These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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 General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

EVE Online Development Strategy (CSM Public)

First post First post First post
Author
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#21 - 2012-11-22 18:38:17 UTC
Hey CSM / CCP (really just the same thing), go for it.
Implement everything that this crew asked for, precisely as they asked for it, as soon as you can.
Nerf the crap out of high sec. Obliterate high sec.

I would really enjoy watching the fallout.
I look forward to reading in the papers about CCP layoffs as the sub rate plummets.
Azami Nevinyrall
172.0.0.1
#22 - 2012-11-22 18:40:04 UTC
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
Hey CSM / CCP (really just the same thing), go for it.
Implement everything that this crew asked for, precisely as they asked for it, as soon as you can.
Nerf the crap out of high sec. Obliterate high sec.

I would really enjoy watching the fallout.
I look forward to reading in the papers about CCP layoffs as the sub rate plummets.

Empty quoting...

...

Ghazu
#23 - 2012-11-22 18:49:46 UTC
Jame Jarl Retief wrote:
I had a chuckle at the "giant-panda-themed bosses" thing. You guys do realize that said game has had absolutely no trouble maintaining 10+ million paying subscriber player base for 8 years and counting? And recently broke a 1 million concurrent user record in September?

Further, in all of this, the main questions that should always be asked are:
"Who is this for?"
and
"How will it improve the game?"

For example, Incarna had no answer to either question. Inferno improved FW, but not everyone cares about FW, so it fell largely on deaf ears. The upcoming AI change also doesn't seem like it was entirely thought out, because while it is theoretically for everyone, it doesn't really seem to improve the game, unless you consider adding more hassles and hoops for players to jump through as an improvement.

I'm also not too sure how I feel about the whole two-expansion iteration thing, where first expansion lays down the ground work and second expansion brings in the payoff. Could lead to many problems, like downright broken stuff for half a year. See the FW mechanics introduced in Inferno, and how much obscene ISK was made as a result of exploitation of those blatantly broken mechanics until they were recently changed, and more fixes coming in Retribution. Six months or more of broken game can do a whole lot of harm. Perhaps a better idea would be ONE expansion per year, but it comes out finished and polished and working. Not half-donkeyed and broken and needing years of iteration to bring up to snuff.

The rest of it? Once again far too much focus on 0.0, Sov, PoS, etc. You guys (CSM in general) need to realize that 60% of EVE's playerbase live in hi-sec. As such, they don't give a toss about 0.0. Or Sov. And to a large degree about PoS. If you are going to talk about player retention, you NEED to talk about hi-sec. Not about how to make 0.0 better or more profitable. Because, like it was said so many times before, no matter how good or profitable 0.0 becomes, it will won't make those 60% in hi-sec go there. It is a conscious decision based on many factors. And nerfing hi-sec to force people into 0.0 will force people out of the game instead.

So, as far as the suggested focus in this paper goes? Seems to focus on the 40% living in low/null and WH space. And not on 60% (majority) living in hi-sec and making them happy (continuing to subscribe).


can't tell if you are a barbie lover or a make highsec safer duder

http://www.minerbumping.com/ lol what the christ https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2299984#post2299984

Harbingour
EVE Corporation 690846961
#24 - 2012-11-22 18:54:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Harbingour
Seleene wrote:
Jame Jarl Retief wrote:
If you are going to talk about player retention, you NEED to talk about hi-sec.


Oh believe me, we do. That's just not what the focus of this document was. Quite a lot of us have many interests in hi-sec and there are quite a lot of ways that even things that seem specifically for one kind of gameplay will affect all the others. I'd encourage you to read an excellent take on this very subject by Malcanis:

The Big Lie

I think the document makes a fair case for many types of gameplay and improvements that are not completely null-sec centric,



Malcanis' article there is hands down the best read I have had in The Mitten rag by far.
I think one point he made is very necessary right now: how can we boost NULL without nerfing every1 else offQuestion

I always think that nerfing is a lazy fix & is unrealisic in RL & ruins my emersion in thegame. BUFFING is always better but is a far trickier juggling act....

