These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Callidus Dux
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#81 - 2012-01-17 21:10:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Callidus Dux
Sizeof Void wrote:
Alternatively, there could be a skill point limit applied to classes of complexes and missions, restricting them to new players and forcing higher SP players to look elsewhere for ISK farming activities.


Yeah! Restricting and forcing. The right way to keep old (loyal) players in game. Lol

Why do you want to link skillpoints to available missions? You do not steal the fun for new players, if old players fly their level 4 missions. But you anger the old and skilled players if you restrict or force them to do something other than they have skilled for. Roll
mkint
#82 - 2012-01-17 21:11:23 UTC
Sizeof Void wrote:
a skill point limit

worst. idea. ever.
There should never, ever, ever be a skillpoint limit on anything. It's un-sandbox-y, it reduces options as a character is developed instead of increases options... it's bad m'kay?
Quote:

Mining... deal with the macro bot fleets.
wtb sansha AI for asteroids!
Quote:
The T1 mining barges need some balancing work and the Covetor needs a long overdue reduction in skill reqs. Frigate and cruiser mining shps warrant another look by CCP devs, to make them more worthwhile for the new player, rather than just something unproductive to sit in while training for a mining barge.

This kind of stuff really could be a major game-changer for miners, and should probably go into the balancing threads. There should be a damned good reason for a player to deliberately choose to fly a mining laser boat over a strip miner boat (price is never ever ever an appropriate method of game balance.)

But asking the CSM to care about mining is like asking the CSM to care about... well... anything other than their AFK empires that they are desperately afraid of losing, and CCP seems intent on buffing their deathgrip. (When alliance leadership finances your mortgage, you can justify a lot of time, effort, manipulation, and machinations into maintaining them.)

Maxim 6. If violence wasn’t your last resort, you failed to resort to enough of it.

RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#83 - 2012-01-17 21:14:41 UTC
TorTorden wrote:
Quote:
The CSM is completely united in its desire to see destructible outposts, and views the question as a “when," not an “if”. The CSM noted that there are a number of ideas about how to best implement destructible outposts, ranging from complete destruction to a repairable wreck to a system that moves the assets in the destroyed outpost to the nearest NPC station


I think lost assets should be exactly that, a small drop 20% in freight containers and the rest destroyed.

I you are logged off in a station that is destroyed. You are podded and get log into your medical clone.


My Medclone might be in a Station that is destroyed. So, I get podded to 0sp?

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon

Cass Lie
State War Academy
Caldari State
#84 - 2012-01-17 21:18:21 UTC
Two step wrote:
Liang Nuren wrote:
Comments:
- Please don't mess up WH space. Its one of the few bastions of actual small gang warfare and WH stabilizers would really mess with that.


I wasn't at the summit, but I have already yelled loudly at the folks that were there about how bad stabilizing wormholes would be. They would take away the main unique feature of w-space, and would only make the strong organizations in w-space stronger, at the expense of everyone else.


But on the other hand, wasn't it you on some podcast who said that some established alliances are virtually impregnable in their class 6s and it would take a huge sustained effort from big numbers to dislodge them? I kinda agree that allowing blobbing would take a lot away from wh magic, but the aforementioned virtual invulnerability also doesn't seem quite right.
Zaxix
State War Academy
Caldari State
#85 - 2012-01-17 21:18:35 UTC
NO, no, no, no, no to the idea for a "spool up timer" for all capital ships. Or, more particularly, a NO for jump freighters. 60 seconds I'm supposed to sit there? With no weapons, no mods, no invul, no help? No thanks. At most, not jumping until invul expires (as it always has been) seems reasonable.

I had expected to hear more about changes to the CSM that would enable non-sov-alliance members to have a voice. The proposed (or maybe finalized, I'm not clear on that) solution seems guaranteed to install the 7 members of the 7 largest alliances in perpetuity. With the tools available to average, small corp/alliance players, there is simply no way to reach out to a sufficient number of new or casual players. Not enough people read these or other forums for anyone using them as a campaign tool to realistically have a chance at gathering the number of votes necessary to compete, and there are no other means for mass communication in EVE (a problem EVE businesses have in general with advertising their services). If you need evidence of why other voices are necessary, just look at the minutes. Where's the discussion of the game from the point of view of hisec players, casual players, and the rest of majority of EVE?

