These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

CSM Campaigns

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Jayne Fillon for CSM9

First post First post
Author
Jayne Fillon
#81 - 2014-02-24 05:50:40 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Eshtir
I'm only going to field questions relevant to the CSM from now on.

*Edit: Removed reply to a deleted post - ISD Eshtir*

Can't shoot blues if you don't have any. Long Live NPSI.

Knezzy
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#82 - 2014-02-24 07:29:24 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Eshtir
Edit: Removed reply to a deleted post - ISD Eshtir



Jayne: As a part-time hi-sec incursion runner, previous pilot for Bombers Bar, and current FC for Spectre Fleet, I've grown very fond of the "open community" aspect of these and other groups. The pick-up-group style comradery formed in these fleets and channels provides a lot of content and is a great gateway for new and old players alike to expand their skill sets, especially in combat situations. One major drawback to this is, for instance, a hi-sec incursion runner whose corporation/alliance is routinely involved in wardec's and won't be allowed into any of the major incursion fleets as a result. That pilot then has to forego a part of the game's content to commit to the wardec, or commit to the hassle of moving his character to a different corporation to continue running.


  • Will you give everyone your opinion on how these kinds of communities and pilots' involvement in them could be made more independent of their corporations/alliances/coalitions - or would any changes actually hinder these communities' development and operation?

  • Furthermore, can you please give us your impression of the current wardec mechanics and your ideas for how they could be improved?
Dersen Lowery
The Scope
#83 - 2014-02-24 15:57:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Dersen Lowery
Back to interesting stuff:

Jayne Fillon wrote:
This is to say that I believe a power projection nerf, or alteration, would be a good for the game. However, I am in no way of supporting a change that imposes arbitrary restrictions on players; a better path would be to encourage the use of fast warping or more maneuverable ships, to pick two examples from many. However, to change this would require a complete overhaul of the sov system, which some argue is already overdue.


This may sound harsh, so let me start off by saying that I agree. However: You know how many thousands of ~words~ have been written about complete overhauls of the sov system. You know how many years it's been a hot topic (from what I have read, it's been approximately all of them). Dominion was a long time ago.

Given that:

How are you planning to contribute to something actually getting done? Clearly, it's not on CSM to do it, but the will has been there for years on both sides of the table. There is no shortage of ideas. There's been no shortage of debate. How do we get to implementation, and what sort of timeline do you think we might be realistically looking at (yes, that will be a pure guesstimate, and I promise to not hold you to it!). How do you see the ESS, and the new anchorables, contributing to a new system? What if there's more than one way to do sov?

2) Let's say that CSM 9 has exactly the same impact on nullsec that previous CSMs have had: much discussion, some good ideas, some bad ideas, and some new shinies, but at the end of the day it's still IHUBs and TCUs and SBUs as far as the eye can see. What will you tell the people who are now hoping that you, or someone, will ~fix sov~?

Thanks.

Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.

I voted in CSM X!

Jayne Fillon
#84 - 2014-02-24 20:43:09 UTC
Knezzy wrote:
As a part-time hi-sec incursion runner, previous pilot for Bombers Bar, and current FC for Spectre Fleet, I've grown very fond of the "open community" aspect of these and other groups. The pick-up-group style comradery formed in these fleets and channels provides a lot of content and is a great gateway for new and old players alike to expand their skill sets, especially in combat situations. One major drawback to this is, for instance, a hi-sec incursion runner whose corporation/alliance is routinely involved in wardec's and won't be allowed into any of the major incursion fleets as a result. That pilot then has to forego a part of the game's content to commit to the wardec, or commit to the hassle of moving his character to a different corporation to continue running.


  • Will you give everyone your opinion on how these kinds of communities and pilots' involvement in them could be made more independent of their corporations/alliances/coalitions - or would any changes actually hinder these communities' development and operation?
  • Furthermore, can you please give us your impression of the current wardec mechanics and your ideas for how they could be improved?

I think I rambled about Incursions earlier in this thread, but you bring up a good point about wardecs and how they've influenced the creation and growth of these communities. You actually have to make a distinction here between the communities that run incursions primarily, and those that run combat fleets. While open combat fleets are generally formed with altruistic intent, such as to help newbros (Agony, Flying Dangerous), or just a simply love for PvP (RvB Ganked, Spectre Fleet), incursion communities are created in an environment of mutual distrust. This is fueled entirely by corporation mechanics.

