These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Misanth
RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE
#141 - 2012-01-18 00:05:34 UTC
..Fox News, is that you?

"CSM reminded CCP that they would continue to serve their role within the new organisation and that the cooperation between CSM and CCP should not change as a result of the reorg. CCP confirmed that no change was planned for how the CSM fit into EVE's development as a result of the reorg, the CSM is a very good sounding board for CCP and will be continued to be used as such. The value of the CSM has been seen in the past and there is no reason to disregard that fact on CCP's behalf."

I wonder if they really believe that themselves, or just tries to milk the cow as long as they can.

AFK-cloaking in a system near you.

Lili Lu
#142 - 2012-01-18 00:06:39 UTC
Fuujin wrote:
Max Kolonko wrote:


THIS

PLEASE, DONT EVEN THINK ABOUT RESPECS! OR WE WILL LOOSE OUR RESPECT.

As the poster quoted stated - it will actually hurt new players, as vets could always respec to new stauff when its been introduced, while new players will always be behind. Where as i understand current system, when new stuff comes into play, both vets and new players are on equal tooting (more or less)


If such a system were to be implemented, there would likely be significant restrictions placed upon it, and would likely come at a steep price.
Plus, a vet respeccing into "new stauff" would be doing so at the expense of "old stauff"--he might not fly an interceptor as well, or be able to fly a capship, or any number of possibilities. Plus, in eve you can only be so good with a given ship and module set...newbies would be able to equal you with time.

Also: consider the bittervet who's tired of capital ships and wants to be able to fly those HACs he passed up years ago. A Respec would help player retention by enabling a fresher experience for them.

No it wouldn't. All he has to do is just sell the titan or supercarrier and go back to enjoying subcaps.

Also, the problem you respec people are ignoring is that those skills were used. Just because the player no longer finds them attractive and sees some other shiney skills he'd rather have can't erase his former use of those skills. And he can still train the new skills just like everyone else.

All your reasoning is is a repackaging of a desire to fotm chase. Do you propose some arbitration board to decide if the veteran player has some pure intent to return to his roots in HACs and is not just fotm chasing? Good luck with that.

And, it does screw over new players. They can no longer be proud and useful flying with interceptor 4 and acceleration control 4 ( or substitute any set of subcap ship skills, assault frig, etc.) because tons of supercarrier pilots butthurt over the nerf can now easily ponce around in interceptor 5 and acceleration control 5 or their equivalents (oh supers got nerfed, but look assault frig buff - i wanna respec . . .).

The game has been doing fine without respecs. More than fine, it makes the goals and choices that much sweeter. It would become a throwaway game if everything were made so easy.
Fuujin
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#143 - 2012-01-18 00:06:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Fuujin
Liang Nuren wrote:


It would also remove the feeling of having to work for something.

-Liang



Would it? I don't log into "Skill training complete," I log into "internet spaceships, with a side of market pvp." Plus, what accomplishment? Setting a skill and staying subscribed for the duration? "Guys guys--I just mastered throwing money at CCP 5. You can touch me."

Plus, like I said--you would open a door to whatever you spec into by closing others. Plus I don't hear anyone asking to be able to do this at will, so you'd better think long and hard about your future plans.

But hey, maybe all you do is log in to watch that flashing dot.




Edit: Fun fact: the person with all 4s is only a few % worse than a person with all 5s. And one person with all 5s will be beaten 100% of the time by 2 people with all 4s.
If I skilled up primarily for caps I likely skipped a LOT of the skills needed for the specialized subcaps. Therefore, I can't just "Sell and fly HACs" since I have no incentive to do so for months. I'm stuck in this flying coffin and might unsub. Whereas if I could sell and respec I would probably keep playing. FOTY is also probably closer to the timeframe, and possibly a one-off at that.

\/ -- I too like to ignore all possible limitations and balancing options and focus on the utter worst case of chameleonic characters that change their skills more frequently than undergarments!
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
#144 - 2012-01-18 00:10:17 UTC
Yes, it would. Just because you trained one hard thing once doesn't mean you should be able to rest on your laurels and FOTM chase every year until the end of time.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.

Misanth
RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE
#145 - 2012-01-18 00:13:30 UTC
Lili Lu wrote:
Fuujin wrote:
Max Kolonko wrote:


THIS

PLEASE, DONT EVEN THINK ABOUT RESPECS! OR WE WILL LOOSE OUR RESPECT.

