These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Ask me about "The CSM" Q&A

First post First post
Author
Jack Dant
The Gentlemen of Low Moral Fibre
#41 - 2012-01-20 16:18:01 UTC
On the matter of supercarrier docking:

Seleene wrote:
Finally, one additional tweak that wasn't mentioned in the minutes - slap a five minute minimum re-dock timer on the ship class. Bring these three options into the game together, and I have no issue with supercarriers docking.

Personally, I have no issue with docking supers as a strategic, or long-term option, so you can get your main out that ship and use her for something else. But the tactical consequences of docking supers could become annoying. Station games or jumping your super fleet out of a fight directly into dock range.

So instead of a five minute timer, why not treat docking/undocking as a special "jump"? So, in order to dock, the super has to be 1) not tackled and 2) at 70% cap. And once it undocks, it's at 30% cap.

This lets you park the super for a while. But it doesn't let you use the station to get out of a fight. It could make docking more dangerous than logging off at a POS.

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

Il Feytid
State War Academy
Caldari State
#42 - 2012-01-20 17:00:29 UTC
How do you feel about null NAP trains?
Il Feytid
State War Academy
Caldari State
#43 - 2012-01-20 17:08:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Il Feytid
Kenpachi Viktor wrote:
Geoscape wrote:
Why not get rid of SP clones entirely?


there needs to be some cost with getting podded other than losing your implants


Why should there be???

I'm very curious why there should be. No pod cost (besides implants) would result in more PvP action; thus more actual ships being blown up. One could argue that removing clone upgrades all together would result in an overall ISK sink with the combination of more ships being blown up. It would encourage more younger players to grab a frigate and try PvP (which is great!) and it would open the door back up for veterans with high clone cost to now enjoy slipping back behind the wheel of a frigate and going to do more PvP. Big smile
Asuri Kinnes
Perkone
Caldari State
#44 - 2012-01-21 02:57:55 UTC
Glad to see this, thanks.

Now...

Wormholes are working fine. We don't need a wormhole stabilizer, or stretcher or washer and dryer! Want more massive battles in W-space?


Make self-destructing ships inside POS shields impossible.


That is all it would take.

But I would like to point out, in wormholes now (as it stands) invasion (with the intent of kicking out the other party) means that the other people lose everything (either through self destruction or theft/pillage/plundering). This is pretty much the only space in Eve like that (Stations cant be destroyed - so you can *always* firesale your stuff - and almost be assured of a sale). Give us "no self-destructs w/in Pos Shields" and I can just about guarantee more invasions...

But please - WH fortress systems are that way because the players *make* them that way, and while difficult to invade, it is not impossible.

Like to hear how you feel about W-Space and the things that make us different than anyplace else in Eve.


Thanks

Bob is the god of Wormholes.

That's all you need to know.

Laerise
PIE Inc.
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
#45 - 2012-01-21 07:57:29 UTC
1.) Why does the CSM push for FW to become the "test bed for 0.0 changes" ?

2.) Why does the CSM agree with / push for aliances to be able to join FW?

3.) Why does the CSM try to fatten their own coffers by trying to implement an isk fountain for "FW leaders", a mechanic that would be mechanically abused by 0.0 entities without any real chance for retaliation?


4.) Do you even read this thread at all? https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=670627#post670627
Serric
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#46 - 2012-01-21 15:16:35 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
The real problem is that everything I've seen so far has been moving towards trying to have one massive grind to deprive your enemy of use of the stations. However, I really like the way that NPC space works. If you want to deprive your enemy of their space... move in and take it.

A saying goes that possession is 9/10ths of the law... and that's true in NPC space. Its just not true in sov space - but the sov based CSM candidates are demanding "normalization" and ways of "striking back". No, **** them. If they want friendly people in NPC stations nearby then go wage war in the way that space was designed for.

We don't want your sov bullshit.

-Liang


This. A thousand times over.
Raid'En
#47 - 2012-01-21 17:36:07 UTC
i was shocked reading that the art dpt wasn't considering the assets for modular pos something on the top list, any comment on this ?
Seleene
Body Count Inc.
Pandemic Legion
#48 - 2012-01-21 21:57:01 UTC
I've not forgotten the thread; just having a very busy RL weekend, folks. I will be back answering stuff ASAP. Smile

2004-2008: Mercenary Coalition Boss

2007-2010: CCP Game Designer | 2011-2013: CSM6 Delegate & CSM7 Chairman

2011-2015: Pandemic Legionnaire

2015- : Mercenary Coalition Boss

Follow Seleene on Twitter!

