Jita Park Speakers Corner

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

EVE Online Development Strategy (CSM Public)

First post First post
Author
Clockwork Pineapple
#61 - 2012-11-19 06:11:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Snow Axe
Seleene wrote:
A word on getting lost in the weeds - debating the finer points of the specifics of this document (mineral compression, etc...) is all well and good, but you could literally create a forum thread for each one. We are not wedded to any particular WAY of accomplishing said points, we just want to see CCP address these points and put resources into fixing / finishing them. [:)


Mineral compression isn't a point that CCP should be even addressing (not yet, anyway), so to see it included on a short, concise list of major issues is a concern. It needs to be de-emphasized in anything going forward, lest you give the developers the impression that "fixing" compression would actually benefit the game at all (it really wouldn't).

I'm sorry to keep harping on it, but your own presentation of the issue in this document suggests that you feel it's a lot more important than it is. That's something far too large to chalk up to "getting lost in the weeds".

(note that when I say "your", I mean whatever CSM members were involved with creating or approving the document, not you specifically. Should be obvious, but better safe than sorry Big smile )

"Look any reason why you need to talk like that? I have now reported you. I dont need to listen to your bad tone. If you cant have a grown up conversation then leave the thread["

Gallente Federation
#62 - 2012-11-19 06:16:42 UTC
Snow Axe wrote:
Seleene wrote:
A word on getting lost in the weeds - debating the finer points of the specifics of this document (mineral compression, etc...) is all well and good, but you could literally create a forum thread for each one. We are not wedded to any particular WAY of accomplishing said points, we just want to see CCP address these points and put resources into fixing / finishing them. [:)
Mineral compression isn't a point that CCP should be even addressing (not yet, anyway), so to see it included on a short, concise list of major issues is a concern. It needs to be de-emphasized in anything going forward, lest you give the developers the impression that "fixing" compression would actually benefit the game at all (it really wouldn't).
But you're throwing away months of work by Kelduum ... it's the only work he's done.
New Eden Trading Company.
#63 - 2012-11-19 06:39:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Alekseyev Karrde
Snow Axe wrote:


I'm sorry to keep harping on it, but your own presentation of the issue in this document suggests that you don't actually understand why mineral compression even exists, let alone what the positives/negatives of it are. That's something far too large to chalk up to "getting lost in the weeds".

I'm sorry too ;p

Frankly, the way you keep on it suggests to me YOU dont know why mineral compression exists. It exists because way way way way back at the dawn of EVE (before cap ships, let along outposts and supers) CCP made Magic Modules that refine for a larger volume of minerals than the item itself.

Today, players take advantage of this by buying these modules in empire and jumping them out to 0.0 where they are refined and reused for things that can't be purchased from empire (supercaps, for instance) as well as to fill in gaps in producing common daily needs (ammo) because there is no incentive to mine low end minerals in 0.0. This gap exists because CCP has neglected 0.0 broadly and its industrial self sufficiency in particular.

You seem to be under the impression Magic Modules were intentionally put in by CCP to support 0.0 industry. Rather it was just a lack of foresight that players have been taking advantage of to compensate for the lack of 0.0 industrial capacity and viable 0.0 low end mining. If 0.0 had viable, high-volume sources of low end minerals that players would WANT to mine (which is exactly what the example which references mineral compression includes as its headline feature) there's really no reason for Magic Modules to continue to exist. As significant a portion of the player base would like compression removed for one reason or another as want it to stay; if the reason why 0.0 players "need" it were to finally get addressed, both groups could have their concerns laid to rest.

This supports the approach/theme reinforced throughout the entire document: finally commit to addressing long standing sucking chest-wound level problems with EVE's core mechanics, and do so in a way that appeals to mutliple sections of the playerbase (both in activity area and demographic).

It's unfortunate that message was lost in your attachment to a small part of one of three examples included to illustrate what that approach could look like in an actual EVE Online expansion. I am, however, thankful for your feedback and the feedback of the rest of the players on both the approach advocated and on the merits of specific recommendations. I would like to reinforce the points made by corestwo and Seleene that if a serious response from CCP is desired, keeping the discussion constructive and somewhat focused on forest vs the trees is important.

Alek the Kidnapper, Hero of the CSM

Clockwork Pineapple
#64 - 2012-11-19 07:09:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Snow Axe
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:
I'm sorry too ;p


I understand what mineral compression is, and that it's current use is an unintended side effect. Where we're diverging is a philosophical difference, I guess - your document suggests that once null mining and industry has enough opportunities for miners, it'd have to be removed to give these new miners opportunities. The argument against that is that if mining can actually accomodate the demand for minerals in null, mineral compression (importation, anyway) will cease to exist in any meaningful way all on its own.

