These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Karsa Egivand
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#21 - 2012-01-17 17:43:37 UTC
Quote:
The CSM noted that alliance income should be tied more closely to actually possessing territory rather than sov-independent income sources like moons.

Evil
No.

Otherwise you have positive feedback loops when an alliance starts gaining ground.
Income should be more player based, meaning an alliance also needs to gather more members to generate income and supply/maintain their expansion.
Pavel Bidermann
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#22 - 2012-01-17 17:44:56 UTC
OMG! So glad I cancelled my subscriptions! What a bunch of crap.
We will fix the free election system by removing all other candidates. After all, the Party (null sec) knows best!

Why does it take CCP and the CSM so much time to fail so badly? You can't think of anything else to do with Faction Warfare besides make it into null sec? Really? Did the people who had the actual idea that started it leave the country?

I swear to God, the onlything these people know how to do is"Maybe we should put another structure bash in? People seem to like those since they do them all the time." I have pity foryou after looking at the low level of "brain storming" involved here. It probably took more effort to go to the men's room.

Seriously, if this is the best that can come out of all this, pull the plug. You can't leaveon a high note since that time has passed. At least you should stop looking more like a fool. Your creativity and imagination have been killed off.
Jack Dant
The Gentlemen of Low Moral Fibre
#23 - 2012-01-17 17:47:54 UTC
Karsa Egivand wrote:
Otherwise you have positive feedback loops when an alliance starts gaining ground.
Income should be more player based, meaning an alliance also needs to gather more members to generate income and supply/maintain their expansion.

You are basically saying the same thing as the CSM. Read further down for discussion on how they want alliance income to come from ratting taxes or PI taxes. More sov -> more income for members -> more income for alliance. The theory is pretty solid.

What happens in lowsec, stays in lowsec, lowering the barrier to entry to lowsec PVP: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=476644&#post476644

Jack Dant
The Gentlemen of Low Moral Fibre
#24 - 2012-01-17 17:51:21 UTC
Quote:
Turning to lowsec the CSM simply stated that little enjoyment is currently to be found there. There are rewards there but only if players are not interrupted by other players, which happens all the time.

Why does the CSM feel lowsec enjoyment is tied to PVE rewards? Lowsec enjoyment is all about PVP, not PVE, and there is lots of it to be found, if you know where to look.

What happens in lowsec, stays in lowsec, lowering the barrier to entry to lowsec PVP: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=476644&#post476644

John Nucleus
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#25 - 2012-01-17 17:52:46 UTC
Big smile"CCP acknowledged the imperative of a second midslot on the Retribution"Big smile

Also, how about just putting 2 mid slots by default to anything meant to fight wars, like the Coercer for example?
Ian Grimshaw
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#26 - 2012-01-17 17:57:25 UTC
Mr Bigwinky wrote:
Ian Grimshaw wrote:
It's very pity that inferior quality of Mac OS X client isn't prioritized and isn't talked about at all. CCP, if you're commited to making a quality product, then it really should be a quality product. Either make a playable client for Mac or don't distribute it and declare that you support Mac at all.

Lol Mac.

Your problem is that you bought a Mac, bro P


You see, I have no problem in that, because I run Eve client in Parallels, and it works like a charm in a VM. The problem is with CCP not admitting that Mac client they provide is buggy and useless. For new players with Mac OS X that will be just a distraction.
enterprisePSI
#27 - 2012-01-17 18:05:44 UTC
tl;dr

The tears of the many, outweigh the tears of the few. Or the one. enterprise-psi©

Trebor Daehdoow
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#28 - 2012-01-17 18:07:19 UTC
Jack Dant wrote:
Why does the CSM feel lowsec enjoyment is tied to PVE rewards? Lowsec enjoyment is all about PVP, not PVE, and there is lots of it to be found, if you know where to look.


In order to support predators, you need prey. In order to support prey, you need abundant food for them to graze upon, enough that the occasional loss to predation is acceptable.

