These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Jita Park Speakers Corner

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
12Next page
 

Summit Day 2 Quick Report

First post
Author
Trebor Daehdoow
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1 - 2011-12-09 10:23:49 UTC
November wrapup: discussed some issues with Crucible and learned a little about what is upcoming. In brief, more crucibility.

Nullsec: discussed many tweaks to nullsec to promote conflict, including possibility of destructible stations and changes to drone loot and moons.

Little things: FW/Wormholes: presented lists of small changes to improve these areas of the game. Hopefully they will get some love.

Game balance: discussed ships, classes, the new ships, global issues, possible new role for EAS ships, continued evolution of supercaps.

Future highlevel discussion: very broad discussion of where the game is going in the longer term. Shorter term is fixing current systems.

Crimewatch: Greyscale presented a proposal for rewriting Crimewatch, the system that handles aggression, criminal flags, and so on. It's basically a big ball of tangled code, and CCP wants to streamline and move the various functions into independent units of code. We really liked the new concept.

Private Citizen • CSM in recovery

Adhar Khorin
Projected Effects Industries
#2 - 2011-12-09 11:18:26 UTC
Thanks Trebor, really appreciate the quick summaries. Good to hear more Crucibility vs. Crucifixion is coming. Big smile
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#3 - 2011-12-09 11:23:13 UTC
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
Nullsec: discussed many tweaks to nullsec to promote conflict, including possibility of destructible stations and changes to drone loot and moons.

No word on changing the way system "ownership" can change hands? So we're stuck with a light modification of the current SOV system?

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat

Geksz
The Fountain
#4 - 2011-12-09 12:48:18 UTC
Any news on how they gona handle expansions and bugfixes/iterations in the future? (for example: expansions get new features in, or rewritten old features, and between expansions and in expansions we get bugfixes, and balance changes)
St Mio
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#5 - 2011-12-09 13:14:56 UTC
Yay CSM
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai
#6 - 2011-12-09 14:35:38 UTC
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
(...)

Nullsec: discussed many tweaks to nullsec to promote conflict, including possibility of destructible stations and changes to drone loot and moons.

(...)


Huh. Quoting myself, talking about POCOs:

Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:
That's lowsec/nullsec business as usual, where novelties are split between any of these two cathegories:

- things that favor big corps
- things that harm small corps


'nuff said.

Roses are red / Violets are blue / I am an Alpha / And so it's you

ninjaholic
Black Frog Logistics
Red-Frog
#7 - 2011-12-09 14:49:50 UTC
Awesome. Thanks for the updates!

Support Eve's own built-in Battle-Recorder!

Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#8 - 2011-12-09 15:48:42 UTC
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
(...)

Nullsec: discussed many tweaks to nullsec to promote conflict, including possibility of destructible stations and changes to drone loot and moons.

(...)


Huh. Quoting myself, talking about POCOs:

Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:
That's lowsec/nullsec business as usual, where novelties are split between any of these two cathegories:

- things that favor big corps
- things that harm small corps


'nuff said.


Malcanis' Law applies to small corps in 0.0 as much as it does to new players in EVE. I have never yet seen a change to sov 0.0 suggested "to help small corps/alliances" that would not in fact be hugely to the advantage of large strong alliances.

In fact I challenge you to produce a workable one.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#9 - 2011-12-09 16:13:13 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Malcanis' Law applies to small corps in 0.0 as much as it does to new players in EVE. I have never yet seen a change to sov 0.0 suggested "to help small corps/alliances" that would not in fact be hugely to the advantage of large strong alliances.

In fact I challenge you to produce a workable one.

I caution you, don't hold your breath.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat

Velicitia
XS Tech
#10 - 2011-12-09 17:40:04 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Malcanis' Law applies to small corps in 0.0 as much as it does to new players in EVE. I have never yet seen a change to sov 0.0 suggested "to help small corps/alliances" that would not in fact be hugely to the advantage of large strong alliances.

In fact I challenge you to produce a workable one.

I caution you, don't hold your breath.