I'm also surprised by the discussion of "teaching corporations." The CSM is against giving them any benefits. So, my question is why should these teaching corps not be rewarded for their hard work? They're supposed to provide something CCP itself should be providing, and you want them to do it for free, as volunteers, so that players don't quit before their trial is over and so that they get the skills necessary to join a major alliance, whose CSM reps are saying they shouldn't get any rewards. That makes no ******* sense. Teaching corps who actually teach and do it well should be showered with gifts and benefits.

Bokononist

 

Crasniya
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#86 - 2012-01-17 21:26:08 UTC
TorTorden wrote:
I think lost assets should be exactly that, a small drop 20% in freight containers and the rest destroyed.

I you are logged off in a station that is destroyed. You are podded and get log into your medical clone.


So... everyone ragequits when five years of work gets tossed out in three days, and the game ends? Good job. People can't live in destructible stations if there's a high likelihood of losing all your stuff.

Zaxix wrote:
NO, no, no, no, no to the idea for a "spool up timer" for all capital ships. Or, more particularly, a NO for jump freighters. 60 seconds I'm supposed to sit there? With no weapons, no mods, no invul, no help? No thanks. At most, not jumping until invul expires (as it always has been) seems reasonable.


tldr: I want invulnerable freight and no personal risk to ridiculously easy transportation of large amounts of materials.

Soraya Xel - Council of Planetary Management 1 - soraya@biomassed.net

TorTorden
Tors shibari party
#87 - 2012-01-17 21:26:28 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
TorTorden wrote:
Quote:
The CSM is completely united in its desire to see destructible outposts, and views the question as a “when," not an “if”. The CSM noted that there are a number of ideas about how to best implement destructible outposts, ranging from complete destruction to a repairable wreck to a system that moves the assets in the destroyed outpost to the nearest NPC station


I think lost assets should be exactly that, a small drop 20% in freight containers and the rest destroyed.

I you are logged off in a station that is destroyed. You are podded and get log into your medical clone.


My Medclone might be in a Station that is destroyed. So, I get podded to 0sp?



You wouldnt have your med clone in a destructible station now would you?
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
#88 - 2012-01-17 21:26:30 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:

- It sounds like the intention is to make Low Sec == FW. If you do this, please don't forget pirates. We were here first. If nothing else, bring pirate factions into the FW with missions like "Get 20 kills in region X".
- Please don't mess up WH space. Its one of the few bastions of actual small gang warfare and WH stabilizers would really mess with that.

I agree.

And, why try to make low sec and WH sec as populated as null sec or high sec? More people does not mean more fun.

Also, note that some of the most interesting player blogs tend to be from folks who live in low sec and WH space. They all seem to be having a great time, with much less whining and complaining - and better PVP - than the denizens of null sec. Don't break something that isn't really broken, please.
Jowen Datloran
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#89 - 2012-01-17 21:29:23 UTC
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:


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.

I cannot believe the majority of the CSM or CCP believe in this philosophy considering POCOs made their way to low sec.

Mr. Science & Trade Institute, EVE Online Lorebook 

Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
#90 - 2012-01-17 21:36:58 UTC
mkint wrote:

But asking the CSM to care about mining is like asking the CSM to care about... well... anything other than their AFK empires that they are desperately afraid of losing, and CCP seems intent on buffing their deathgrip. (When alliance leadership finances your mortgage, you can justify a lot of time, effort, manipulation, and machinations into maintaining them.)

Sort of my point. CSM needs to better represent all aspects of the game, or it simply becomes a special interest group.

And, ignoring the opening and middle games, in favor of the null sec "end game", is a bad strategy for CCP to follow, if their business goal is to attract new players.
Two step
Aperture Harmonics
#91 - 2012-01-17 21:39:27 UTC
Cass Lie wrote:
Two step wrote:
Liang Nuren wrote:
Comments:
- Please don't mess up WH space. Its one of the few bastions of actual small gang warfare and WH stabilizers would really mess with that.


I wasn't at the summit, but I have already yelled loudly at the folks that were there about how bad stabilizing wormholes would be. They would take away the main unique feature of w-space, and would only make the strong organizations in w-space stronger, at the expense of everyone else.


But on the other hand, wasn't it you on some podcast who said that some established alliances are virtually impregnable in their class 6s and it would take a huge sustained effort from big numbers to dislodge them? I kinda agree that allowing blobbing would take a lot away from wh magic, but the aforementioned virtual invulnerability also doesn't seem quite right.


