These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Rath Kelbore
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#321 - 2012-01-18 18:19:06 UTC
The Drake: Remove 5 % shield and kinetic damage bonus, add ROF bonus and velocity bonus. **** yes.

I plan on living forever.......so far, so good.

Liang Nuren
No Salvation
#322 - 2012-01-18 18:28:42 UTC
Raid'En wrote:
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.


The way to counter people living in nullsec stations already exists and has been in use for quite a number of years now. You have to remember that just because the rule set governing NPC space - whether high sec, low sec, or NPC 0.0 - is different from sov 0.0 doesn't make it wrong. Variety in the rules of space is actually a good thing - and I might even argue that raiders attacking sov space from NPC 0.0 is also a good thing.

Sov holders should have access to exactly the same options as anyone else already living in any particular NPC space - and just like anyone else that wants to attack a group of people living in NPC space, a sov holder should have to physically occupy the space in question and deprive your enemies of the opportunity to use that space. Yes, its different... and yes thats ok. Its even a good thing.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.

Raid'En
#323 - 2012-01-18 18:36:03 UTC
i would agree if the guys living on the npc stations had to occupy the moon they mine to have themoney, which is not currently the case :P

of course if a sov revamp / income balancing is done, the "problem" of npc stations will lower a lot.

Il Feytid
State War Academy
Caldari State
#324 - 2012-01-18 18:40:25 UTC
I agree with Liang mostly. This entire motivation from incapping npc station services is saturated with null sov power blocks wanting to make thier space safer. Why don't they move to null sov space further away from npc null if they are too lazy to.occupy npc null to keep hostiles from making it thier home? Why don't they spread out across their already massive territory to better deal with those pesky npc residents when they crop up?
Rixiu
PonyTek
#325 - 2012-01-18 18:47:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Rixiu
Why is it that lots of obvious things like the Supercapital fuel use wasn't brought up at any point? A titan using the same fuel amount as a regular carrier is stupid, they should be strategic assets that cost lots of money to relocate. Add a x10 multiplier and 20x for titans on fuel use and maybe we'll see less force-projection where hundreds of super capital fleets jump across the isk using a laughable amount of fuel.

Also model scales. stations are to small, supercarriers are waaaaay to small (think half the size of titans or so), carriers are to small (I can fit 2 ships that are larger than my carrier inside the carrier... sounds about right) , tier 3 BS need to be as big as the machariel and tier 1 BS smaller as well. This is a small thing but it's continue to be a needle in the eye for me.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
#326 - 2012-01-18 18:48:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Liang Nuren
Raid'En wrote:
i would agree if the guys living on the npc stations had to occupy the moon they mine to have themoney, which is not currently the case :P

of course if a sov revamp / income balancing is done, the "problem" of npc stations will lower a lot.



They DO have to "occupy" the moons they mine.

-Liang

Ed: BTW, your complaint can be leveled infinitely more at the sov holding alliances than the "raider" alliances from NPC 0.0. The core problem is that so much of 0.0 infrastructure and monetary value is built on things which don't involve occupying the space. Hell - one might argue that NPC 0.0 is closer to ideal than sov 0.0 is.

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.

NoYen
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#327 - 2012-01-18 18:55:27 UTC
Sizeof Void wrote:

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 ...


What a sensible idea.
Cryten Jones
Advantage Inc
#328 - 2012-01-18 18:57:27 UTC
I found it interesting that loosing assets to a station destruction is viewed to be different from loosing assets to gankers.

Seems to be a little double standards to me :-) What this says is that it's fine for 50 stronger players to destroy what could be a smaller groups majority of assets in a mining belt or hi sec gate camp but a well coordinated attack by a large force on a peers assets should be treated differently.

Personally I would imagine that an invading force would rather take the station over than destroy it in the majority of cases given the cost of creating it in the first place however should they choose to blow the thing up the inhabitants should be fighting tooth an nail to save their stuff. If they can't they need to be evacuating.

Think running the Hoth blockade in Empire Strikes Back here.

I would add that station defences need to be created though to make this 'running the blockade' possible.

Anyway, I get that people could loose a lot but the issue here is that any mechanic that 'saves' assets from a station would be contrary to the rest of eve and the hostile nature of the game. A hi-sec ganker or POS bashing gang do not stay their hand if they think that they are going to ruin another players game, actually they probably laugh all the harder.

