Jita Park Speakers Corner

I am all for UI improvements, especially to the corp management interface. I am not for making anything accessible "ONLY" in one fashion or another. If such functionality would be enhanced / improved by doing it with your avatar, that's fine, but it should still be optional.

I’d love to see a user friendly corporation management interface that allowed me to group certificates to roles, roles to ship loadouts, corp loadouts to squads, squads to wings, wings to (wing) formations, wing formations to fleets and fleets to allied battled groups all with a one flick toggle as who has access to each named set.



You are describing what a lot of people thought Incarna would be for years - a way to meaningfully interact with other players and perform game play affecting functions. I can see this probably happening with a normal UI re-vamp before it's incorporated into any meaningful way with avatars.



If you are talking FPS action, there has never been any indication that CCP will EVER go in that direction. In fact, at Fanfest 2009, they made what was called the 'Wooden Spoon' argument. Basically, they don't want people killing each other with wooden spoons in stations, aka, no avatar PVP. At present, with the current resources allocated, I can't see something like this ever seeing the light of day unless there has been a drastic 180 degree change no one is aware of.



The problem is that you would literally need not only an entire CSM dedicated to this but the majority of the player community as well; that is just not going to happen in the current climate, not after last year's debacle. A lot of what you are talking about seems to, SEEMS TO, be taken from a couple of concept trailers that CCP released over the past few years. There is little chance of that particular 'Vision of the Future' coming to pass until CCP resolves some very basic issues with EVE's every day game play and how that's supposed to link to DUST.

This is where you cross over from being a troll to just blathering idiocy. You see, you're not attacking me with this statement - you're attacking my friends and former work colleagues by suggesting that because of one bad apple, no one else can be trusted either. It is this kind of tinfoil bullshit that drives Devs away from the discussion table and not want to play the game. You either trust CCP to have proper internal affairs arrangements or you spout nonsense like this. Mega Cripes!

Cry your pardon, but you did an excellent job here side-stepping MeBiatch's question. So I'll ask it again with the proper emphasis:

What are your thoughts on this nerf?

No, I really really didn't. He avoided the question. What he said was "When someone else comes up with some idea on how to address this problem, I'll analyze it."

Seleene is a former CCP dev, a long-time player, and a long-time Titan pilot. If I -- who am none of these things -- were to say what he said, it might be OK. But Seleene is running on a platform of "I've been around since 2003, from MC to Iceland and back. I know ****." Therefore, he should have a firm opinion on this issue and shouldn't have to side-step it. Therefore, he shouldn't have to wait for someone else's opinion -- even CCP Tallest's -- before offering his own.

Hell, I don't even know if CCP Tallest has ever flown a Titan in combat. I'll bet he hasn't. But I know Seleene has. Therefore, for him to side-step this question is unacceptable.

From the stand-point of judging his opinion, I don't care whether he says "Titans are fine as is" or "They're broken, and this is why" or "I don't think tracking should be nerfed, but this thing over here should be." What I do care about is him having an opinion other than "I'm going to wait and see which way the wind blows."

:motherofGod:

Jester, have you not done your homework on this where I am concerned? I'm not side-stepping anything, I just posted my latest thought on it which is simple. I've made my thoughts known on this a few times, both publicly and through official channels to CCP. It's in their hands now and I'm waiting to see what the results are before I go off the rails speculating as to what the final call is.

How was "I don't have the facts, so I will wait till I get the full picture and not speak above my measure" not an answer?

The ONLY answer you were really looking for is something you could criticize, make a sound bite of for your blog or both.

If there is a Sarah Palin of this political process its you Ripard. Didn't get a seat at the adult table last term so you spend the next cycle playing armchair QB about how you would have done things differently. And now we are in another election cycle so its time to get even more critical without risking anything yourself.

As venomous as this community is I am shocked no one hasn't called BS on your crap already.

You asked for an opinion about it, which I've given - I think it's fine if Titans are tweaked to where they cannot BLAP BLAP BLAP subcaps so easily. If you are waiting on me to give you my silver bullet solution to this problem, that's not going to happen, but I'll explain my mindset a bit more anyway.

I'm not in total disagreement that 'something' needs to be done, however, just doing a straight up nerf isn't necessarily the best answer. Here's the other rub of it all - be it Titans, Supercarriers, Battleships, T2 HACs, Tengus, Cruise-missile launching Crows, Cav Ravens, whatever - at some point in EVE there has always been a situation where this side or that side was out-spent, out-classed, out-skill pointed, out-thought, whatever. The one thing that has not always necessarily been true is that NUMBERS > all. Sadly, in most situations, this is still the case.