It took us (and several other entities) a long time to build up our wormholes. It should also take a long time and dedication for someone else to tear them down. Given enough motivation, any wormhole can be conquered. We have invaded several large groups that lived in their wormhole for years, and we won. It took a lot of time and effort.

Some sort of wormhole stabilizer would just result in groups like AHARM wiping out *all* of the smaller folks living in w-space. Right now, doing that would take a lot of time and effort, but if we could push 50 BSs through every hole, it would be easy. The ability to move unlimited mass through a wormhole turns w-space into a slightly different version of nullsec, and would result in large blobs dominating, which nobody wants.

CSM 7 Secretary CSM 6 Alternate Delegate @two_step_eve on Twitter My Blog

Hienz Doofenshmirtz
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#92 - 2012-01-17 21:44:45 UTC
I disagree withe the CSM on one major point. DUST514 Must be linked to EVE in a meaningful way. There must be a point to Dust,if there is no link there is no point and then it becomes just another shooter.

www.dust514stats.com do you know?

RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#93 - 2012-01-17 21:46:18 UTC
TorTorden wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
TorTorden wrote:
Quote:
The CSM is completely united in its desire to see destructible outposts, and views the question as a “when," not an “if”. The CSM noted that there are a number of ideas about how to best implement destructible outposts, ranging from complete destruction to a repairable wreck to a system that moves the assets in the destroyed outpost to the nearest NPC station


I think lost assets should be exactly that, a small drop 20% in freight containers and the rest destroyed.

I you are logged off in a station that is destroyed. You are podded and get log into your medical clone.


My Medclone might be in a Station that is destroyed. So, I get podded to 0sp?



You wouldnt have your med clone in a destructible station now would you?


You're meant to live in the space you inhabit. So, yeah, I keep my medclone near me. I get podded enough that keeping it in an NPC station would be fairly intolerable.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon

RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#94 - 2012-01-17 21:47:08 UTC
Hienz Doofenshmirtz wrote:
I disagree withe the CSM on one major point. DUST514 Must be linked to EVE in a meaningful way. There must be a point to Dust,if there is no link there is no point and then it becomes just another shooter.


If it interacts meaningfully and flops, it could drag Eve down with it.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon

Cass Lie
State War Academy
Caldari State
#95 - 2012-01-17 21:49:07 UTC
Two step wrote:

It took us (and several other entities) a long time to build up our wormholes. It should also take a long time and dedication for someone else to tear them down. Given enough motivation, any wormhole can be conquered. We have invaded several large groups that lived in their wormhole for years, and we won. It took a lot of time and effort.

Some sort of wormhole stabilizer would just result in groups like AHARM wiping out *all* of the smaller folks living in w-space. Right now, doing that would take a lot of time and effort, but if we could push 50 BSs through every hole, it would be easy. The ability to move unlimited mass through a wormhole turns w-space into a slightly different version of nullsec, and would result in large blobs dominating, which nobody wants.


Ok, that sounds reasonable and fair enough. I just wanted this clarified since my knowledge of wh life is all hearsay. Thanks for the answer.
Gogela
Krigmakt Elite
Safety.
#96 - 2012-01-17 21:50:58 UTC
Hmm... it looks like we are being promised the future again... 2013 for most of the big stuff (Sov fix, POS, destructible outposts, etc..) to be implemented. I hope it doesn't take that long... we've been burned on future promises before. I like the idea of widening the cap ship offerings though. That seems like a sound way to go for actually getting the supers to start dieing. I also really like the idea of a +20 warp strength to caps or somewhere thereabouts.

I saw nothing in these minutes that really tackles the movement in eve / logistics / teleporting problem though.

Also: What is going on with small holding?

I would like to say that I agree with the art department.
Quote:
...the Art team ranked adding more objects in to
space to make it feel less 'empty' quite highly...
I agree with this. EvE isn't just about sov warfare. It's also about the feeling of exploration. I still think Freelancer had a better feel for that than eve does, and I think making the environments more varied / unusual / interesting will go a long way towards addressing that.

Signatures should be used responsibly...

Rixiu
PonyTek
#97 - 2012-01-17 21:53:17 UTC
What a bunch of horse ****.

Infi-point on supercarriers? What idiot came up with that idea? Since when would it be a good idea for a supercap blob to not even have bubblers? I mean, they are often the only sub-cap ship seen in some engagements/hotdrops. Bring support or GTFO and don't turn supercapitals into jack-of-all-trades ZOMG I win machines any more than they already are. The prolifiation of the supercap-blob is the greatest threat to 0.0 and should not be fed more.