And getting that balance right, especially given that lowsec is squeezed from both sides by highsec and nullsec, can be very difficult.

A lot of hisec PI people, for example, are sufficiently risk-adverse that they won't try PI in lowsec, even though it can be quite profitable and reasonably low-risk. For them, the risk/reward just isn't there; they put a higher value on a loss than they do a gain.

Private Citizen • CSM in recovery

St Mio
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#29 - 2012-01-17 18:09:58 UTC
♥ CSM
Tsubutai
Perkone
Caldari State
#30 - 2012-01-17 18:15:06 UTC
Mostly good/interesting stuff in there. I liked almost all the stuff about ship balancing. Some things however jumped out as being objectionable:

Very sceptical about the disabling of npc station services - while I'm sure life in Syndicate, Curse, and Stain would continue more or less as normal, albeit with slightly more vicious wars between local entities, I think this is going to be really bad news for small-gang entities basing in places like X-7.

Drake changes = heh. There will be outraged howls from all over.

I disagree quite strongly with the claim that the Talos is underpowered - nano-y shield setups are *extremely* effective and something of a nascent FOTM.

The comments on lowsec likewise seem... extremely misinformed. I suspect that the ~8% of the playerbase (fun fact: that's almost 3x the number of people that live in wormholes!) that lives in lowsec would disagree fairly emphatically with the claim that there is "little enjoyment" there or that the primary draw of lowsec is the "rewards." Likewise, the comments about probes and intel are beyond daft - it's perfectly possible to maintain situational awareness and carebear in lowsec in safety if you know what you're doing or are willing and able to take de facto control of a mission hub.
Ryunosuke Kusanagi
#31 - 2012-01-17 18:17:49 UTC
Time to read through and comment on things as I read it.

1) Master account. - Biggest question here is what happens in the master account is ... compromised? What exactly is tied to the master account, how much information is shared between accounts?

2) Incursions - There was talk last summer about adding the other pirate factions and factional warfare to the incursion list, is this still being talked about or planned upon?

3) Supercap balancing (specifically reducing the number of supercaps/increasing supercap kills) - Let me get this straight, CCP suggested that in order to reduce the number of supercaps in the game, they wanted to add MORE supercaps to the game (Supercap tacklers)???? What?

4) Destructable outposts and player item redistribution - And why not? Any reasonable person should have a hi-sec backup base or 2... or 3, whatever. Any reasonable person should know that 0.0 is NOT a safe haven by any means. Any person should NOT have much more than what is required to fly in that space. Remember Rule #1 of EVE: NEVER fly anything you cannot afford to lose. That should apply here as well, I think.

5) General Sov Changes, Tech Moons, etc. - How hard would it be for CCP to ... randomize moon minerals every so often.. say every 3 months? (as a general number) The NUMBER of each moon type would remain, just that the minerals on said moons would deplete while deposits of minerals would be found on OTHER moons? What would the implications of such a system be other than the tediousness of putting up and taking down towers?

6) Faction Warfare bounties - You mean kill x number of player ships from this faction, get x amount of isk or loyalty points?

7) New Player Experience - "* Having GMs lead newbie fleets, although this would probably be impractical due to resource
limitations. An alternative might be some sort of volunteer program, but then the issue is asking too much of
existing players." -- Is this not what EVE University is FOUNDED for? First off. I do not really want EVE-Uni to become a sanctioned CCP ... corp, however is there a way for CCP to become ... more involved with EVE Uni in regards to it's core ideals and training programs? Can CCP direct newer players to EVE-Uni?

Just some ideas. Thoughts?
Palovana
Inner Fire Inc.
#32 - 2012-01-17 18:22:47 UTC
Ian Grimshaw wrote:
You see, I have no problem in that, because I run Eve client in Parallels, and it works like a charm in a VM. The problem is with CCP not admitting that Mac client they provide is buggy and useless. For new players with Mac OS X that will be just a distraction.