As the poster quoted stated - it will actually hurt new players, as vets could always respec to new stauff when its been introduced, while new players will always be behind. Where as i understand current system, when new stuff comes into play, both vets and new players are on equal tooting (more or less)


If such a system were to be implemented, there would likely be significant restrictions placed upon it, and would likely come at a steep price.
Plus, a vet respeccing into "new stauff" would be doing so at the expense of "old stauff"--he might not fly an interceptor as well, or be able to fly a capship, or any number of possibilities. Plus, in eve you can only be so good with a given ship and module set...newbies would be able to equal you with time.

Also: consider the bittervet who's tired of capital ships and wants to be able to fly those HACs he passed up years ago. A Respec would help player retention by enabling a fresher experience for them.

No it wouldn't. All he has to do is just sell the titan or supercarrier and go back to enjoying subcaps.

Also, the problem you respec people are ignoring is that those skills were used. Just because the player no longer finds them attractive and sees some other shiney skills he'd rather have can't erase his former use of those skills. And he can still train the new skills just like everyone else.

All your reasoning is is a repackaging of a desire to fotm chase. Do you propose some arbitration board to decide if the veteran player has some pure intent to return to his roots in HACs and is not just fotm chasing? Good luck with that.

And, it does screw over new players. They can no longer be proud and useful flying with interceptor 4 and acceleration control 4 ( or substitute any set of subcap ship skills, assault frig, etc.) because tons of supercarrier pilots butthurt over the nerf can now easily ponce around in interceptor 5 and acceleration control 5 or their equivalents (oh supers got nerfed, but look assault frig buff - i wanna respec . . .).

The game has been doing fine without respecs. More than fine, it makes the goals and choices that much sweeter. It would become a throwaway game if everything were made so easy.


I didn't even bother reading the thread, as I'm frankly disgusted with CCP and their bullcrap behaviour, but I'm glad your post landed just below mine, so I saw this. /agree with your points, respecs is a really bad idea.

AFK-cloaking in a system near you.

Mashie Saldana
V0LTA
WE FORM V0LTA
#146 - 2012-01-18 00:14:12 UTC
Fuujin wrote:
Max Kolonko wrote:


THIS

PLEASE, DONT EVEN THINK ABOUT RESPECS! OR WE WILL LOOSE OUR RESPECT.

As the poster quoted stated - it will actually hurt new players, as vets could always respec to new stauff when its been introduced, while new players will always be behind. Where as i understand current system, when new stuff comes into play, both vets and new players are on equal tooting (more or less)


If such a system were to be implemented, there would likely be significant restrictions placed upon it, and would likely come at a steep price.
Plus, a vet respeccing into "new stauff" would be doing so at the expense of "old stauff"--he might not fly an interceptor as well, or be able to fly a capship, or any number of possibilities. Plus, in eve you can only be so good with a given ship and module set...newbies would be able to equal you with time.

Also: consider the bittervet who's tired of capital ships and wants to be able to fly those HACs he passed up years ago. A Respec would help player retention by enabling a fresher experience for them.

No what will happen is that player attributes will become pointless. Train whatever scrub skills that you can do at 2700SP/h and then once a year distribute that SP into skills that you weren't optimized for.
Two step
Aperture Harmonics
#147 - 2012-01-18 00:14:55 UTC
I am one of the dissenters on respecs on the CSM, for many of the reasons mentioned in this thread. I view respecs as taking away one of the really interesting, unique things about EVE's skill system.

The right thing for CCP to do with the SC/Titan nerf would have been to refund supercap pilots's drone SP. There is no need to invent a respec mechanism to solve that problem.

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

Gogela
Krigmakt Elite
Safety.
#148 - 2012-01-18 00:18:38 UTC
It's funny you said that, Misanth, because I just looked at the below quote and it changed my mind about the whole thing. I too would rather play internet spaceships than play flashy-dot-watching. It's a very succinct argument, and it changed my mind. heh... what if you could re-spec but there was a SP penalty? Twisted
Fuujin wrote:
Liang Nuren wrote:


It would also remove the feeling of having to work for something.

-Liang



Would it? I don't log into "Skill training complete," I log into "internet spaceships, with a side of market pvp." Plus, what accomplishment? Setting a skill and staying subscribed for the duration? "Guys guys--I just mastered throwing money at CCP 5. You can touch me."

Plus, like I said--you would open a door to whatever you spec into by closing others. Plus I don't hear anyone asking to be able to do this at will, so you'd better think long and hard about your future plans.