Here's few suggestions I'd like to throwout there for buffs for NULL only which doesn't nerf others much if at all:
========================================

My main ( currently forum banned ) is known for his Incursion rants so here's one sugggestion I made to CCP before:
For NULL SEC incursions if an invasion is killed off ( the Uroborus site is finished & the super dies ) then the SOV fees for that constellation are waived for a period of time ( a few months or weeks? ) as a reward to the SOV holders for doing Concord's job.
Not only would it give a reason for the Alliance as a whole to work together hopefullly it would breathe some life into NULL's dead incursions since the escalation nerf. Maybe the Uroborus's wreck also dropping new Sansha faction SBU's or something simular would help also.

Jovian invasions/rats who's salvage & BPC's can be used for officer MOD's

The above are more PvE oriented so here's acouple PvP buffs:


WARP STORMS something like in WH40k that doesn't affect your warp drive ability but does prevent cyno'ing from working ( CYNO JAMM STORMs I guess would be a better term ) Maybe have a supernova in sydicate as a background RP & this area would become a permenant cyno jam'd small gang PvP area. It couldbeargued though this is a nerf to those owning CAPs & a buff to others but I just wanted to throw this idea out there

another twist on the WARP STORMs could be instead of cyno jamming the super nova wipes out & disrupts local chat in a certain stretchs of NULL so that intelligence can no longer be used muchlike in WH space. This way local is not taken down in all of NULL but just afew places for CCP & plyers alike to test if its good idea or not.


Another idea: 10-??? Jove space systems open up to NULL with Dyson Sphere's ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyson_sphere ) which are like areana PvP areas but are only accessable to certain classes & MAX numbers of ships. Jovians reason them for them: gladitorial combat entertainment



I dunno this postmay be more of a F&I subforum post but I wanted to throw it in here
and yes they are sort of 'Jesus features' but I hope they are not to theme parky which null dwellers seem to be so averse to
An' then [email protected], he come scramblin outta the    Terminal room screaming "The system's crashing! The system's    crashing!" -Uncle RAMus, 'Tales for Cyberpsychotic Children'
Shadowschild
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#25 - 2012-11-22 18:59:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Shadowschild
Ultimately the CSM has no power whatsoever with regards to how the company implements changes to production or development. Although certain members of the CSM have a great deal of influence in game. They exist within the confines of the sandbox like the rest of us.

I saw the video interviews during the incarna debacle, when they actually flew the CSM in, very much so in desperation over their major screw up. In my honest opinion, it was nothing more than a PR stunt from CCP to regain player confidence after subscriptions fell due to bad PR . And for this single reason, you had a real usefulness to CCP. You may even of had a chance to push for real change. Unfortunately, during the free trip to Iceland, you probably saw how affected the company was & felt sympathy for them & that was your biggest mistake. You showed weakness when we needed you to have strength, & the determination to drive your points in. The executives definately noticed that. I understand the need to be polite to them (they flew/fed/housed you) but you have to agree, you didn't really have a prepared proposal to begin with. That was probably your only real chance, but I remain hopefull that some ideas of this proposal will make it through.

I honestly feel the company has a very good understanding now of how far they can implement change before the customer base fires back. Including the implementation of an in game vanity store that continues to have unattractive prices. Or their efforts to reduce player income by displacing anomalies to lower security space (rendering most of null empty) and shitting on alot of hard work by the population.

Although I applaud your efforts to improve the game, and lately there have been some interesting updates, ultimately you have to realize that only a small percentage of the population controls the vast amount of space we know as sov null sec. The rest of us grunts are happy to rat, mine & pvp as is. And to be honest looking at the influence map, it should be a lot harder for coalitions to control so much space. It just doesn't make any sense to me.
Elliot Vodka
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#26 - 2012-11-22 19:06:21 UTC


I thought the risk vs reward in high and null was already like that... (Then again i don't mine)


Im new yo. But for real i was about to quit before i found a corporation willing to teach a straight newb that actually knew what there doing in low/null sec.

Its the only thing that's kept me on 4 months counting. Imagine how many people said "**** it" That didn't find a good corp?

Maybe a reward system for people doing these "Good will" Services or something... Idk, just dont see enough thats good quality, training corps.

Please dont loose track of helping eve become more appealing to new players, if you did, i may not be here to pay you.
<3

Why is it that people think this game is for everyone?A better question would be "Why do some people think this game is only for them?"

Andski
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#27 - 2012-11-22 19:10:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Andski
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
Hey CSM / CCP (really just the same thing), go for it.
Implement everything that this crew asked for, precisely as they asked for it, as soon as you can.
Nerf the crap out of high sec. Obliterate high sec.