Tallian Saotome
Nuclear Arms Exchange Inc.
#49 - 2012-01-21 23:03:07 UTC
Ryans Revenge wrote:
Regarding the NPC Issue.

Personally I love NPC space the way it is. It makes for very fun small gang pvp action without political crap some of us really don't enjoy.

However I do see the issue with people been able to use these stations as safe havens and places to build caps. With that been said why not just make capital production impossible in npc space. Simply set it that you have to own the space you live in to put up these types of structures and such?

This way sub-cap production companies and moon miners still get their moons in npc space but big corps/alliances/production whores have to own the space they are building this big stuff in and therefore defend it. No safe npc space with safe neutral stations.

In my opinion this also solves the problem of the npc space station's been safe havens for the big fleets. If the targets the fleets are attacking aren't in npc space, they can't dock in npc stations. Simple.

Now if people want to moan about docking games in npc space, move to nullsec. You're not in an empire war because of docking games so don't chose npc space if you don't like them either.

Look into the existing requirements to anchor a CSAA.

Inappropriate signature removed, CCP Phantom.

GeeShizzle MacCloud
#50 - 2012-01-22 19:21:59 UTC
my personal opinion on certain subjects discussed:

NPC reworking:
yes yes and yes, i too find it absurd that ratting in npc against the very faction your docking at is massively confusing.
RP wise theres a quick fix to sort out the confusion and thats to change the owners of those stations to intermediataries of those factions and not the factions themselves. RP wise these factions dont NEED stations, the stations are there to allow the communication and interaction between capsuleers. the stations dont need to be held by the faction but could be held by NPC corperations either within the faction or go-between corps/alliances like Interbus or even Sisters of Eve.

Then the possibility of docking up in these stations in 0.0 NPC space would be controlled by the standings to these Entities instead.

Supercap Balancing:
cut the bullshit with the bullshit EWAR frigs being able to effectively ECM or affect Supercaps. its just absurd! thats like saying me and 20 of my mates put together some white noise generators and plugged them into radio transmitters expecting to jam out radio communications on a Nimitz class aircraft carrier from a rowing boat. totally bullshit.
Seleene you talked about the rediculousness of rifters being able to lock down Supercaps, and in the meeting minutes was a suggestion that capitals should have a mod that can allow them to tackle and hold down other capitals/supers. WHY oh why just apply this logic to the EWAR immunity issue? Capital EWAR mods should be introduced (cause only capitals have the massive power requirements for electronic warfare of that magnitude)
CCP should know that more and more pilots will get to the SP requirements to fly and use supercaps... its just pure logic. but an outright immunity to a particular legitimate form of PVP mechanics should never have been green lit.

Drake nerf:
it does do a lot of things better than most battlecruisers. CCP also need to realise that the Drake Army is one of the core fleet paper-scissor-rock types being the natural counter to aHACs. albeit with the new tengu fleets you could say that drake armies have been superseeded by it. Even so, changes to the drake will affect this balance, and cause a resurgence in some form.

Remigius Varagine
Hibernating
#51 - 2012-01-22 21:59:33 UTC
Dear Seleene

Regarding your idea of "interactable" NPCs:

This character was born late 2006. I needed ISK, so I was ratting and running missions then.
Some time back CCP changed the mix of missions offered to contain more missions against other empire factions, which ****** up your standings realy realy fast if you didn't pay attention. IIRC that was with empyrean age.
That was the time I finaly stopped donig missions altogether, because if I hate something it is not being able to go where I want.

And now you come along and want that I can't use 80% of NPC 0.0?
And I can't repair that either, because it would destroy standing with other factions?
And then, in a year, I find that nice PVP corp I would like to join. Everything looks nice, timezone fits etc. Oh, you live in Syndicate? Ehm, sorry, but I can't dock there...

So, do you suggest I just biomass this 90 mil SP character, start a new one and never, ever, interact with any NPCs?
Oh, right, that doesn't work, because I would have no means of repairing my security status.