Vile Rat and I had a chat one time where he told me (not an exact quote) that I was a player that basically "grew up knowing / exploiting all of the advantages of a veteran player". It does ring true in a way. I led an alliance that literally did nothing but focus on recruiting high skill point dudes that flew battleship fleets with T2 guns (which was still an achievement as late as early 2007) T2 HACs and cap ships. I did this because, at the time, those were the force-equalizers that allowed a 500-600 man alliance (MC never broke 650 members until near the last few months) to fight larger entities over and over again. I'm guilty of being of the mindset that there SHOULD be things in the game that firewall giant blobs of Numbers > ALL.

This doesn't mean I think that the current iteration and numbers of turret titans is "okay" by any means. I don't deny that they are powerful or hard to kill or whatever adjective you want to apply to them. I wanna see the things dying by the dozens in big, epic fights as much as the next person. But I'm also wary of this "just delete/ nerf all the big things!" mentality which would basically mean he who can field 500 or 1000 dudes in battleships / drakes / rifters wins EVERY. SINGLE. TIME.

I didn't put these ships into the game but I was given the task of making them not as retardedly game breaking as they used to be. I talked to literally hundreds of players about this stuff over 2 years ago. Nearly all agreed that the AoE Doomsday was just DUMB beyond belief, so we got rid of that. Had iteration continued, I would have likely agreed with and pushed for stopping the DD from popping sub-caps. We all agreed that watching a titan vaporize in 30-40 seconds because the HP was so laughably stupid was anti-climatic and dumb as hell, so we beefed that up because who the hell was ever going to put one into combat (SO IT CAN DIE DIE DIE) if it had less HP than a tanked Dread? We realized that XL turret tracking needed a look see so we did that a bit but figured we'd see where it went and iterate on it.

What we didn't see, any of us, was that it would take said iterations over 2 years to come into play.

I find myself in intense agreement with most perceptions on how these things affect null sec PVP; even candidates like Elise acknowledge that there is "A PROBLEM", yet I come from a very different school of thought with regard to how I've spent my time in EVE actually fighting wars. So here we are again, in the age old situation where tweaking something may not be enough but nerfing it to hell and beyond isn't exactly optimal either.

Thus far, about the only thing I've seen that seems to walk the line is the 'targeting signature limit' thing. However, I still believe the bigger problem is blobs of ALL kinds being able to focus fire on a single target which has caused more arguments than I can even remember, be it about cruisers, BS, Titans or whatever.

So, those are my thoughts in total and I'm waiting to see what happens when CCP Tallest gets back with us on how they are going to approach all this.

Thanks. That was very much more what I was looking for.

I was thinking more in terms of station / gate / system blockades to prevent directors getting to tactically important command tools but it's not important.



You're right, that is exactly where I got the impression from. I have to say it is a tad cruel for a company (or anyone) to even hint at promises they have no immediate plans to deliver.

I really can't fault anything else you've commented on. Your vision for veteran high skilled players is unparalleled and seems to surpass CCP in clarity and direction. I would like to thank you for your considered responses an wish you all the best

My first titan came out of the oven in August of 2007. I'm not sure what number it was but I do know there were less than ten in the game at the time. While it ~felt good~, tbh I was actually more proud of the efforts of all the folks in the MC that helped finance it and build the thing. Even back then it didn't feel to me like any sort of end game, it was just another aspect of the game. These days, with so many of the damn things flying around, I still feel pretty much the same - it's just one more ship. In a way I suppose that's sad but it is what it is.



I don't think EVE should ever have 'end game' content; I do think it should have 'epic' content or content that is geared at players that have exhausted their achievable goals, trained every ship, whatever. I believe that after a certain amount of time, EVE as a whole is lacking in terms of new paths to explore or ladders to climb. I don't really relate my game experience or enjoyment to a particular ship class getting boosted / nerfed; I'm more frustrated that there isn't anything really left in EVE for me to explore or build or discover. There's no mysteries to solve or dark places to investigate (and exploit). With this mindset, it's probably a bit easier to understand why I enjoyed helping to create wormholes in Apocrypha.



While I don't think that they should be WTFBBQ solo mobiles, I do believe that Titans and Supercarriers should be powerful warships, capable of wreaking havoc appropriate to the efforts needed for their construction and skill set. What 'appropriate ' means is obviously something still under debate.

Insofar as other ships are concerned, I refer you to my comments (and Trebor's as well) above. There needs to be some sort of 'sweet spot' where just bringing more numbers starts to provide diminishing returns. How exactly to properly apply that rule in a ~sandbox game~ is certainly something that's been looked at for a long time. I don't know if we'll ever see a silver bullet for it but I'm always open to ideas on how to apply a bit more sanity to the situation.

Lastly, I'm not really sure what the 'end game' in EVE is. To me it's not about just the ships themselves because there are a lot of social aspects to EVE that you can't balance with numbers. I'd simply put forth that it's obviously different things to different people.