But hey, maybe all you do is log in to watch that flashing dot.




Edit: Fun fact: the person with all 4s is only a few % worse than a person with all 5s. And one person with all 5s will be beaten 100% of the time by 2 people with all 4s.
If I skilled up primarily for caps I likely skipped a LOT of the skills needed for the specialized subcaps. Therefore, I can't just "Sell and fly HACs" since I have no incentive to do so for months. I'm stuck in this flying coffin and might unsub. Whereas if I could sell and respec I would probably keep playing. FOTY is also probably closer to the timeframe, and possibly a one-off at that.

Signatures should be used responsibly...

Lili Lu
#149 - 2012-01-18 00:19:37 UTC
Fuujin wrote:
Liang Nuren wrote:


It would also remove the feeling of having to work for something.

-Liang



Would it? I don't log into "Skill training complete," I log into "internet spaceships, with a side of market pvp." Plus, what accomplishment? Setting a skill and staying subscribed for the duration? "Guys guys--I just mastered throwing money at CCP 5. You can touch me."

Plus, like I said--you would open a door to whatever you spec into by closing others. Plus I don't hear anyone asking to be able to do this at will, so you'd better think long and hard about your future plans.

But hey, maybe all you do is log in to watch that flashing dot.




Edit: Fun fact: the person with all 4s is only a few % worse than a person with all 5s. And one person with all 5s will be beaten 100% of the time by 2 people with all 4s.
If I skilled up primarily for caps I likely skipped a LOT of the skills needed for the specialized subcaps. Therefore, I can't just "Sell and fly HACs" since I have no incentive to do so for months. I'm stuck in this flying coffin and might unsub. Whereas if I could sell and respec I would probably keep playing. FOTY is also probably closer to the timeframe, and possibly a one-off at that.

Of course you must be correct that after 5 years or more Liang and I just log on so that we can hear "skill training complete" Roll

Also, is this hypothetical bitter vet that trained straight to supercarrier and now would quit but for being able to instantly reallocate into HAC worth retaining? No, he's not worth retaining because he's failed to grasp the essential aspect of this game. Don't fotm chase, and don't be a tool looking for the I-win ship and expecting it to always stay that way.
Michus Danether
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#150 - 2012-01-18 00:21:53 UTC
I've seen some people raging about the destructible stations and cloaking sub-hunting ability on here, and I wanted to propose two solutions that would be the fairest way of implementing such things:

1. Destructible stations
- When a station becomes fully and finally vulnerable, it can be conquered or blown up. If conquered, business as usual, if blown up the station would enter a 'wrecked' state, having no features or function of an outpost.

Every pod pilot and ship inside would remain there, with pilots capable of switching in and out of ships as desired before undocking. After undocking they cannot redock, however they can eject ships that they own from the outpost just like they can at a POS, and scoop their assets from the outpost wreck just like from a POS. The outpost wreck would be indestructible and a new outpost can be constructed in the system at the same planet or another planet.

This solves the problem of asset relocation and pod-pilot moving while still allowing outposts to be permanently destroyed. If an outpost is destroyed while you have a jumpclone in it... I guess it would be destroyed? That's not so bad really. One clone. It could be stored too I guess, but... that's up to CCP. Deathclones would be relocated to a starting NPC station in empire the moment the outpost dies, but you could always change your deathclone to a new station as well.

Tell me what is wrong with this implementation?

2. 'Sensor Ping' decloakers.
- Highslot module, when activated sends a ping throughout the system that creates a visual effect on the screen of any cloaked ship in the system, also builds up a 'static charge' in the cloak field of any cloaked ship in system. The only thing that dissipates the static charge is time. Static charge builds up every time the pulse is activated until the ship becomes unable to recloak due to the static buildup.

Restrictions:

- More ships != more pings, limit system pings to a 'global' effect. A system can only be pinged every minute or something.
- Takes several pings to decloak a ship (dependent on ship type/size?)
- Should happen instantly, so the cloaked pilot has no warning a ping is incoming (so they can't decloak, take the ping and recloak immediately)

Solves:
AFK cloakers. They simply would be unable to camp a system afk.
Cloaking botters.

Does not impact normal cloaking operations that take space within a few minutes, cloaked ships can still get warp in points and intel within the 5-10m it takes to 'ping' them out of cloak. Even when decloaked they should still be able to survive.