What you suggest is basically locking me out of 50% of the game.
You want to take a lot of choices from me.

Sorry, no, I don't like that.

Or are you looking into forcing players to have even more alt characters than they have by now?
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#52 - 2012-01-23 08:22:27 UTC
Seleene wrote:
EDIT - Yeah, the preview function seems to be broken as hell ATM. Be careful!

It's not just the preview function, it happens if you wait long enough and press post as well. Whomever wrote (or adapted) this forum has done a seriously lacklustre job.

I'm not going to bother testing, but I wouldn't be surprised if the problem is taking more than 5 minutes to write a post, which happens way too often as I sit and think and retype and reformulate posts. The habit now is ctrl-a+ctrl-c before any post or preview, just in case. It's saved quite a lot of posts from the posting god's wrath so far.

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

RIP Vile Rat

Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
#53 - 2012-01-23 09:28:19 UTC
Remigius Varagine wrote:

Regarding your idea of "interactable" NPCs:
[...]
What you suggest is basically locking me out of 50% of the game.
You want to take a lot of choices from me.


Having to make meaningful choices, often means closing the door on the alternative choices. A player's actions with other players and the game world's NPCs should have consequences. An RPG, MMO or otherwise where there's no meaningful choices and consequences is a pretty boring ****** game.

Seleene
Body Count Inc.
Pandemic Legion
#54 - 2012-01-23 12:10:31 UTC
Marlona Sky wrote:
How do you feel about null NAP trains?


EVE is a sandbox and I've always been against anything that limits players from doing what they want on a social level; I prefer to offer players options and alternatives that might cause them to WANT to change their behavior. I think that the game would benefit greatly from a formal 'Treaty System' such as the one that was theory-crafted for Apocrypha, cut for Dominion and scrapped all-together in Tyranis. I think that there should be benefits to forming 'coalitions' with other alliances but I also believe that there should be reasons to keep such entities from bloating. Such incentives / penalties / whatever would depend a lot on how artificial you'd want to make the effects of being involved in such a treaty, but it's certainly do-able. I would much prefer something like this than some kind of bizarre limitation made by CONCORD that says, "You can only have 10 blues!"

Asuri Kinnes wrote:
Wormholes are working fine. We don't need a wormhole stabilizer, or stretcher or washer and dryer! Want more massive battles in W-space? Make self-destructing ships inside POS shields impossible. That is all it would take.


Even without the implications as you suggest for WH space, I quite like this idea! I'm definitely going to find out if this can be done (I bet it can).

Asuri Kinnes wrote:
But I would like to point out, in wormholes now (as it stands) invasion (with the intent of kicking out the other party) means that the other people lose everything (either through self destruction or theft/pillage/plundering). This is pretty much the only space in Eve like that (Stations cant be destroyed - so you can *always* firesale your stuff - and almost be assured of a sale). Give us "no self-destructs w/in Pos Shields" and I can just about guarantee more invasions... But please - WH fortress systems are that way because the players *make* them that way, and while difficult to invade, it is not impossible.

Like to hear how you feel about W-Space and the things that make us different than anyplace else in Eve.


Wormholes are one of the few things in EVE that I think need more of a scapel than a chainsaw when it comes to surgery / improvements. They are working pretty much as always intended and I take no small amount of pride in that fact. The design team made some very key decisions that have proven to be smart ones over time in how WH space works. Personally, when I hear about players setting up little fortress systems I think, "Good for them!". It's not easy to logistically entrench yourself out there in the darkness of WH space and, as you say, it's difficult to uproot a corp, but not impossible. Some of the best battle reports come out of WH space as well. So, no, I'm not really wanting to see a change made to this dynamic just because, "We need some changes." I'd much rather see the current iteration of WH's evolve.

2004-2008: Mercenary Coalition Boss

2007-2010: CCP Game Designer | 2011-2013: CSM6 Delegate & CSM7 Chairman

2011-2015: Pandemic Legionnaire

2015- : Mercenary Coalition Boss

Follow Seleene on Twitter!

Seleene
Body Count Inc.
Pandemic Legion
#55 - 2012-01-23 12:20:15 UTC
Laerise wrote:
1.) Why does the CSM push for FW to become the "test bed for 0.0 changes" ?