If a PvP pilot is in a corporation or alliance, he is able to access and participate with content beyond what an open fleet community can provide - drop capitals, suicide gank, or maybe even wormhole diving. However, an incursion pilot who is in a corporation is doing himself a disservice and putting himself at risk. Legal inter-corp aggression in highsec makes new recruits to a theoretical incursion corp very dangerous for potential awox. Even if said corp managed to find a core group of active an passoinate incursion pilots, they will inevitably be forced to either drop corp or drop incursions. It's no surprise that people pick the former.

Although NPC corporations can't be wardec'd, the tax makes it an unsuitable home for these people, and are forced by no desire of their own to create one man solo corps of isolation just to enjoy their content of choice. This is the sense of mutual distrust and vulnerability that causes incursion communities to be a necessity, rather than combat communities being a infrequent indulgence into their content of choice. Whether this is a fault of the wardec mechanics or corporation and alliance mechanics is up for debate, but in this case, I have to side with the wardecs being the cause of the problem.

This is for one reason. Features within the game are meant to create content - all kinds various of play styles and niches for pilots to enjoy. The ever present threat of wardecs is preventing the creation of anything beyond communities of mutual distrust, with no content created for or by the wardec group. This is something that needs to be changed. Nullsec and Lowsec shouldn't be the only place for corporations and alliances.

Can't shoot blues if you don't have any. Long Live NPSI.

ISD Eshtir
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
#85 - 2014-02-24 21:03:37 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Eshtir
Thread cleaned up for breaking the rule below:

Quote:
31. Rumor mongering is prohibited.

Rumor threads and posts which are based off no actual solid information and are designed to either troll or annoy other users will be locked and removed. These kinds of threads and posts are detrimental to the wellbeing and spirit of the EVE Online Community, and can create undue panic among forum users, as well as adding to the workload of our moderators.


Let me be very clear on this. The forum patrons will never know if you say the truth when you accuse someone for breaking the EULA. Only the Game Masters can decide that should you inform them via a support ticket. Posting your accusation here and providing chat logs via paste bin will only lead to a moderator stepping in to enforce rule number 31.

Any more rumor mongering will be reported to the community team.

Please note, your post may also have been removed if it was a reply to deleted post. This is to warrant thread consistency.

ISD Eshtir

Captain

Community Communication Liaisons

Interstellar Services Department

Bertrand Butler
Cras es Noster
#86 - 2014-02-25 12:10:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Bertrand Butler
Hello Jayne Fillon, and well met.

A couple of questions for you...the third is a little loaded, sorry for that.

1. What is your opinion regarding a probable re-balance to the T3 strategic cruisers? Do you feel that the hulls and mechanics (subs, SP loss) in question are fine in the current meta, or there are things to do to make them better/more balanced? What would you do if you were in charge of a re-balancing pass (hypothetically of course)?

2. It can be argued by some that one of the biggest challenges for a game like EvE online in this phase of the product cycle is new player retention. QoL, UI and learning curves inevitably play a big role in it, but other than that, how do you think CCP should achieve that?

3. In the last expansions we have mainly seen a focus in vertical expansion, integration and refinement of the game feature set. Do you believe that EVE online is feature (not content, feature) complete?

cheers..C:
BBQ FTW
The Hatchery
#87 - 2014-02-25 14:03:25 UTC
I don't want this interpreted as a killboard trolling post, but do you have any substantial experience in small gang pvp, preferably in outnumbered engagements? I would think that most of the people that prefer it would say that its an entirely different beast from 20+ sized gangs, and probably the type most affected by individual balance changes.

Why does actual experience matter? It's impossible to experimentally simulate every possible fight matchup, so when we make balance judgments, we have to rely on our experiences to fill in the gaps. Theorycraft isn't an acceptable substitute in many cases. After all, the 2012 nanodrake (most defined by HML, dual web, dual nano) and the current popular single-AAR pulse navy omen have what appears to be awful deficiencies on paper, yet the former was one of the most influential ships in the meta and the latter is currently one of the most popular small-gang nano ships.

In your RLML analysis, you seriously underrate the crippling nature of the lack of ammo switching flexibility. I give you credit for acknowledging that the issue exists, but without experience, how can you actually assign its actual importance? I'll freely concede that two experienced players can differ on the ultimate conclusion of RLML viability in the small gang meta, but using copious amounts of EFT warrioring as a substitute for actual flying is problematic. And I don't think its unreasonable to expect a pvp-focused CSM to be able to intelligently evaluate proposed balance changes...