Oops

(too bad it's not blue)

One of the bitter points of a good bittervet is the realisation that all those SP don't really do much, and that the newbie is having much more fun with what little he has. - Tippia

Pavel Bidermann
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#11 - 2011-12-09 18:15:07 UTC
Thanks for the update. I can't say I feel good about that list though.

More stuff to be destroyed by the east/west block and drive out the small and even larger independant alliances from null. Actually, those types of alliances in null will be pretty much extinct next year, so I guess it really doesn't matter. Why is it you think people will go to null again?

Definately not looking forward to the changes in high sec. Not that it doesn't need work, but it seems to be tailored more and more to help null sec again.

I voted for you but I have to say that over the past year I have become very anti CSM. I don't have anything against you personnally and I know some of you are trying to make it work, but its broken. The idea was really good, but the results have been terrible. We'll see if there is another CSM or not. If it does go up for a vote again I think we can expect the same poor results.
Feligast
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#12 - 2011-12-09 18:56:25 UTC
Pavel Bidermann wrote:
Thanks for the update. I can't say I feel good about that list though.

Since the changes your hard work have produced haven't directly and significantly improved everything I, and only I, want, the CSM is obviously a total failure.


Fixed those :words: of yours there.
Pavel Bidermann
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#13 - 2011-12-09 19:17:14 UTC
Feligast wrote:
Pavel Bidermann wrote:
Thanks for the update. I can't say I feel good about that list though.

Since the changes your hard work have produced haven't directly and significantly improved everything I, and only I, want, the CSM is obviously a total failure.


Fixed those :words: of yours there.


How does addressing 2 items on that list translate to "everything"? A little bored are we? Maybe you have poor skills in comparing statements?
Pavel Bidermann
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#14 - 2011-12-09 19:18:08 UTC
OOPS! You're a Goon. That answers that. I should have read that first. Sorry.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#15 - 2011-12-09 19:48:10 UTC
Pavel Bidermann wrote:
Thanks for the update. I can't say I feel good about that list though.

More stuff to be destroyed by the east/west block and drive out the small and even larger independant alliances from null. Actually, those types of alliances in null will be pretty much extinct next year, so I guess it really doesn't matter. Why is it you think people will go to null again?


There aren't any independant alliances in sov 0.0 now, and I don't think there have been for at least a year (discounting the occasional temporary station-snatch) and perhaps more, depending on your exact definition of "independant".

Furthermore, unless CCP radically alter the way space works, there aren't ever likely to be any either. The place for small independent corps/alliances is W-space, where that radical alteration has already taken place and numerous small entities are quietly going about their business as you read this.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Pavel Bidermann
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#16 - 2011-12-09 19:54:35 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Pavel Bidermann wrote:
Thanks for the update. I can't say I feel good about that list though.

More stuff to be destroyed by the east/west block and drive out the small and even larger independant alliances from null. Actually, those types of alliances in null will be pretty much extinct next year, so I guess it really doesn't matter. Why is it you think people will go to null again?


There aren't any independant alliances in sov 0.0 now, and I don't think there have been for at least a year (discounting the occasional temporary station-snatch) and perhaps more, depending on your exact definition of "independant".

Furthermore, unless CCP radically alter the way space works, there aren't ever likely to be any either. The place for small independent corps/alliances is W-space, where that radical alteration has already taken place and numerous small entities are quietly going about their business as you read this.


WH space has been sounding better and better these days. That's one thing I haven't done. Scanned down plenty of them but haven't gone in one.

I'm currently in an independant alliance so they do exist. We don't rent and we have a little bit of space. I helped get that space but after we got it I no longer cared. It turns out that the whole thing got boring fast, but that's just me. Low sec was a bit of hassle but not bad. There isn't any reason to be there though. Doesn't matter, since the big blocks will eventually push everybody out of the south. They seem to still be hurting from all the earlier sov grinding.
Rex Glendower
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#17 - 2011-12-09 20:07:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Rex Glendower
Malcanis wrote:
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
(...)