Just saying that there should be a level playing field when it comes to loss.

-CJ
ITTigerClawIK
Galactic Rangers
#329 - 2012-01-18 19:05:23 UTC  |  Edited by: ITTigerClawIK
Quote:


* Missile effects! We loved the anime style missile swarm demo you showed us. Make it happen.


Any chance of seeing this demo?

i am intrigued now O_O
Witchking Angmar
Perkele.
#330 - 2012-01-18 19:05:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Witchking Angmar
Adding my ideas to the UI improvement discussion.

I would love to see shared facilities between individual characters. This would without a doubt help a lot of people playing multiple accounts, as instead of having to trade or contract items between characters, they could simply use the same hangar.

Bookmark brackets in space would also be a fantastic improvement.
Heathkit
Merch Industrial
Goonswarm Federation
#331 - 2012-01-18 19:11:34 UTC
I don't think CCP needs to worry so much about having endgame stuff for 8 yr old vets to train to. Generally, it seems that people who have been around that long and haven't quit have found something they enjoy doing, or have the resources to buy a character if they want to try something new, or even just trade their pilot for something different.

I like the skill system - in a way, it gives you a constant form of income. Your skill points are worth roughly 200/isk each, depending, but you can only really cash them out after more than 6 months of training or so. The skill queue gives you something to look forward to or anticipate, and a sense of accomplishment when you unlock something you've been waiting for.

You can have either skillpoints or isk and have a lot of fun. However, having neither is pretty dull. I followed a pattern which is pretty common - played for a few months, set some long skill plans, then got bored when I ran out of things to do. When I came back last month, I had free skill points from the learning refund which let me jump right into things I'd been waiting to do (ecm, covops, t2 guns, etc).

I think new players should start with a minimum number of skill points - enough to let them experience one kind of gameplay (ecm combat, pve, invention, whatever). If they don't like it, they should be able to switch easily. Instead of the 60 days of free gametime, maybe new accounts should get 60 days worth of skill points and unlimited respecs until they reach a certain threshold of either skill points or account age, whichever comes first.

Also, returning after 2 years to see all my stuff was pretty cool. Goonswarm had even retaken my home station, so I had time to evac some of it. However, most I just ended up dumping on contracts - the important thing wasn't the stuff, it was the wealth I'd accumulated.

I think stations in nullsec need to be lootable. Assets should be put up on contract at some discount of base price automatically, with proceeds going partially to the owner and partially to the conquering party. Or maybe they just get trashed and turned into isk. Maybe you can only seize assets by destroying the station such that it needs to be rebuilt or repaired at some cost, or maybe just capturing it is good enough.

I got quite a few "please come back" emails in the past two years, and I largely ignored them. If I had gotten an emails saying my assets were in a station under seige and might be seized soon, I probably would have resubbed and done something about it.

Also, I'm glad CCP is focusing on the website - being able to participate in the game without having to log in is important. However, I think you guys should strongly focus on developer APIs and developer engagement. You just don't have the resources to match the creativity and productivity of the legions of smart nerds out there who want to make their game better.

If CCP had a developer registration program, where a license cost $50 a year and gave you API level access to stuff such as market data, contract data, and the ability to affect game state in some way, I guarantee you'd see a wealth of new application and new ways of playing the game that would totally surprise you. Plus, architectures oriented towards services and APIs are easier to test, which would give you more freedom to refactor and iterate without breaking the game all the time.
Snape Dieboldmotor
Minotaur Congress
#332 - 2012-01-18 19:12:29 UTC
The proposed changes to the Drake are fine for PVP. I fly the drake all the time and this is OK with me. It puts it in line with the other Tier 2 BCs.

However, what about all the new and intermediate PVE players that use the drake to tank Level IV missions. This ship plays a critical role in player advancement. These players need a cheap tanky ship that can draw aggro. Perhaps a new BC with drake like tank and 10% reduced DPS would be a good replacement for newer players.