Well, I addressed what I think earlier in the thread I believe? I think this is being misinterpreted a bit. More accurately, any revision of the null-sec sov system will likely affect a low-sec iteration as well. This ties into a more dynamic relationship with NPCs and all that as well.

The comments about this were never intended to imply that FW is some kind of guinea pigs or whatever for new sov mechanics. That seems to be what people think and I've heard nothing of the sort nor do I think that will be the case at all.

Laerise wrote:
2.) Why does the CSM agree with / push for aliances to be able to join FW?


As far as I know, there wasn't any real 'push' to do it. It's always just been more of a hanging question of, "Why aren't alliances allowed into FW?" When we were finally told this would happen, my reaction was, "Cool. It's a bit late though as most of the dedicated RP alliances have faded away. Maybe this will revive them a bit."

I'm not sure why everyone assumes that there are a ton of null sec alliances beating down the door to grief FW players. v0v

Laerise wrote:
3.) Why does the CSM try to fatten their own coffers by trying to implement an isk fountain for "FW leaders", a mechanic that would be mechanically abused by 0.0 entities without any real chance for retaliation?


Can you please enlighten me as to the details of this evil scheme? I'm all about making money and this is one I seem to have missed... ?

Laerise wrote:


The whole thing? No. But I am familiar with Hans and he's a ******* hero for pounding away on this issue and I know that CCP Soundwave has been made aware of it as well.

2004-2008: Mercenary Coalition Boss

2007-2010: CCP Game Designer | 2011-2013: CSM6 Delegate & CSM7 Chairman

2011-2015: Pandemic Legionnaire

2015- : Mercenary Coalition Boss

Follow Seleene on Twitter!

Seleene
Body Count Inc.
Pandemic Legion
#56 - 2012-01-23 12:25:17 UTC
Raid'En wrote:
i was shocked reading that the art dpt wasn't considering the assets for modular pos something on the top list, any comment on this ?


The top dudes in the Art Dept are all well aware of the 'Dead Horse' thread and all the other incarnations of this. Doing modular POSs is something that would basically require the entire Art team a full expansion or more to work on. However, there are a lot of things depending on Art right now, including the V3 skinning of all the CURRENT art in the game, new effects work, you name it. Once game design comes up with a plan for how modular POSs might actually be implemented alongside other coming changes, that's when Art will get the green light to start working in earnest. I don't think I'm breaking any NDA by saying, hell yes, they are considering it. It's something I know they'd love to be able to do. Smile

2004-2008: Mercenary Coalition Boss

2007-2010: CCP Game Designer | 2011-2013: CSM6 Delegate & CSM7 Chairman

2011-2015: Pandemic Legionnaire

2015- : Mercenary Coalition Boss

Follow Seleene on Twitter!

Seleene
Body Count Inc.
Pandemic Legion
#57 - 2012-01-23 12:36:04 UTC
GeeShizzle MacCloud wrote:
Supercap Balancing:
cut the bullshit with the bullshit EWAR frigs being able to effectively ECM or affect Supercaps. its just absurd! thats like saying me and 20 of my mates put together some white noise generators and plugged them into radio transmitters expecting to jam out radio communications on a Nimitz class aircraft carrier from a rowing boat. totally bullshit.


The underwater physics of EVE is also total bullshit but we live with it every day, m8. It's just an idea, and one that really wouldn't affect things beyond actually giving people a reason to at least TRY to fly that ship class. I'm not bothered if it happens or it doesn't, I just don't see it causing a major imbalance of power. Smile

GeeShizzle MacCloud wrote:
Seleene you talked about the rediculousness of rifters being able to lock down Supercaps, and in the meeting minutes was a suggestion that capitals should have a mod that can allow them to tackle and hold down other capitals/supers. WHY oh why just apply this logic to the EWAR immunity issue? Capital EWAR mods should be introduced (cause only capitals have the massive power requirements for electronic warfare of that magnitude)


Well, at the moment, supercaps are completely IMMUNE. Doing this by say, giving an Avatar a Radar STR of 1000 would mean theoretically it could be jammed by enough smaller ships. I'm not really opposed to that either.

