closing the Character Bazaar and a corresponding tightening up on the systems to prevent buying of a character on E-Bay etc. The idea being that it would hopefully reward older players that are playing by making them a rarer thing. That should reduce power creep whilst at the same time, making older players with high skills have greater relative power.

I think the current system curtails a natural process of well-skilled pilots leaving Eve that could otherwise contribute positively.

.

Razin
The Scope
#311 - 2012-01-18 16:39:33 UTC
CCP Xhagen wrote:
Razin wrote:
What's wrong with the PDF that I can't even search for text in it?

There was some formatting :insert technobabble here: going on - I cleaned it up and there is now a searchable version up (and you can select text from it as well!).

Excellent, thank you very much!
Big smile
Jack Dant
The Gentlemen of Low Moral Fibre
#312 - 2012-01-18 17:19:40 UTC
Terranid Meester wrote:
Many inactive accounts have their stuff trapped in an outpost anyway if someone new has control of it. The CSM seem to forgot that EvE is SUPPOSED to be harsh.

Stuff in a station you can't access can always be sold on a firesale contract. Maybe you'll lose 50% of the value, but that's 50% you won't get if it just blows up.

Quote:
Why care about a few inactive accounts [some of which will never return] that didn't have the foresight to move their stuff before they deactivated? Its not as if they are currently participating in eve itself at this moment. This is also the same CCP that removed data core accumulation for inactive players.

Because they are good for business.

What happens in lowsec, stays in lowsec, lowering the barrier to entry to lowsec PVP: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=476644&#post476644

Trebor Daehdoow
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#313 - 2012-01-18 17:24:04 UTC
Terranid Meester wrote:
Many inactive accounts have their stuff trapped in an outpost anyway if someone new has control of it. The CSM seem to forgot that EvE is SUPPOSED to be harsh. Why care about a few inactive accounts [some of which will never return] that didn't have the foresight to move their stuff before they deactivated? Its not as if they are currently participating in eve itself at this moment. This is also the same CCP that removed data core accumulation for inactive players.

I understand your position, but there is also a commercial reality. CCP wants EVE to be a harsh place that people still want to pay to live in. So there is always going to be a tension between wanting to express the harsh universe vision and doing things that might retain players or get resubscriptions.

Historically, the best argument to make to CCP in order to get things done is either "this will get more people to subscribe, "this will stop people from unsubscribing", or "this will turn more trial accounts into paying customers". And in this case, if you think that destructible stations is a good idea, then addressing CCP concerns about affects it might have on subscription numbers is going to be a top priority.

Now consider what outreach/marketing opportunities to inactive players present themselves when a station they had stuff in gets blown up...

Ranger 1 wrote:
The proposal was to use FW to help develop a more workable SOV system than what we currently have. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

This. The idea is that CCP should iterate on FW and try some new ideas that they think will be improvements to FW, then hopefully be able to apply the lessons learned to a sov revamp. Making FW into sov-lite is not the idea. Making FW much better is -- and if that can be used to revamp sov, that's icing. And the argument that they will get both valuable information and (possibly) a code base that can evolve into a revised sov system makes it more likely that FW will get some significant love.

Private Citizen • CSM in recovery

Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#314 - 2012-01-18 17:25:42 UTC
Sparkus Volundar wrote:
Dear CCP, CSM,

Starting on page 5, there is a discussion of ways to reward veteran players and generally loyalty.

To reward vets, I'd suggest closing the Character Bazaar and a corresponding tightening up on the systems to prevent buying of a character on E-Bay etc. The idea being that it would hopefully reward older players that are playing by making them a rarer thing. That should reduce power creep whilst at the same time, making older players with high skills have greater relative power.

I think the current system curtails a natural process of well-skilled pilots leaving Eve that could otherwise contribute positively.


Good thought, but I think the emphasis is going to be on the age of the account, not the age of the character.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.

Azurun Li
Number One Lucky Golden Dragon Buffet
#315 - 2012-01-18 17:27:36 UTC
Please leave the skills system alone. I find it brilliant just the way it is.