I'll accept that you are pretty experienced with black ops style stuff, but let's be honest - in nearly all cases, when your lone hostile or couple hostiles are saturated with ECM / other EWAR, you could fit triple sensor boosters to your manticore and it would hardly change the outcome of the engagement. When you're fighting with even or against the odds - then these differences matter, and that's when flaws in your theorycraft are revealed.
Hello Monument Visitor
Doomheim
#88 - 2014-02-25 14:12:18 UTC
Hi Jayne

I've read a fair bit of your stuff. Some of it is pretty good. But I recall being annoyed and disgusted a while back when you decided to make some stuff up about a CSM8 guy & iScorps.

You essentially made stuff up about someone and posted it straight to a public forum (google foo failing me atm. will check later when not at work). You didn't even display the integrity to do some rudimentary fact checking first.

Obviously, this is not a "quality" I desire of a CSM9 delegate. They need to be a good communicator between the player base+CCP & vice versa. The basics of this start with good information that is fact checked, not the polar opposite which is making stuff up and posting it. So...

What major positive aspect have you got that will outweigh your huge negative "I make stuff up and post it to the player base as fact" propensity?

It's going to have to be pretty impressive for me to vote for you, but I'm willing to hear it if you have one.
Jayne Fillon
#89 - 2014-02-25 17:27:38 UTC
BBQ FTW wrote:
I don't want this interpreted as a killboard trolling post, but do you have any substantial experience in small gang pvp, preferably in outnumbered engagements? I would think that most of the people that prefer it would say that its an entirely different beast from 20+ sized gangs, and probably the type most affected by individual balance changes.

Why does actual experience matter? It's impossible to experimentally simulate every possible fight matchup, so when we make balance judgments, we have to rely on our experiences to fill in the gaps. Theorycraft isn't an acceptable substitute in many cases. After all, the 2012 nanodrake (most defined by HML, dual web, dual nano) and the current popular single-AAR pulse navy omen have what appears to be awful deficiencies on paper, yet the former was one of the most influential ships in the meta and the latter is currently one of the most popular small-gang nano ships.

In your RLML analysis, you seriously underrate the crippling nature of the lack of ammo switching flexibility. I give you credit for acknowledging that the issue exists, but without experience, how can you actually assign its actual importance? I'll freely concede that two experienced players can differ on the ultimate conclusion of RLML viability in the small gang meta, but using copious amounts of EFT warrioring as a substitute for actual flying is problematic. And I don't think its unreasonable to expect a pvp-focused CSM to be able to intelligently evaluate proposed balance changes...

I'll accept that you are pretty experienced with black ops style stuff, but let's be honest - in nearly all cases, when your lone hostile or couple hostiles are saturated with ECM / other EWAR, you could fit triple sensor boosters to your manticore and it would hardly change the outcome of the engagement. When you're fighting with even or against the odds - then these differences matter, and that's when flaws in your theorycraft are revealed.

That's fine - I know that the killboard on Jayne looks weak. That's due in no small part to this character being exclusively used for black ops and bomber engagements. With no cruiser or battlecruiser skills, I use my other characters to FC from, most commonly I've used "Aristo Moon" and have been doing so ever since I purchased the character specifically for this reason. My favorite size of gang to FC, and those that I run most often, are in the 20-40 man range.

Yes, it appears that the only thing that I do is black ops and bomber engagements.
That's because on this character, it's the truth.

Side Note: I agree with the ONI looking like **** on paper, heh, but Kovoirx proved that sure wasn't the case.

As for ammo switching, IIRC my analysis came before CCP Rise actually assigned the massive reload to the launchers themselves. Being able to comfortably switch and select ammo types in battle is a huge asset, and something that any missile-spewing frigate pilot is intimately familiar with. That said, frigate pilots will also know how scary front loaded DPS really is, regardless of damage type.

Quote:
... you could fit triple sensor boosters to your manticore and it would hardly change the outcome of the engagement ...

A great point, and a point that I repeat on a regular basis to my pilots. For example, those who have flown with me know that I hate using Falcons in my fleets, simply because it encourages complacency and removes any necessity for pilot skill in piloting or fitting. Too often I've heard "if only that jam had landed...!" as justification for a loss of ships or entire fleets. Using ships like the Rapier or the creative application of sensor dampeners can be just as effective if not more, and still teach your pilots about damage mitigation and application instead of "LOL jammed". Same thing with blob warfare, your mistakes and your inadequacies can be hidden by the sheer numbers surrounding you. I don't find that type of PvP enjoyable.