GeeShizzle MacCloud wrote:
CCP should know that more and more pilots will get to the SP requirements to fly and use supercaps... its just pure logic. but an outright immunity to a particular legitimate form of PVP mechanics should never have been green lit.


Back to the Rifter tackling a titan thing - even when I worked at CCP, I proposed that every ship in the game be given a 'propulsion strength' stat similar to the whole Warp Core strength number. Say an Avatar had a Prop Strength of 250; if you can get 250 Rifters, each with a point of scramble on him... he stays put. Kind of like a bunch of mice holding down a lion. Or a whale. Whatever. The point is that I agree that the 'immunity' stuff could be substituted for better, more involving PVP tactics.

GeeShizzle MacCloud wrote:
Drake nerf:
it does do a lot of things better than most battlecruisers. CCP also need to realise that the Drake Army is one of the core fleet paper-scissor-rock types being the natural counter to aHACs. albeit with the new tengu fleets you could say that drake armies have been superseeded by it. Even so, changes to the drake will affect this balance, and cause a resurgence in some form.


My hatred of Drakes was in that I flew in the Drake Armies so much that now every time I kill a Drake (in my Tengu more often than not), it makes me very happy. I still don't think the Drake needs to be super nerfed, it just needs some tweaking.

2004-2008: Mercenary Coalition Boss

2007-2010: CCP Game Designer | 2011-2013: CSM6 Delegate & CSM7 Chairman

2011-2015: Pandemic Legionnaire

2015- : Mercenary Coalition Boss

Follow Seleene on Twitter!

Seleene
Body Count Inc.
Pandemic Legion
#58 - 2012-01-23 12:42:31 UTC
Xorv wrote:
Remigius Varagine wrote:

Regarding your idea of "interactable" NPCs:
[...]
What you suggest is basically locking me out of 50% of the game.
You want to take a lot of choices from me.


Having to make meaningful choices, often means closing the door on the alternative choices. A player's actions with other players and the game world's NPCs should have consequences. An RPG, MMO or otherwise where there's no meaningful choices and consequences is a pretty boring ****** game.


This dude TLDR'd most of what I would have said. But, I'm still going to say a few things! Big smileBig smile

Remigius Varagine wrote:

And now you come along and want that I can't use 80% of NPC 0.0?
And I can't repair that either, because it would destroy standing with other factions?
And then, in a year, I find that nice PVP corp I would like to join. Everything looks nice, timezone fits etc. Oh, you live in Syndicate? Ehm, sorry, but I can't dock there...

So, do you suggest I just biomass this 90 mil SP character, start a new one and never, ever, interact with any NPCs?
Oh, right, that doesn't work, because I would have no means of repairing my security status.


You've just pointed out a couple things that have been making me rage since a lot earlier than 2006. Blink I mean, why the hell is the only way for me to raise my sec status by going out and blapping random NPCs? The reason that Seleene still has a neg sec status today is because way back in 2004, I went on a short bit of piracy before turning merc and the madness of wasting ammo on NPCs (even lasers) did my head in and still does.

Yes, I think there should be increased interaction and opportunity, along with consequences for the choices that you make. However, as with everything from working on a chain gang to religion or whatever metaphor you like, there should be the possibility of atonement. Failing that, I should be able to pay off some dumb Serpentis clerk to clean up my records. So, yeah, I want to bribe NPCs among other things.

2004-2008: Mercenary Coalition Boss

2007-2010: CCP Game Designer | 2011-2013: CSM6 Delegate & CSM7 Chairman

2011-2015: Pandemic Legionnaire

2015- : Mercenary Coalition Boss

Follow Seleene on Twitter!

Tallian Saotome
Nuclear Arms Exchange Inc.
#59 - 2012-01-23 13:00:30 UTC
Just a quick question, out of curiosity. Totally off topic but v0v

Would you say you have more influence over dev goals as a CSM or as a dev, when you were there. Clearly devs have more control over specifics(duh) but Incarna showed us that devs didn't have alot of control over the game as a whole.

Thanks if you can field this one :)

Inappropriate signature removed, CCP Phantom.

CCP Punkturis
C C P
C C P Alliance
#60 - 2012-01-23 13:11:29 UTC
sup bro?

(did the questions have to be related to the topic?)

♥ EVE Brogrammer ♥ Team Five 0 ♥ @CCP_Punkturis