No remaps, keep learning implants, don't mess with the medical clone system. Please. Pretty please.
OT Smithers
Did he say Jump
Dock Workers
#316 - 2012-01-18 17:35:44 UTC
Zaxix wrote:
Crasniya wrote:
To the "OMG I want invulnerable jump freighter trips" whiners... instead of having insta-jump capability, why not take the spool-up timer, but in exchange ask for some reasonable defensive accommodations?

What exactly is the problem with 8 yr old 30 sec invul timer?
Ang Min wrote:
Instead of a "spool up timer", which implies you'd have to wait 60 seconds any time you wanted to jump (even if you're leaving from a POS or station), maybe a "jump drive reactivation delay" is better.

Interesting, rational middle ground idea.
Mara Rinn wrote:
[quote=Amelia Diamant]If you're running logistics for an alliance, why is a bunch of guys in battlecruisers and frigates scary to you?Don't you guys defend your supply lines? Don't you have staging POSes specifically to allow freighters to jump in and immediately be swallowed up by the loving comfort of POS shields while under the watchful eye of a sky filled with light/medium batteries?Logistics is already far too easy, all over EVE. There is nothing restricting the flow of traffic in and out of Jita 4-4, no side effect of thousands of ships and hour passing through the Jita-Perimeter star gate system, nothing. There are no ways for sov-holding entities to restrict the flow of traffic into or through their systems.

We're not your everyday alliance. :) And, no, we don't have a mobile overwatch fleet. It's hard enough finding and recruiting freighter and jump freighter pilots without trying to find PvP pilots to do overwatch. Do you know PvP pilots who would be interested in such a dull task? Hell, losec/nosec alliances with hundreds of PvP members have trouble finding logistics and logistics overwatch pilots. As for logistics being too easy, too many things in EVE are essentially work performed now so that you can have fun later. I think pretty much everyone would be better off and happier with the game if they could spend LESS time doing crap like logistics and ISK grinds and get on with the pew pew already.


This.

Logistics corporations (like Black Frog Logistics) make it possible for small corporations to play in NPC null, and they damn sure make the game more enjoyable for pirates in low.

Nerfing their ability to do their job is insane.
Krell Kroenen
The Devil's Shadow
#317 - 2012-01-18 17:46:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Krell Kroenen
Everyone else is throwing in their 2 cents I might as well.


1. Please no refund/respec of skill points. This is not the first time CCP has changed a ship and it won't be the last. It's part of the game.

2. Don't stick the EAF with the anti-super role. EAF's need some love but in all the environments it can be used in. Not just as a new Null-Sec toy/weapon.

3. I would love to see some means to combat cloaked ships. As someone else in the thread stated you should never feel 100 percent safe in Eve. That should include cloaked ships.

4. Destroyable stations, I have rather mixed feelings about this feature. On one hand I think it is a neat concept and gives the impression that you can shape your environment more. But I got the impression in my reading of the minutes that there was a desire to have Nullsec markets that could compete with Jita.

This feature would hinder that goal in my opinion. But I could be wrong. Now as for disabling services of NPC Nullsec stations I think that would be a nice feature and would add to the sandbox feel of being able to affect your environment and impact raiders in NPC space that currently are untouchable.

5. I think it's good that CCP is focusing on fixing and balancing current features and ships, yet I won't lie. I would like to see something new that I could set my sites on. But not on some one trick pony, rarely used super weapon. Some of you may say that the Teir 3 BC's were new but I could fly and fit all 4 races when they came out. So they weren't a new goal for me. Don't get me wrong it's not that I require a new shinny thing to reach for but it did feel good to have a goal that I wanted to reach in my training.
Batelle
Filthy Peasants
#318 - 2012-01-18 17:59:57 UTC
Destructible Stations - This is a badly needed change. Nullsec is literally LITTERED with empty, unused outposts. In my opinion they are an impediment to roaming gangs. As for assets, I don't particularly care how CCP deals with that, but this talk of preserving them somehow seems kind of pointless from my perspective.

Buffs to t1 cruisers, tier1 bcs, and command ships - OH GOD YES. The minutes were dead-on with new players being encouraged to go straight to tier-2 bc's for pve and pvp purposes. This is not a healthy thing in my opinion. Also, allowing two types of fleet booster modules to each command ship race is a very very good idea. And yes, t3's having a 5% bonus while CS have a 3% bonus is ******, and should be swapped.