Ironically, my current obsession in Eve is actually trying to fight severely outnumbered. This little goal of mine started when I forced myself to learn Solo PvP - look up any Stabber, Moa, or Vexor, loss on Aristo Moon. I knew I would encounter gate camps or small gangs, and I had to be able to hit well above my weight class if I wanted to survive, or at least succeed ISK efficient. Thankfully, that wasn't too hard, given how plentiful and brazen interdictor and interceptor pilots are these days.

This is to say I know where you're coming from, and I understand that EFT doesn't have all the answers.

... but I have more experience in space than you give me credit for.

I'm on my lunch break right now, and I know there are a few other question I haven't gotten around to yet. This one just caught my eye and I had to reply right away. If your question hasn't been answered yet, don't worry, I'll get to it later today.

Can't shoot blues if you don't have any. Long Live NPSI.

Jayne Fillon
#90 - 2014-02-25 17:54:35 UTC
Hello Monument Visitor wrote:
Hi Jayne

I've read a fair bit of your stuff. Some of it is pretty good. But I recall being annoyed and disgusted a while back when you decided to make some stuff up about a CSM8 guy & iScorps.

You essentially made stuff up about someone and posted it straight to a public forum (google foo failing me atm. will check later when not at work). You didn't even display the integrity to do some rudimentary fact checking first.

Obviously, this is not a "quality" I desire of a CSM9 delegate. They need to be a good communicator between the player base+CCP & vice versa. The basics of this start with good information that is fact checked, not the polar opposite which is making stuff up and posting it. So...

What major positive aspect have you got that will outweigh your huge negative "I make stuff up and post it to the player base as fact" propensity?

It's going to have to be pretty impressive for me to vote for you, but I'm willing to hear it if you have one.

I actually know what you're talking about!

LINK

This was, admittedly, a mistake on my part. Thankfully, I never deleted it, and you can view my glorious failure in full above.

However, the "rudimentary fact checking" wasn't something I could personally verify, although I regret not being more prudent before calling foul. At the time, my information came from a published article that contained the same claim, which was also later revised to reflect the truth. In my defense, up to that point Ripard Teg had never mentioned that members of his corporation had received the IScorps, nor had he denied ever receiving one personally. That was suspicious and screamed of conflict of interest to me, something that I wanted to share with others. I have nothing against Ripard, but in this case I could not have disagreed with his position more.

So despite your question being rather abrasive, I understand where you're coming from. I had the best of intentions with sharing what I thought was a very relevant piece of information in a raging debate, and the "cherry picking" of quotes that I was accused of was an unintentional side-effect of trying to share only the relevant portions of two long posts from two different sources. It was poorly received, and for good reason.

So finally....

Quote:
What major positive aspect have you got that will outweigh your huge negative

I'll reiterate that I never intentionally spread or post lies to the player base. Even ignoring everything else I've posted in this entire thread, I don't have to look very far for a positive that would outweigh what you consider as a huge negative. Quite simply, the post is still there - I didn't delete it, or hide from it. As with any subject on any aspect on this game, I will always admit when I am wrong.

Can't shoot blues if you don't have any. Long Live NPSI.

Jayne Fillon
#91 - 2014-02-25 18:09:59 UTC
Dersen Lowery wrote:

Given that:

How are you planning to contribute to something actually getting done? Clearly, it's not on CSM to do it, but the will has been there for years on both sides of the table. There is no shortage of ideas. There's been no shortage of debate. How do we get to implementation, and what sort of timeline do you think we might be realistically looking at (yes, that will be a pure guesstimate, and I promise to not hold you to it!). How do you see the ESS, and the new anchorables, contributing to a new system? What if there's more than one way to do sov?

2) Let's say that CSM 9 has exactly the same impact on nullsec that previous CSMs have had: much discussion, some good ideas, some bad ideas, and some new shinies, but at the end of the day it's still IHUBs and TCUs and SBUs as far as the eye can see. What will you tell the people who are now hoping that you, or someone, will ~fix sov~?

Thanks.