I would really enjoy watching the fallout.
I look forward to reading in the papers about CCP layoffs as the sub rate plummets.


Alright then, they can head to another space MMO where they'll make more ~ISK/hr~ in the safe newbie area.

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar

Kainotomiu Ronuken
koahisquad
#28 - 2012-11-22 19:49:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Kainotomiu Ronuken
Seleene wrote:
  • The primary coauthors of this document were Alekseyev Karrde, Hans Jagerblitzen, Trebor Daehdoow, and Two Step. It was unanimously endorsed by all active members of the CSM.

Just out of interest, which members of CSM 7 would you define as inactive? Or is this knowledge publicly available somewhere?

Edit: I think one thing that was largely missed out was the new player experience. While you make a big point of turning Newbies into Veterans, you can't have Newbies without turning Potentials into Newbies. You did mention the 'Shiny' aspect of turning a potential customer into a paying customer, but you didn't talk about what happens directly after a Potential starts playing - as it is, a lot of people who start trial accounts or even full accounts end up leaving before they can turn into Newbies. What CCP is doing with the tutorial is obviously a good start, but it's honestly still pretty baffling when you start.
Mortimer Civeri
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#29 - 2012-11-22 19:54:16 UTC
I'm an industrialist. 0.0 holds no interest for me, not because of "OMG CTA, EVERYBODY GET IN FLEET AND FIGHT!", but because 0.0 has almost none of the tools and resources I need to do what I like, or at best has the tools and resources in less than "convienient" locations.

I can get minerals in one outpost, but there are no factory slots for me to use those minerals. If I go to an outpost where the factory slots are, the refining rate makes aquiring minerals a problem, and God forbid if CCP comes out with a new blueprint for the next hot module. That means going to yet a diffrent outpost to research it, or spending a lot of capital, to set up a alt corp, to join an alliance, to set up a POS, because I'm new and they don't want to give out roles, 'cause I may be a spy. POS'es are their own brand of sisyphean, hair pulling, nightmare too. Thank you no, I'll be happily producing in Empire, where I have plenty of open manufacturing slots, with a refining rate that doesn't make baby Jesus cry, and with a resonable research queue. (15-20 days isn't so bad, I can wait.)

"I don't know which is worse, ...that everyone has his price, or that the price is always so low." Calvin

EI Digin
irc.zulusquad.org
#30 - 2012-11-22 20:06:05 UTC
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
Nerf the crap out of high sec. Obliterate high sec.


Buffing nullsec is not the same as nerfing highsec.
James 315
Experimental Fun Times Corp RELOADED
CODE.
#31 - 2012-11-22 20:15:00 UTC
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
Hey CSM / CCP (really just the same thing), go for it.
Implement everything that this crew asked for, precisely as they asked for it, as soon as you can.
Nerf the crap out of high sec. Obliterate high sec.

I would really enjoy watching the fallout.
I look forward to reading in the papers about CCP layoffs as the sub rate plummets.

I live in highsec, and even I am in favor of nerfing highsec PvE (and simultaneously buffing low/null) in order to bring risk/reward to something resembling sanity. That should tell you something! Smile
Helena Russell Makanen
DRRUSSEL
#32 - 2012-11-22 20:55:57 UTC
James 315 wrote:

I live in highsec, and even I am in favor of nerfing highsec PvE (and simultaneously buffing low/null) in order to bring risk/reward to something resembling sanity. That should tell you something! Smile


Spoken by a guy who bumps miners while pleading for their ISK and proclaiming himself king of whatever HS system he is bumping ships in.

Oh... and while trying to control the miner's urine. Roll

"If a miner needs to go to the bathroom, for instance, I ask that they dock up first, or at the very least ask the Supreme Protector for permission to go."  -  James 315 - aka - the miner bumper

Kainotomiu Ronuken
koahisquad
#33 - 2012-11-22 21:01:43 UTC
Helena Russell Makanen wrote:
Oh... and while trying to control the miner's urine. Roll

It is a common misconception that the New Order attempts to control when a miner can or cannot go to the bathroom. This is not remotely true. At any time, a miner (or any other player) may dock up and go to the toilet for as long as he or she wishes. The New Order does not have any issue with this.