If at any point I've given the impression that I think the CSM blindly advocated for its removal, I apologize. I know you haven't, not directly anyway. Your document definitely does consider it as something that can only come after buffs are made. The worry is that even including it on the list at all gives the impression that it's a far bigger issue than it really is (the rest of the issues are huge), it sends the message that mineral compression is a big problem, which could lead to problems if CCP decides to implement your suggestions, but not in the order you present them (let's say they go from easiest to implement to hardest, instead of your order).

If you want an extreme tl;dr (I wish I'd think of these BEFORE rambling on end...), it's that mineral compression isn't a big deal, "fixing" it accomplishes nothing but annoying the hell out of nullsec producers as its borne of necessity rather than desire, and it has no place on a list of major issues.

"Look any reason why you need to talk like that? I have now reported you. I dont need to listen to your bad tone. If you cant have a grown up conversation then leave the thread["

Northern Coalition.
#65 - 2012-11-19 07:17:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Gilbaron
mineral compression is not the main problem. a too hefty nerf to mineral compression also comes with another problem, you would not be able to produce :stuff: in 00 and export it to empire tradehubs without huge amounts of boring work. if one thing has to be reduced it is boring work

(some) much bigger problems are:

- the extreme quality of higsec, production lines are basically free and available everywhere, same with high-quality refineries
- lack of lowend minerals in 00 (obvious candidate for fixing this is spodumain !)
- lack of outposts where both, refinery and production can be done in large scale
- a corp role design with an all-or-nothing approach in regards to build-rights
#66 - 2012-11-19 07:36:26 UTC
Stickyfied!

ISD Eshtir

Captain

Community Communication Liaisons

Interstellar Services Department

#67 - 2012-11-19 07:42:37 UTC
and either i got your paper wrong, or wtf?

veteran needs are 10% shinys and 90% iteration?

whats wrong with you?

i'm a veteran, and i wan't new shinys. I'm sick of all the new shinys allways being focused on new players. Where is the new Status Symbols? Where is the stuff that i can use to show off "hey im a f'cking veteran"? Where is the new cool toy that i can spend hours with to explore its possibilities?

oh. right. there are new destroyers comming.

3rdPartyEve.net - your catalogue for 3rd party applications

Clockwork Pineapple
#68 - 2012-11-19 08:01:15 UTC
Peter Powers wrote:
and either i got your paper wrong, or wtf?

veteran needs are 10% shinys and 90% iteration?

whats wrong with you?

i'm a veteran, and i wan't new shinys.


Try not to focus on the exact specifics of the percentage numbers, and just think of it more of a representation - the idea that, to your average vet, fixing the game that exists is generally going to be more important than adding new stuff. It's not saying you don't want or won't get new stuff, it's saying that the priority will generally be "make the game I pay for work the way it should" over "give me new things". Think of the Summer of Rage as that sentiment turning into action.

Besides, the overall message is not to get too focused on either side without giving due attention to the other.

"Look any reason why you need to talk like that? I have now reported you. I dont need to listen to your bad tone. If you cant have a grown up conversation then leave the thread["

#69 - 2012-11-19 08:32:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Konrad Kane
Interesting document, I have a few observations about high sec vs. 0.0/low sec income.

I recently moved out of player held 0.0 space into low/npc null to experience a different aspect of the game. One of the things that struck me was the income nerf. In player held 0.0 the risk of PvE is relativity low and is always available to solo. For example, I'm sure I'm not the only one to have run an anomaly whilst eating their breakfast. This isn't to say if you want to make decent isk in high sec it isn't possible, but it does require a little more effort and time. Compare running an incursion to doing solo exploration for example. One I can pretty much do solo whenever I want, the other I need to get into a fleet, etc.

Many people who live in low/npc null make their isk in high sec because they don't have the relativity low risk environment to make isk that player owned 0.0 often affords. My concern would be that any significant nerf in high sec income would mean fewer of those people being able to do less pvp etc in low/npc and driving more people into player held 0.0 corps and alliances; reducing those that play in the npc/low community.

Obviously player owned sov should provide the most secure, profitable space in the game. Those player groups have had to conquer that space, then invest in it to secure it. The rudimentary mechanisms available to alliance to earn income from those players (for example corp tax only really impact pve income not say traders) and space also seems to cause issues.

So, if you live in player owned 0.0 should you be able to earn an easier, better living from that space than most people? Yes, absolutely. Do they only live their because they can make more isk, I didn't and many of the people I played with didn't. They enjoyed the gameplay of player owned 0.0.
New Eden Trading Company.
#70 - 2012-11-19 08:32:23 UTC
A lack of new veteran content is definitely a problem though, look for the CSM to press that point hard at the Summit.