Maybe EAF should have this ability?.... hmm. No idea, doesn't really matter.

Tell me what is wrong with this idea as well, is there a group of players or a play style that this impacts negatively or improves too much? Does this benefit the hunter or hunted more, both?

I think these are fair and balanced implementations of those two discussed topics at the CSM summit. Disagree with me, please, I want to see the best systems in place and only discussion will forge them! Go! Go now!
Che Biko
Alexylva Paradox
#151 - 2012-01-18 00:22:42 UTC
Has there been talk about pirate FW (expanding FW to pirate factions)?
Has there been talk about increasing the ability to support Sansha's nation in their Incursions?
If master accounts come into existence, will you get only 1 vote per master account in the CSM elections?
What is the point of renaming Aurum into Micro-plex? Or is there actually a difference between the two?
Have the words 'roleplay' or any variation thereof even been uttered by anyone in the meetings?
Lyrrashae
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#152 - 2012-01-18 00:22:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Lyrrashae
Aaaaaaaaaaaaand once again, sov-nullseccers, jerking themselves off over their play-style whilst showing no clue about wormholes:

"If you build a fortress in there, it's impossible to invade."

Really?

Really?

Are you ******* serious.

Keep your supercraps out of our end-game, you walking cancer.

E: And oh look, nerftehdraek.

For ****'s sakes...Roll

Ni.

Misanth
RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE
#153 - 2012-01-18 00:26:51 UTC
Two step wrote:
I am one of the dissenters on respecs on the CSM, for many of the reasons mentioned in this thread. I view respecs as taking away one of the really interesting, unique things about EVE's skill system.

The right thing for CCP to do with the SC/Titan nerf would have been to refund supercap pilots's drone SP. There is no need to invent a respec mechanism to solve that problem.


No, the right way would've been to remove fighterbombers and give back that sp. Now motherships have even more incentitives to fly in blobs rather than risk smallscale combat, and get ganked easier. The reason motherships needed a buff before was because a) they died to every scrub in the game since dreads were so common and just raped them, and b) the short jumprange. The jumprange and hp bonus was added. FB's were ridicilously stupid tho, and that broke them, nothing else.

It's also more "popular" to do it this way. The mothership pilots get to keep their toys, while everyone else get spoonfed a "nerf". While in reality is just a minor inconvenience for most pilots, an a 'buff' to already-present-high-memberbase-nullsec-sovholders. I.e. it's not a real fix to the problem to the issues that came up after the buff, and also a blob incentitive. It just "sound" good, that's it.

This comes from a multiple-mom/pilot owner with a decent variation of experience using them in combat. And hell, even PvE. And I had my first before they were buffed in the first place.

AFK-cloaking in a system near you.

Jas Dor
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#154 - 2012-01-18 00:28:09 UTC
The problem I see with changing the Drake is that we need something with more agility than a capship and a not worth it level of EHP to move blueprints and other small high value item. The Drake also has the advantage of being so common, and so well know for having a huge tank, that many suicide gankers won't have it set on overview.
Lili Lu
#155 - 2012-01-18 00:28:37 UTC
Two step wrote:
I am one of the dissenters on respecs on the CSM, for many of the reasons mentioned in this thread. I view respecs as taking away one of the really interesting, unique things about EVE's skill system.

The right thing for CCP to do with the SC/Titan nerf would have been to refund supercap pilots's drone SP. There is no need to invent a respec mechanism to solve that problem.

First paragraph good. Second paragraph what?

Those supercap pilots fotm chased. We all saw it happening. The buff on sisi, the threads warning this is over the top, etc. It made it into game. Supercaps uber alles. Then they were rightfully nerfed.

Meanwhile for how long did those pilots make use of those drone skills? Too long, and those skills changed the history of the game. They can still make use of fighterbombers and their supercarriers. They just can't any longer kill everything with them. Does needing a support fleet now make the skills worthless? No. Can we undo their use of those skills when they were used to kill everything? No. What is the logic of allowing them to reallocate that sp into the new shiney ships? None.
Michus Danether
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#156 - 2012-01-18 00:29:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Michus Danether
Just so it's not cluttering up the last post I made...