Faction warfare as a test bed for sov-warfare? Really? I mean REALLY? The two are so fundamentally different I can't even begin to explain the stupidity in this. Faction warfare is supposed to be the empire factions capsuleer-arm of sort, below the empress/president/etc. and should try to increase their factions influence over rivalling factions. And moving FW into 0,0? I'm just going stop here and ... no...

If you want to design a proper sov-system you'll have to begin from scratch and have the guts to bypass the clowns in the current CSM since they have their seats because of the way the current sov-system looks. It needs to be activity based, if you don't live in the system you should not be able to have sov in it. (a few examples is a bit in this thread: http://failheap-challenge.com/showthread.php?5175-CSM-Dec-Summit-Q-amp-A sme are goofy but I recall reading a few good examples)

Look at what happened after IT Alliance failed, it took many months before they disappeared from the influence map/lost their stations despite only having one inactive corp left. It's a textbook example on how it shouldn't look.

This is a useless post but FW and sov should be fundamentally different since they attract very different groups and SHOULD attract very different groups of players. It gives diversity to the game and just because the 0.0-sov-goon-PL CSM think something doesn't mean that the players care for it. They represent a tiny fraction of the playerbase, don't forget that and while using them as a ballplank for stuff in 0.0 can be fine they should NOT be the only way CCP gather feedback from the players and you should still bypass them and connect directly with the playerbase as often as possible.

Reading the minutes I see "the CSM urged CCP to continue discussions with the CSM" and similar much more than I read "the CSM urged CCP to discuss with the playerbase more directly". The CSM want CCP to talk even more to them over talking to the playerbase.

Jack Dant
The Gentlemen of Low Moral Fibre
#98 - 2012-01-17 21:59:30 UTC
TorTorden wrote:
I think lost assets should be exactly that, a small drop 20% in freight containers and the rest destroyed.

I you are logged off in a station that is destroyed. You are podded and get log into your medical clone.

That would hurt the losers too much for the game's own good. Coming back from a break to find all your stuff pulverized would cause most casual players to unsub inmediately.

On the other hand, automatically moving assets to NPC station seems too forgiving.

I think wrecking a station to the point where to rebuild you have to, well, rebuild it, new station egg and everyting, is a good solution. Busy stations tend to be in good places and won't stay wrecked for too long, so you have at least some hope of getting isk from the firesale.

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

Grenouielle
#99 - 2012-01-17 22:02:54 UTC
Zaxix wrote:
NO, no, no, no, no to the idea for a "spool up timer" for all capital ships. Or, more particularly, a NO for jump freighters. 60 seconds I'm supposed to sit there? With no weapons, no mods, no invul, no help? No thanks. At most, not jumping until invul expires (as it always has been) seems reasonable.

I had expected to hear more about changes to the CSM that would enable non-sov-alliance members to have a voice. The proposed (or maybe finalized, I'm not clear on that) solution seems guaranteed to install the 7 members of the 7 largest alliances in perpetuity. With the tools available to average, small corp/alliance players, there is simply no way to reach out to a sufficient number of new or casual players. Not enough people read these or other forums for anyone using them as a campaign tool to realistically have a chance at gathering the number of votes necessary to compete, and there are no other means for mass communication in EVE (a problem EVE businesses have in general with advertising their services). If you need evidence of why other voices are necessary, just look at the minutes. Where's the discussion of the game from the point of view of hisec players, casual players, and the rest of majority of EVE?

I'm also surprised by the discussion of "teaching corporations." The CSM is against giving them any benefits. So, my question is why should these teaching corps not be rewarded for their hard work? They're supposed to provide something CCP itself should be providing, and you want them to do it for free, as volunteers, so that players don't quit before their trial is over and so that they get the skills necessary to join a major alliance, whose CSM reps are saying they shouldn't get any rewards. That makes no ******* sense. Teaching corps who actually teach and do it well should be showered with gifts and benefits.


Full quoting the most important and true post in this thread. Thanks.
Max Kolonko
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#100 - 2012-01-17 22:03:38 UTC
Two step wrote:

I wasn't at the summit, but I have already yelled loudly at the folks that were there about how bad stabilizing wormholes would be. They would take away the main unique feature of w-space, and would only make the strong organizations in w-space stronger, at the expense of everyone else.



Two Step, its time to start rallying support from WH dwellers to get You into one of the 7 seats next election :)

We need a full representative in CSM !!!