Drone region npcs give bounties - IMO a good thing for the effect it would have on mineral prices. This would bring miners out to nullsec for the so-called high-end minerals, as well as buff the value of gravimetric sites.

Incursion rebalancing - sounds good

Supercapital docking via station/ihub upgrade - probably good

NPC shootable station services - I am in favor of this. I would suggest they have hitpoints comparable to outpost services. Lots of people here are crying chicken little about the big alliances using it to squeeze out npc-dwelling corporations that roam their space. I don't envision this happening. Shooting station services is boring, and getting a cap fleet together to do it takes time and organization. As CCP intends, this would only be worth doing when large invading forces (not local neutral pvpers) are using the station as a free, untouchable staging area. Besides, both types of npc-dwellers can still use poses for ship-fitting if those services are down.

"**CCP is changing policy, and has asked that we discontinue the bonus credit program after November 7th. So until then, enjoy a super-bonus of 1B Blink Credit for each 60-day GTC you buy!"**

Never forget.

Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#319 - 2012-01-18 18:02:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Ranger 1
Quote:
Now consider what outreach/marketing opportunities to inactive players present themselves when a station they had stuff in gets blown up...


Good point. I suppose that lends weight to making Outposts able to be only partially destroyed.

However, I firmly believe that the over all goal of EVE should be that there is little, or nothing, that cannot be destroyed (and by extension, rebuilt) in game.

The trick is to find a way for players to not be totally screwed in the case of Outpost destruction, and yet be believable and have consequences. The truth is there may not be a way to offer a great deal of protection to a player in this situation in a believable way. An Outpost being destroyed should be a significant event, with serious consequences.

When an Outpost looks to be under serious threat, the owner should feel strong pressure to move all non-military assets to a safer location. This seriously inhibits their ability to profit from the Outpost that is under imminent threat, which is as it should be.

When an Outpost falls (is completely destroyed) all assets contained therein should be subject to the same general rules as anything else destroyed in space, just done in batches per owner and/or corporation with assets still inside. Entire hangers have their contents either destroyed (personal) or drop (Corp) in (oversized if necessary) cans to reduce lag generation.

If a players ships are destroyed in this event, they should be subject to insurance payouts... thus allowing them at least some financial compensation.

An alternative to this would be that all items items in personal hangers lost in an Outposts destruction could be automatically put up for sale via private contract (at the nearest NPC station) with a value of their base mineral value.

If the person chooses to pay the money to get their stuff back the proceeds go to the corp that assumed ownership of the station.
If not, when the contract expires the goods revert to the ownership of the corp that assumed control of the station.


So.... there are options but there needs to be a harsh edge to them. If you soften EVE too much, you'll lose more subscribers due to that than you save by making things too cushy.


PS: Whenever an Outpost dies, it should leave a permanent wreck and keep that spot from ever being used again.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.

Raid'En
#320 - 2012-01-18 18:09:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Raid'En
Liang Nuren wrote:
ONE LAST THING. NPC nullsec station services should not be vulnerable to destruction / incapacitation from sov 0.0 holders. Just because a system isn't conquerable and you can't deprive the system and its station to your enemies... who cares? What - are you going to demand to destroy low sec and high sec station services too? Afterall, "pirate" and "homeless" alliances can live there and still raid your space. :(

-Liang

a way to counter people attackers operating on npc nullsec station is needed.
and don't worry, service incap is too boring to make people do it often.

Julius Foederatus wrote:
FW [...] Killing enemy ships and capturing systems should be worth way more LP than doing a bunch of LVL 4s.

i like the idea, which go well with what was said on the minutes about the killer getting part of the insurance of its prey.

one of the big problems for PvP, as said a lot of times, is that you NEED to pve to pvp.
any method that would be easier for us to earn money though pvp is welcome.

Sparkus Volundar wrote:
Dear CCP, CSM,
Starting on page 5, there is a discussion of ways to reward veteran players and generally loyalty.

To reward vets, I'd suggest closing the Character Bazaar

so you want to punish old players who have ISK and knowledge to use, but not the good SPs ? that's not a good idea.