While I am against the idea of skill point reassignment in principle (not that I didn't like those SP from the learning skill removal...) but I think a lot of people don't realize how flying a supercarrier is different than other things. Yes yes, training for the FOTM is bad but you can always dock up and reship out of a nano vagabond, but you can't do that with a supercarrier. Unless you go to the lengths of 'gaming' the game a bit by having a SC holding character you're STUCK IN THAT SHIP FOREVER. Besides, this isn't a case of CCP saying "Vagabonds go slower now." and everything else being pretty much the same, it would be like CCP suddenly saying "Vagabonds don't use guns anymore, they use puns, which are like guns, but funnier. Also you can never dock your vagabond again." People would ask, and rightly so, if they should have their gun skills reimbursed.

It's a tough place to be in regarding supercarriers. Having to decide between skill point reimbursement or being able to dock a supercarrier I would have to say I would prefer people being able to dock a supercarrier. EVE is a game of choice and never 'losing out' on a part of the game based on a decision you made when you started. Just because I am Caldari doesn't mean I'm punished for flying Amarr ships (not that I would, gold plated epeens that they are). Why should I be punished for flying all other ships just so I can fly one specific kind? (Note: I am not a supercarrier pilot)

The truth is there are a lot of supercarriers around now, and since EVE skillpoints generally only ever go up there's no way to put the supercarrier genie back in the bottle. You won't have less people flying them in the future, only more. Gotta deal with it the right way.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
#157 - 2012-01-18 00:33:11 UTC
Michus Danether wrote:
Just so it's not cluttering up the last post I made...

While I am against the idea of skill point reassignment in principle (not that I didn't like those SP from the learning skill removal...) but I think a lot of people don't realize how flying a supercarrier is different than other things. Yes yes, training for the FOTM is bad but you can always dock up and reship out of a nano vagabond, but you can't do that with a supercarrier. Unless you go to the lengths of 'gaming' the game a bit by having a SC holding character you're STUCK IN THAT SHIP FOREVER. Besides, this isn't a case of CCP saying "Vagabonds go slower now." and everything else being pretty much the same, it would be like CCP suddenly saying "Minmatar frigate 4 is no longer required to fly a Vagabond, also you can never dock your vagabond again." People would ask, and rightly so, if they should have minmatar frigate 4 reimbursed since they'll never use it again.

It's a tough place to be in regarding supercarriers. Having to decide between skill point reimbursement or being able to dock a supercarrier I would have to say I would prefer people being able to dock a supercarrier. EVE is a game of choice and never 'losing out' on a part of the game based on a decision you made when you started. Just because I am Caldari doesn't mean I'm punished for flying Amarr ships (not that I would, gold plated epeens that they are). Why should I be punished for flying all other ships just so I can fly one specific kind? (Note: I am not a supercarrier pilot)

The truth is there are a lot of supercarriers around now, and since EVE skillpoints generally only ever go up there's no way to put the supercarrier genie back in the bottle. You won't have less people flying them in the future, only more. Gotta deal with it the right way.


Two things:
- They are trying to make SCs dockable.
- Sell the SC and the problems go away. Then the problem is no more difficult than me being in a Cane when I have 20M SP in Gallente.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.

Michus Danether
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#158 - 2012-01-18 00:35:31 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:


Two things:
- They are trying to make SCs dockable.
- Sell the SC and the problems go away. Then the problem is no more difficult than me being in a Cane when I have 20M SP in Gallente.

-Liang


Yes, but without making them dockable people have to go through the... difficult task of selling through Chribba or trusting the hell out of somebody. Not an ideal situation. (Yes fine, it's EVE, Scams etc... but some people will never risk an SC sale unless they can do it through contracts or something properly)
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
#159 - 2012-01-18 00:38:32 UTC
They went through that process to buy it in the first place, you know. Furthermore, commenting on the difficulty of selling an item is hardly a reason to allow this kind of behavior.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.

Lili Lu
#160 - 2012-01-18 00:40:20 UTC
Michus Danether wrote:
Liang Nuren wrote:


Two things:
- They are trying to make SCs dockable.
- Sell the SC and the problems go away. Then the problem is no more difficult than me being in a Cane when I have 20M SP in Gallente.

-Liang


Yes, but without making them dockable people have to go through the... difficult task of selling through Chribba or trusting the hell out of somebody. Not an ideal situation. (Yes fine, it's EVE, Scams etc... but some people will never risk an SC sale unless they can do it through contracts or something properly)

The day Chribba rips off someone you can have this argument.

Just because i's not as simple as repackage sell on market, or create contract, is not a good argument. If you can't stand being in the supercarruer any longer make the effort to sell it and free yourself. And, make the effort to train the HAC skills you'ld now rather have had (just like everyone else).