I've been putting off on answering your question because it's probably the hardest one I've been asked so far.... but here goes. Quite simply, as a CSM member I think this relies heavily on the design direction that CCP is currently undertaking. Although there have been hints as to the direction we're heading with the post-Rubicon expansions, it's a toss up whether or not you interpret these hints as having anything to do with the sov system. A complete redesign of one of the core mechanics in the entire game is a difficult investment in both resources and time for CCP to justify, regardless of player desire when no new features or content would be created.

As a single member of the CSM, there is simply no way for me to force CCP into redesigning sov, if CCP doesn't have the desire (or the ability!) to do so. How do we get to implementation? A really, really good question... and not one I'll have the answer to until I'm on the CSM at which point it would probably fall under the NDA.

As for mobile structures, I see this as a huge positive which hints towards a desire for a more dynamic sov system with temporary and semi-permanent structures dictating the mechanics, benefits, and functionality of not only systems but specific locations within systems.

What will I say when CSM9 comes to a close and the sov system remains unchanged?

..... I don't know.

The only sentiment that I could hope to express is one of optimism, and that it's best to take the time to do somthing right, rather than rush a design and have something worse than we already have. Devil you know versus the devil you don't. Is that a total deflection of your question? Yeah, totally, but there are so many things that could happen between now and then I simply don't have any satisfactory answer, beyond optimism. If it does happen, and sov is fixed, I hope to have been a part of it.

Can't shoot blues if you don't have any. Long Live NPSI.

Dersen Lowery
The Scope
#92 - 2014-02-25 19:05:52 UTC
Jayne Fillon wrote:
The only sentiment that I could hope to express is one of optimism, and that it's best to take the time to do somthing right, rather than rush a design and have something worse than we already have. Devil you know versus the devil you don't. Is that a total deflection of your question? Yeah, totally, but there are so many things that could happen between now and then I simply don't have any satisfactory answer, beyond optimism. If it does happen, and sov is fixed, I hope to have been a part of it.


I would have been deeply suspicious of any answer that wasn't a deflection of my question to some degree. It is a hard one.

Let me rephrase and narrow one part down: I have a suspicion--which I acknowledge that you could not confirm until you were under the NDA, at which point you probably couldn't confirm it for me, but let's blue-sky here for a bit--that part of the problem is that people are trying a Giant Comprehensive Overhaul of Null Sec That Will Fix Everything, and the problem with those plans is that they get designed by ever-changing committees indefinitely, partly because nobody agrees on the final design, and partly because everyone is terrified of actually shipping it and having it faceplant right out of the gate.

That's my suspicion.

So instead of talking about ideas, because there's already been lots of talking about ideas, let's just assume that CCP has a set of ideas, ready for your feedback. Would you be willing to start a process of potentially disrupting nullsec over a period of (likely) years in order to start a steady trickle of features that will eventually coalesce into a new system? Would you rather try to hammer out a major release, with plenty of notice to interested parties, and accept that its release would not happen in your term, and possibly not for some time after that? (After all, how long has it already been?) Or would you be more inclined to support whichever tactic CCP seems most inclined toward?

Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.

I voted in CSM X!

Hello Monument Visitor
Doomheim
#93 - 2014-02-25 19:17:52 UTC
Jayne Fillon wrote:
Hello Monument Visitor wrote:
Hi Jayne

I've read a fair bit of your stuff. Some of it is pretty good. But I recall being annoyed and disgusted a while back when you decided to make some stuff up about a CSM8 guy & iScorps.

You essentially made stuff up about someone and posted it straight to a public forum (google foo failing me atm. will check later when not at work). You didn't even display the integrity to do some rudimentary fact checking first.

Obviously, this is not a "quality" I desire of a CSM9 delegate. They need to be a good communicator between the player base+CCP & vice versa. The basics of this start with good information that is fact checked, not the polar opposite which is making stuff up and posting it. So...

What major positive aspect have you got that will outweigh your huge negative "I make stuff up and post it to the player base as fact" propensity?

It's going to have to be pretty impressive for me to vote for you, but I'm willing to hear it if you have one.

I actually know what you're talking about!

LINK

*lots of stuff*



Thanks for clearing that up and also for linking what I couldn't whilst I was out on my mobile. Admitting that you screwed up was by far the best response possible and you've certainly gone some way to repairing the damage. I'll continue to pay close interest ;-)
Jayne Fillon
#94 - 2014-02-25 20:01:47 UTC
Bertrand Butler wrote:
Hello Jayne Fillon, and well met.

A couple of questions for you...the third is a little loaded, sorry for that.