Idea
NoYen
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#333 - 2012-01-18 19:13:38 UTC
Julius Foederatus wrote:
While I'm glad CCP wants to incentivize FW system capture, some of these ideas are just boneheaded. Militia elections are thoroughly stupid and I would bet whoever came up with that idea has no real FW experience. The only possible way it would not be gamed by other entities is if voting rights were tied into how many VPs were earned through running plexes.

The real problem is that there is a PVE component to FW at all, or that it is so profitable. Killing enemy ships and capturing systems should be worth way more LP than doing a bunch of LVL 4s. Currently this is not the case. We're tired of legions of mission alts that don't contribute anything to FW and just drive the prices down on the things we need to sell in order to finance our PVP.

And lastly, keep alliances the **** out of faction warfare. They have no place whatsoever. Is there anyone in FW who actively wants this? I mean beyond just saying 'meh it'll give me more targets to shoot.' I would bet there isn't much support for this actually in the FW community.


I agree. The minutes sounded like they don't have a clue what to do for FW so they will just make it the new lab monkey testing ground for the rest of eve.

I like what you say about the PVE vs PVP component. Motivation and reward is completely busted right now. Killing an opposing faction member gives only 50 LP for christ's sake. Some of us play FW for the pvp aspect and want nothing to do with the PVE. If they want to make PVP viable as an isk making profession FW needs an additional incentive here.

I like the talk of system capture having real effect other than just changing the occupation text in the corner of the screen like it does now.
Arthur Rage
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#334 - 2012-01-18 19:23:23 UTC
If the Drake is nerfed i'll seriously concider dropping my sub - people have invested massive amounts of skillpoints into the drake and the required modules
Sparkus Volundar
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#335 - 2012-01-18 19:27:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Sparkus Volundar
Raid'E wrote:

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.

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.


Well I suppose if might depend on how we interpret the term 'old' but in general, if someone has an old character, is rich and is knowledgeable, they probably don't need to be able to buy characters to succeed. Basically, I think I would rather there was diversity in the skill base rather than an every increasing proportion of the character base that can fly capitals, for example. Might not be everyone preference of course.

.

Raid'En
#336 - 2012-01-18 19:28:26 UTC
* EVE veterans/loyalty program

you want a simple idea ? Well like lots of vet i pay by plex, and we have no bonus for duration,
people paying a monthly fee pay less if they take long interval paymement, think about a way to do something like that for plex, like 11 plexes for 1 year of gemtime for example,
also the master account is a good idea, me and my 4 accounts will glady support this.

* Crucible wrapup
The CSM suggested that jump bridges be automatically added to alliance bookmarks to free up space for more tactical bookmarks. <--- YES
also, if the JB networks on the map which is now displayed could also let us see blues networks, it will be way better.

The CSM mentioned allowing Electronic Attack Ships to impact ewar-immune vessels as a possible fix. <--- seems like a good idea to me

* NULLSEC

The CSM stated that a sovholding alliance’s primary income should stem from the territory itself, such as the taxation of line member’s ratting income or Planetary Interaction, rather than from sovless income sources such as moons.
→ it's a must that the sov itself give the value of the territory, you should not have even to think about it as it's obvious

The CSM noted that line members do not particularly enjoy fighting over moons.
---> structure bashing have no interest , the only thing nice on it is when the enemy come, but it may never come.
As there is lots of timer, he have no reason to come most of the time

why would we enjoy killing pos or ihub ? it's not different from mining a rock, if the target don't resist there is no fun to kill it.
do you know the time needed for a fleet to be ready and go ? the time to travel to and back ?
all that time to push F1 and wait for someone to come, knowing there's good chance he will NOT come


* Factional Warfare (note : i have a very limitated knowledge about FW, and tried, but too much things i didn't liked)

Another important addition to this system would be some real power/consequences for system ownership, such as the elected leaders being able to set things like tax rates in lowsec stations that they control (and having some of this tax ISK flow to the faction). The leadership would be able to set strategic goals as well as adjust settings for the new FW benefits.
-> do it. now.

The CSM suggested that one of the major issues with lowsec was the large increase in risk with a much smaller increase in rewards. → it is. lowsec is more dangerous than sovnullsec and w-space most of the time. but the rewards are way smaller than these.

CCP suggested that in the long term, they would like to see the possibility of FW folks taking over nearby high and nullsec systems, and turning them into FW-controlled systems. → i really LIKE this idea ! that's a very interesting concept !