Where the New Order is actually showing (unsurprising) benevolence, however, is in allowing some miners to go AFK to the toilet without docking up or even stopping their mining lasers! This is not 'control', this is an indulgence that few miners deserve.
Miss Silv
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#34 - 2012-11-22 23:04:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Miss Silv
Quote:
When viewed this way, one can broadly segment the community into four groups, each of which is attracted by different mixes of new features/content (Shiny) and improvement of existing features/content (Iteration).
Potentials -- people who have never or only briefly subscribed. (90% Shiny, 10% Iteration)
Newbies -- players with less than a year in the game. (70% Shiny, 30% Iteration)
Veterans -- players with more than a year in the game. (10% Shiny, 90% Iteration)
Bittervets -- unsubscribed veterans. (50% Shiny, 50% Iteration)


How do you come up with these figures?

Given the already existing depth and complexity of the game I'd say it'd be at least a year before it feels stagnant because of lack of content, so why would potentials and newbies care much for brand new content?

The fundamental issue is the gameplay itself, which (as a newbie) I've found enjoyable up until recently, but the new AI changes has taken that away and thus I can't see myself continuing - and it has nothing to do with the content, hell, I barely even got started. Couldn't care less about income either, but watching bars and clicking away every 5 seconds is why I tend to shy away from mmos - Eve gave a chance to not resort to that, but alas.
Lipbite
Express Hauler
#35 - 2012-11-22 23:38:07 UTC
Useless meta-game to distract players from fact there wasn't actual content expansions since 2010 (except for PI mini-game, CQ mini-game, 10 ships during 3 years, FW mini-game) and none on the horizon except for Dust mini-game.
YuuKnow
The Scope
#36 - 2012-11-23 00:54:56 UTC
Not much in that CSM document that I even remotely agree with

Making Null Sec more lucrative? It already has Moon mining monopolies, deadspaces, the best PI, and the higest bounties. What is the CSM talking about?

Making POSs more Modular? I think the CSM needs to look up the word modular. "Modular" is what the current POS system is already. It needs to be more aesthetic and user friendly.

Making Mining more cooperative? The best ores in null sec and WH absolutely demand cooperative/social gameplay in order to function succesfully (protection, hauling, etc)

Not sure what the CSM is representing besides themselves here.
Malphilos
State War Academy
Caldari State
#37 - 2012-11-23 01:39:26 UTC
James 315 wrote:

I live in highsec, and even I am in favor of nerfing highsec PvE (and simultaneously buffing low/null) in order to bring risk/reward to something resembling sanity. That should tell you something! Smile


It tells me those ideas are batshit crazy.

How am I doing?
Malphilos
State War Academy
Caldari State
#38 - 2012-11-23 01:55:13 UTC
YuuKnow wrote:
Not sure what the CSM is representing besides themselves here.


Maybe, but I doubt it's malicious. I'm sure they honestly think these are the best ideas for the game as they know it.
Mars Theran
Foreign Interloper
#39 - 2012-11-23 02:18:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Mars Theran
You should have edited out the BS; that wouldn't have left much, but at least I'd be more interested in reading it. Roll

...The content of your strategy isn't bad, and so far as I've read to this point, it's a good place to start. Would have preferred if you'd just kept it concise and detailed though, without all the extraneous, unrelated, and completely unfounded crap stuffed in.
zubzubzubzubzubzubzubzub
Frying Doom
#40 - 2012-11-23 07:22:20 UTC
Kainotomiu Ronuken wrote:
Seleene wrote:
  • The primary coauthors of this document were Alekseyev Karrde, Hans Jagerblitzen, Trebor Daehdoow, and Two Step. It was unanimously endorsed by all active members of the CSM.

Just out of interest, which members of CSM 7 would you define as inactive? Or is this knowledge publicly available somewhere?

I must admit I too am wondering what CSM members put their name on this ill thought dreg?

Ill thought you say, how so?
The greater supply of minerals of hi-sec type to Null the less they are then worth to those mining in Hi-sec.

Also I did not even hear mention of fixing the ridiculously broken corporate management system we have now.

Also if you want higher player retention why don't you use your efforts on the player numbers as to where they are 60% Hi-Sec, 20% Null, 15% lo-sec and 5% WH's. Yes I know that people say, "But or Null sec mains have alts in Hi-sec." But unless someone can prove that it is more than a few percent it really is not relevant.

We hear from Null sec players that Hi-sec has had 2 expansions dedicated to it but in reality what did it really get, can anyone name these wonderful new additions for Hi-sec?

So to boil it down stop acting like a Null Sec lobby group and More like representatives of ALL players.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!