CCP gave up on the Linux version a long time ago.

Wine in most cases handled the premium-graphics Windows version better than the "native" Linux version (actually just the non-premium-graphics Windows version with a wrapper) stating there wasn't sufficient time to maintain it.

Why they didn't drop the Mac version at the time I don't know, probably because Mac users were actually using the Mac version unlike Linux users who were using Wine and the Windows version.
Jack Dant
The Gentlemen of Low Moral Fibre
#33 - 2012-01-17 18:25:21 UTC
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
Jack Dant wrote:
Why does the CSM feel lowsec enjoyment is tied to PVE rewards? Lowsec enjoyment is all about PVP, not PVE, and there is lots of it to be found, if you know where to look.


In order to support predators, you need prey. In order to support prey, you need abundant food for them to graze upon, enough that the occasional loss to predation is acceptable.

This is the model that has repeatedly been tried with nullsec, and has repeatedly failed.

It was even tried in lowsec with level V missions, and with lowsec incursions. The result is that level V's are usually run by lowsec residents, and incursions, AFAIK, by a couple of 0.0 entities.

What CCP and the CSM should look at, if they want to improve lowsec, is improving the experience of lowsec PVP. I have a proposal in the assembly hall (link in sig) that explains my reasoning and one possible solution. But there is lots more that can and needs be done. Stuff such as sentry aggression/GCC, their interaction with gang fights and remote repping of outlaws, etc. All make PVP in lowsec unnecessarily painful.

We don't need more mission runners to gank. We need more people willing to engage in small gang fights.

What happens in lowsec, stays in lowsec, lowering the barrier to entry to lowsec PVP: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=476644&#post476644

Ian Grimshaw
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#34 - 2012-01-17 18:31:28 UTC
Palovana wrote:
Ian Grimshaw wrote:
You see, I have no problem in that, because I run Eve client in Parallels, and it works like a charm in a VM. The problem is with CCP not admitting that Mac client they provide is buggy and useless. For new players with Mac OS X that will be just a distraction.

CCP gave up on the Linux version a long time ago.

Wine in most cases handled the premium-graphics Windows version better than the "native" Linux version (actually just the non-premium-graphics Windows version with a wrapper) stating there wasn't sufficient time to maintain it.

Why they didn't drop the Mac version at the time I don't know, probably because Mac users were actually using the Mac version unlike Linux users who were using Wine and the Windows version.


FYI, Mac client is also a Windows version with a wrapper.
Dunkler Imperator
SUNDERING
Goonswarm Federation
#35 - 2012-01-17 18:38:31 UTC
Over all great summit!

just a few things that need some love.
Boosters need to be fixed(supply and demand)
Black-ops need a fix
Mining(tho drone poop fix will help a bunch)

Passive income. I can't play as much as i used to. i still love eve but i can only do 2 things, grind or pvp. and i hate grinding.

This would make eve sooooo much better.


Abdiel Kavash
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#36 - 2012-01-17 18:45:12 UTC
I am not sure I like the idea of shifting alliance-level income to come mostly from member taxes. For me, one of the major selling points of 0.0 (and EVE in general) is the fact that as an individual, I don't need to subject myself to the grind so common to other games. Instead, I am able to participate in fun stuff (i.e. killing people), and rewards from said fight give a more or less passive income to my alliance. That money then comes right back to me in form of replacement ships, capital subsidies, and whatnot.