1. What is your opinion regarding a probable re-balance to the T3 strategic cruisers? Do you feel that the hulls and mechanics (subs, SP loss) in question are fine in the current meta, or there are things to do to make them better/more balanced? What would you do if you were in charge of a re-balancing pass (hypothetically of course)?

2. It can be argued by some that one of the biggest challenges for a game like EvE online in this phase of the product cycle is new player retention. QoL, UI and learning curves inevitably play a big role in it, but other than that, how do you think CCP should achieve that?

3. In the last expansions we have mainly seen a focus in vertical expansion, integration and refinement of the game feature set. Do you believe that EVE online is feature (not content, feature) complete?

cheers..C:

Sorry about taking so long to reply to you - I'd typed up a response earlier but it was lost when the forums crashed. QQ

1.

As for strategic cruisers, CCP has thankfully stated exactly what their intentions and goals are here. This response comes from players being angry that the ship rebalance chart looked like this instead of this. Although I in no way agree with a loss of SP being a legitament balancing tool or mechanic in anyway, I do agree with the stated intent for strategic cruisers:

"Tech3 vessels were initially meant to be extremely flexible with adaptable roles due to sub-system configurations. In practice, they currently overlap in stats with other, more specialized ship classes, which create problems."

The ability to change a T3's subsystem while in wormhole space or using a mobile depot was a great step in making this goal a reality, and something that should have been implemented long ago. There are some great examples of T3's using their unique ablities in the current meta, such as the use of slippery petes, which is a delightful example of creative fleet combat. However, the combination of low mass, low sig, and high resists that have made the classic Proteus-Loki-Guardian combo so powerful is not something I agree with. T3's should not be the foundation for an end-game fleet doctrine, as far as subcapitals are concerned, while their are other T2 ships that are specifically meant to fulfill those roles and are being overshadowed.

2.

The UI is certainly the aspect of NPE and QoL that would have the biggest impact on not just new players but veterans - and thankfully their already working on this very concept. Although I wasn't able to find the link for you, I remember seeing concept art for some new versions of the overview and various infotab setups in space. The challenge here is giving the player all the relevant information they need to play the game, while making it look as beautiful as it does when you press ctrl+f9.

The ISIS and mastery systems are great steps in the right direction, and I can't wait to see what they have in store next.

3.

A sandbox can never really be "feature complete," but if you're asking me whether we need more shinies or further iterating passes on existing mechanics, I'd have to lean towards the later. There are aspects in the game which would make all facets more enjoyable if they were altered, such as wardecs, bounty hunting, and sov. Vertical expansion is nice, but a good foundation is always a pre-req. The ship rebalancing has been huge for the game, and from the player responses to all aspects, I don't think they would object to further refinement on an incredibly complex universe.

Can't shoot blues if you don't have any. Long Live NPSI.

Jayne Fillon
#95 - 2014-02-25 20:11:49 UTC
Dersen Lowery wrote:

Would you be willing to start a process of potentially disrupting nullsec over a period of (likely) years in order to start a steady trickle of features that will eventually coalesce into a new system? Would you rather try to hammer out a major release, with plenty of notice to interested parties, and accept that its release would not happen in your term, and possibly not for some time after that?

Yes. Not just yes, but hell yes.

The job of the CSM isn't to sing the praises of CCP regardless of their actions, it's to ensure that whatever actions CCP does take is worthy of praise. Eve is a ten year old game, and I have no doubt that it will be around in ten years from now. It's odd for a game to consider one year as a short period of time, but in terms of altering the mechanics of a persistent universe, things must be approached with care. Beyond the importance of respecting the lore, it's simply impractical to hit the reset button on sov and tell these established groups to start again from scratch.

Ship rebalancing alone has taken over a year now, and we haven't even discussed half of the T2 ships or any of the capitals. Sov is going to be infinitely harder to change, especially if we want to change it in a regard that doesn't make people legitamently infuriated with the outcome. To be explicit with my answer this time instead of deflecting: Yes, I am completely fine with temporarily disrupting nullsec in order to make the main driver of conflict, content and narratives more enjoyable and playable. It will probably suck at times, but cutting out a tumor is just as painful as it is necessary.

Can't shoot blues if you don't have any. Long Live NPSI.

Bertrand Butler
Cras es Noster
#96 - 2014-02-25 20:48:10 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Phantom
Jayne Fillon wrote:
Bertrand Butler wrote:
Hello Jayne Fillon, and well met.