[b* ]Wormholes [/b]
The idea was raised of having some sort of ship or module that would allow more mass to pass through a wormhole → NOOOO **** no, no, seriously NO.

i'm totally for some hybrid region between nullsec and w-space, but don't change w-space to this hybrid thing, create a new one if you want to.

* Game balance

Cruisers → yeah, they need love for sure

Cloak Hunters → i'm for something that can help find some guy afk since hours or someone who commited an agression, but that can't find easily the guy who's gone afk 10-30mn due to RL issues.


* Future highlevel discussions – Fixing broken systems

Perhaps something you could install in YOUR space that messes with other people's space? → that's a VERY intersting idea, however it will need to be done with lots of care, and feedback. but that's a good idea.

Another possibility is more passive income. Or some sort of income generated by conflict (alliances get moons, for example, → Alliances get moons, but the grunts won't earn money thanks to moons, it will at best help them mitigates loss through alliance reimboursements.


Maybe a solution would be to allow the killer to get a cut of the insurance payout his victim gets? CSM liked this idea, perhaps a payout to 10 or 20%? → i really like the idea. As i said, anything that help earn money while doing pvp and not pve is a welcome

* Microtransaction Microsummit

don't bother with clothes until you give us multiplayer incarna, and a real reason to leave our pod to walk.
they can be wonderfull clothes that everyone likes, if we don't have a reason to switch to our CQ to see them, it have no interest.

* A meeting with the Art department

for example the Art team ranked adding more objects in to space to make it feel less 'empty' quite highly, while the CSM ranked modular starbases/stations higher. → this is the worst thing i read on the entire minutes. It makes me rage.
We're waiting for revamp on pos since so many years that it MUST be on the top on the list
(with a total revamp of the science and industry UI)

* UI

The next item was Unified Inventory. This is an item that has been on CCP's wish-list for a long time, but required back-end infrastructure improvements before it was feasible. <--- and this was one of the BEST things i read on these minutes. Hell YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAH

Moving drone control into the HUD (like guns) → yes !
Raid'En
#337 - 2012-01-18 19:33:32 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:

They DO have to "occupy" the moons they mine.

they only need to be here when they are attacked. after they can leave. it's the same with the sov guys and his sov structures.
i don't consider that "occupy".

however, the npc station must be occupied 24h/24 for the other party to have issue, not just a few hours and done.

Liang Nuren wrote:
The core problem is that so much of 0.0 infrastructure and monetary value is built on things which don't involve occupying the space.

we do agree on this point
mkint
#338 - 2012-01-18 19:34:28 UTC
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
FW will get some significant love.

After all this time, after 4 years of treating FW like crap, after not showing up to their own GODDAMNED MEETING on the subject, what hippy loving HELL makes you think CCP gives even the slightest sh!t about FW or making it good?

Proof or it didn't happen. FW will be to sov, what incarna was to EVE... where CCP skull f*cks a mechanic to see what pops out.

Maxim 6. If violence wasn’t your last resort, you failed to resort to enough of it.

Raid'En
#339 - 2012-01-18 19:41:18 UTC
Sparkus Volundar wrote:

Well I suppose if might depend on how we interpret the term 'old' but in general, if someone has an old character, is rich and is knowledgeable, they probably don't need to be able to buy characters to succeed.

so he don't have the right to have alts ?
don't tell me you never use them if you have a high SP character, i won't trust you :P

the last char i trained a bit for example, was on a middle SP char to avoid paying too much for my clones fees while doing pvp.

i also like a lot having the posisbility to have at the same time a good char for pvp on nullsec, and a good char for industry/trade on high sec.
Rei Za
GDMFSOB EVE Services Corporation
#340 - 2012-01-18 19:42:12 UTC
Respec won't work.

If you start giving respecs now you will end up having to give them every time a change is made.

You'll have to respec with every patch and twice on expansions.

You'll have to respec the teary eyed drake pilots and that one guy that LIKES to have only one midslot on his Retribution.

You can't favor one group (funny how CSM seems to relate to the issue) over any other.

BESIDES, I petitioned a GM and he told me THE SERVER LOGS SHOW THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS RESPEC.