Nullsec: discussed many tweaks to nullsec to promote conflict, including possibility of destructible stations and changes to drone loot and moons.

(...)


Huh. Quoting myself, talking about POCOs:

Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:
That's lowsec/nullsec business as usual, where novelties are split between any of these two cathegories:

- things that favor big corps
- things that harm small corps


'nuff said.


Malcanis' Law applies to small corps in 0.0 as much as it does to new players in EVE. I have never yet seen a change to sov 0.0 suggested "to help small corps/alliances" that would not in fact be hugely to the advantage of large strong alliances.

In fact I challenge you to produce a workable one.





ok ill propose that null systems have dead space pockets were corps can anchor and password protect warp gates in to the pocket. sizes on the pockets can restrict number of ships in pockets and dead space anomaly's could give anchored pos's a better resistance to attack. granted this does not give small corps or groups sovereignty but in effect allows squatters rights in system that are low traffic high yield systems and allowing a coded homing beacon could allow any ship loged off in said pocket to warp back to dead space pocket by passing any warp gate camps . pockets could have riods minable gase even ice for that matter . further allowing the anchoring of jump portals would alow said corp to move goods out of the pockets to a safer spot in low sec for transport to market. certain restrictions should be applied to make this none exploitable corps anchoring warp gates in dead space should not be allowed to be in alliances should not exceed a preset maximum number of members should receive the same invunerblity to attack on structures as the sovernty holder of the system that they are camping other restrictions may be needed to ensure the safety of squatters

short of turning wh space in to upgradable and claimable systems this would be one of the few things that could benefit the smaller corps and still give them access to null space
Pavel Bidermann
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#18 - 2011-12-09 20:22:41 UTC
The problem isn't actually the mechanics. There are plenty of mechanics. I agree that they need work, but adding more mechanics wouldn't fix it. The problem is the alliances themselves and no mechanics change seems to fix bad leadership.

I'll address that last statement right here. It isn't bad leadership to use all the tools available to advance your group. It is bad leadership to use those tools to advance your personal agenda at the expense of your own members and the game as a whole. The later is the current problem in null and no mechanic can fix that. The players have to fix that. Sadly, the blocks are so large that nothing in the game will affect them other than one block getting greedier than the other.
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai
#19 - 2011-12-09 20:42:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Ishtanchuk Fazmarai
Malcanis wrote:
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
(...)

Nullsec: discussed many tweaks to nullsec to promote conflict, including possibility of destructible stations and changes to drone loot and moons.

(...)


Huh. Quoting myself, talking about POCOs:

Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:
That's lowsec/nullsec business as usual, where novelties are split between any of these two cathegories:

- things that favor big corps
- things that harm small corps


'nuff said.


Malcanis' Law applies to small corps in 0.0 as much as it does to new players in EVE. I have never yet seen a change to sov 0.0 suggested "to help small corps/alliances" that would not in fact be hugely to the advantage of large strong alliances.

In fact I challenge you to produce a workable one.


I am working along the "cross section" concept: introduce something that hits harder to bigger targets; somehting that hits elephants but misses maggots.

FAI, NPC uber-fleets wreaking havoc on player-owned assets, depending on how big is the owner corporation/alliance as measured by sovereignty, member count, blued players, and so. And I mean wreak havoc, drop whatever it takes to annihilate a structure within minutes and do so without warning. Preferably when most of the alliance is asleep. Also, NPC won't drop anything but garbage when blown out. Let the universe predate on the bigger fishes for a change...

Or, FAI 2, something I already suggested in the past, a stacking penalty for fleets based on both raw and differential EHP & DPS, dynamically adapting, and fit with various safeguards to prevent cheating the system with partial drops, retreats and reinforcements.

Being big should have shortcomings and handicaps, being small shud allow escape, evasion and surgical capability. Being big is a win-win because CCP wanted to brag about thousands of ships in a battle, but they're killing the game to themselves and everyone...

Roses are red / Violets are blue / I am an Alpha / And so it's you

Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#20 - 2011-12-09 20:47:33 UTC
Yeah pretty much what I expected.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

12Next page