A couple of questions for you...the third is a little loaded, sorry for that.

1. What is your opinion regarding a probable re-balance to the T3 strategic cruisers? Do you feel that the hulls and mechanics (subs, SP loss) in question are fine in the current meta, or there are things to do to make them better/more balanced? What would you do if you were in charge of a re-balancing pass (hypothetically of course)?

2. It can be argued by some that one of the biggest challenges for a game like EvE online in this phase of the product cycle is new player retention. QoL, UI and learning curves inevitably play a big role in it, but other than that, how do you think CCP should achieve that?

3. In the last expansions we have mainly seen a focus in vertical expansion, integration and refinement of the game feature set. Do you believe that EVE online is feature (not content, feature) complete?

cheers..C:

Sorry about taking so long to reply to you - I'd typed up a response earlier but it was lost when the forums crashed. QQ

1.

As for strategic cruisers, CCP has thankfully stated exactly what their intentions and goals are here. This response comes from players being angry that the ship rebalance chart looked like this instead of this. Although I in no way agree with a loss of SP being a legitament balancing tool or mechanic in anyway, I do agree with the stated intent for strategic cruisers:

"Tech3 vessels were initially meant to be extremely flexible with adaptable roles due to sub-system configurations. In practice, they currently overlap in stats with other, more specialized ship classes, which create problems."

The ability to change a T3's subsystem while in wormhole space or using a mobile depot was a great step in making this goal a reality, and something that should have been implemented long ago. There are some great examples of T3's using their unique ablities in the current meta, such as the use of slippery petes, which is a delightful example of creative fleet combat. However, the combination of low mass, low sig, and high resists that have made the classic Proteus-Loki-Guardian combo so powerful is not something I agree with. T3's should not be the foundation for an end-game fleet doctrine, as far as subcapitals are concerned, while their are other T2 ships that are specifically meant to fulfill those roles and are being overshadowed.

2.

The UI is certainly the aspect of NPE and QoL that would have the biggest impact on not just new players but veterans - and thankfully their already working on this very concept. Although I wasn't able to find the link for you, I remember seeing concept art for some new versions of the overview and various infotab setups in space. The challenge here is giving the player all the relevant information they need to play the game, while making it look as beautiful as it does when you press ctrl+f9.

The ISIS and mastery systems are great steps in the right direction, and I can't wait to see what they have in store next.

3.

A sandbox can never really be "feature complete," but if you're asking me whether we need more shinies or further iterating passes on existing mechanics, I'd have to lean towards the later. There are aspects in the game which would make all facets more enjoyable if they were altered, such as wardecs, bounty hunting, and sov. Vertical expansion is nice, but a good foundation is always a pre-req. The ship rebalancing has been huge for the game, and from the player responses to all aspects, I don't think they would object to further refinement on an incredibly complex universe.


Thanks for the prompt answer. You got a voter...C:
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
#97 - 2014-02-26 01:08:56 UTC
I have removed a rule breaking post.

The rules:
4. Personal attacks are prohibited.

Commonly known as flaming, personal attacks are posts that are designed to personally berate or insult another forum user. Posts of this nature are not beneficial to the community spirit that CCP promote and as such they will not be tolerated.

ISD Ezwal Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

The Ironfist
Thunder Mercenary Army
Polaris Mercenary Alliance
#98 - 2014-02-26 11:10:18 UTC
Why should anyone vote for you after your show of incompetence with that 7 Page Mittani article on slowcats? If that article was supposed to gain you favor with the CFC granted well done. But other than that it was a pile of **** void of actual facts.
Jayne Fillon
#99 - 2014-02-26 12:41:27 UTC
The Ironfist wrote:
Why should anyone vote for you after your show of incompetence with that 7 Page Mittani article on slowcats? If that article was supposed to gain you favor with the CFC granted well done. But other than that it was a pile of **** void of actual facts.

Hmmm, it seemed to have been rather well received by most, including Grath himself. Everything in that article was either sourced, or demonstrated to be accurate through various methods. Just because the results don't align with your beliefs or training plan doesn't mean that it's a show of incompetence or inherently untrue. Although feel free to actually critique my analysis with specific points and counter arguments - I'll explain and defend my rationale to anyone who asks.

Can't shoot blues if you don't have any. Long Live NPSI.

Crowned-Clown
N.O.I.R
#100 - 2014-02-26 14:51:16 UTC
You got my vote if you vote on me!