Essentially, the money is not gained because people do the same repetitive task over and over (and let's face it, you can't design a money-making mechanic that wouldn't get repetitive after a year or two). The money is gained because an entire corporation, alliance, or coallition can cooperate and achieve long-lasting political and military power.

tl;dr: More passive income on alliance/corp level -> less time required for individuals to grind ISK -> more time for people to fight -> promotes warfare, conflict, and all that fun stuff.
Zarnak Wulf
Amarrian Vengeance
#37 - 2012-01-17 18:45:42 UTC
I liked most of what I read. I too wonder how long it will be before there are howls of rage from Drake pilots. I also did not like the suggestion for EAF. Please don't make them dedicated ewar for supercaps.
BeanBagKing
The Order of Atlas
#38 - 2012-01-17 19:00:41 UTC
Great stuff! I want to take the time to respond to it in full when I'm not in the middle of a school week, so it might be a few days. I hope CCP/CSM keeps paying attention to this thread through the weekend. Almost everything I saw though I liked (Sub hunting \o/)

Grarr Dexx - There is a definite distinction between someone training for a FOTM fit and someone having a skill intensive and expensive asset completely altered by CCP. The distinction I see here is that a FOTM ship/fit/etc can be rendered obsolete by other players. For example if I trained Abaddons all the way up, armor fit, T2 large pulse, etc. It works well for a while but someone comes up with a counter for it, it's now obsolete and I have to train for a shield arty fit. That's a FOTM, something that works well, that people like, but doesn't last. There is no way that players who spent a year or more training for a supercap could have anticipated the changes CCP made to their play style. It was completely out of player control from a game perspective. This wasn't people training for a flavor. To put it another way, actions IN EVE should have consequences you have to live with. Actions by CCP however should not punish a player.

That said, I don't think I agree with skill reimbursement here anyway. I don't think this is something that should be bandied about because any future change CCP makes to a ship could be used as a basis for players to ask for reimbursements. Slippery slope and all that.

Ryunosuke Kusanagi - Regarding point 3 in your post. Re-read that section again, CSM were against adding more supercaps.
Kusanagi Kasuga
Ferocious Felines
#39 - 2012-01-17 19:01:17 UTC
Quote:

CSM described their ideal scenario for CCP; remove Aurum and declare it a failure and start again
with a proper plan that will not lead to obvious troubles. While CCP wasn’t unreceptive to that
strategy, there hasn’t really any thought gone into that matter and thus no definite answer could
be provided at this point in time.


I've had some serious reservations about this CSM, but they have bought me with this statement.
Bloodpetal
Tir Capital Management Group
#40 - 2012-01-17 19:01:47 UTC
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
Jack Dant wrote:
Why does the CSM feel lowsec enjoyment is tied to PVE rewards? Lowsec enjoyment is all about PVP, not PVE, and there is lots of it to be found, if you know where to look.


In order to support predators, you need prey. In order to support prey, you need abundant food for them to graze upon, enough that the occasional loss to predation is acceptable.

And getting that balance right, especially given that lowsec is squeezed from both sides by highsec and nullsec, can be very difficult.

A lot of hisec PI people, for example, are sufficiently risk-adverse that they won't try PI in lowsec, even though it can be quite profitable and reasonably low-risk. For them, the risk/reward just isn't there; they put a higher value on a loss than they do a gain.




Ok, let's look at the development of Null Sec.


To fund the early Null Sec alliances they needed to provide massive resources to the population of high sec - T2 materials were a perfect solution to find the early Null Sec expansion.

But now that expansion has been fulfilled, we're looking at a "gluttonous" attitude of EVE expansion.


The biggest reason for this was there was no limit to the amount of T2 materials seeded. It was just infinite.


Let's look at history for a moment. Gold funded the expansion of early pre-christian empires, but as that started to become typical day to day and empires needed to grow beyond simply the function of gold and resources, they needed to look at other expansion options - people become valuable, market, trading, etc.


The issue is that none of those empire developments are in EVE at th emoment - we're still functioning on the concept of "pre-historic fundamental resource expansion" which is pretty well as saturated as we can expect at this time.


EVE has to move beyond a resource game and into the realm of capitalistic expansionism. We're past the "Conquer the Galaxy/World" phase, we're in the industrial era of EVE and we're facing a lot of similar problems they had back then.

Reading more minutes.



Where I am.