Alek the Kidnapper, Hero of the CSM

Nabaal Syndicate
#71 - 2012-11-19 08:32:57 UTC
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:
CCP's strategic planning process is by its nature proprietary.
You could have released the document without ever having run it by CCP ... and you would have not been in any legal trouble for having done so. There was no requirement to submit the document first into CCP's "proprietary" planning process.


The goal of the CSM is not to remain in compliance with the letter of their legal agreements, their goal is to get CCP to make a better game. You don't do that by spitting at them. I'm perfectly willing to see a document a day or two later if it means that any would-be ruffled feathers get smoothed down and the CSM has a better chance of actually making a positive contribution to the future of Eve. Just because being a **** is legal doesn't mean it's a good idea.
The Initiative.
#72 - 2012-11-19 08:59:32 UTC
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:
A lack of new veteran content is definitely a problem though, look for the CSM to press that point hard at the Summit.


Bear in mind that "new content" needn't necessarily mean "new ships" or "new modules". What we need is new things to do. A good example is bounty-hunting - technically this is already in the game, but in the current system it's basically a place-holder. After Retribution, it will be a viable profession. It will be a New Thing To Do.

Ideally, each expansion would add at least one new thing to do, however minor or niche.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Gallente Federation
#73 - 2012-11-19 08:59:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Poetic Stanziel
Herschel Yamamoto wrote:
The goal of the CSM is not to remain in compliance with the letter of their legal agreements, their goal is to get CCP to make a better game. You don't do that by spitting at them. I'm perfectly willing to see a document a day or two later if it means that any would-be ruffled feathers get smoothed down and the CSM has a better chance of actually making a positive contribution to the future of Eve. Just because being a **** is legal doesn't mean it's a good idea.
These guys are too concerned with potentially upsetting their new besties.

The Mittani, last year, brought the issue of Monocles, the in-game demonstrations, and the failures of Walking in Stations straight to the gaming press, very likely to the consternation of CCP. He was less worried about his besties and more concerned about correcting the course of CCP development on EVE Online.

Given all that, I don't think his relationship with CCP was hurt all that much. (His fanfest gaffe is beside the point.)

The CSM is more concerned with keeping CCP happy than the playerbase, because they live in fear of being denied access if they upset their keepers.

Now this document speaks to correcting development course as well. But it's certainly not time sensitive. CCP won't be roadmapping their next expansion, deciding upon features, until January or February, so there was time to discuss on a public forum first, then they could draft their document.

What we have here is a roadmap that the CSM is already firmly behind (only five or six of them had any legitimate input on the document), and we're meant to accept its direction, more or less, as is. Given that you don't see much discussion happening in this thread, just the CSM defending their stance, speaks to that.
Gallente Federation
#74 - 2012-11-19 09:02:00 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
After Retribution, it will be a viable profession. It will be a New Thing To Do.
Hopefully. The new wardec system was supposed to make mercenaries a viable profession, but that didn't really pan out. Best to see how bounties actually play out once live, rather than make the mistake of assuming it'll do what it's intended to do.
#75 - 2012-11-19 09:23:40 UTC
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
These guys are too concerned with potentially upsetting their new besties.


Or maybe they understand collaboration works better when you trust each other?
Minmatar Republic
#76 - 2012-11-19 09:28:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Tornii
I think it is hard not to agree with 90% of what is outlined in the document.

And, in line with these general outlines, I think it would be good for the CSM to remind CCP of the smallholdings idea for 0.0 when they have such opportunity. That feature could improve so many things in nullsec.
#77 - 2012-11-19 09:30:05 UTC
Cite:

Quote:
Rather than replace a Technetium
bottleneck with a new bottleneck, care should be taken to balance mineral requirements
to avoid built-in bottlenecks while maintaining high-end moons as valuable sources of
income. EVE’s widely touted player-driven market will be empowered to determine which
moons have the highest relative value, while providing more PVP conflict drivers.


Rather than to think in terms of moongoo, a player driven economy would include the total financing of entities by players. Moongoo has disadvantages. It causes powerblocks and less pvp because moongoo pays the reimbursement and the loser doen't become the economy to win wars. A player financed alliance or corp is only depending on the player base not on bottlenecks like today. Ift woul be more than like a big social group. Only whenan alliance is able to activate their pilots, they should be able to win a war.

So I propose a different approach:


  1. encourage alliances to activate pilots for the economical challenges of the alliance . A war should be only possible when an alliance or coalition has the backbones of PVP and industry.
  2. give the alliances and corp more tools to be social (access rights starbases and production slots, wallet)


Shadow Cartel
#78 - 2012-11-19 09:47:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Zloco Crendraven
And again there is no any kind of plan to reanimate lowsec. I know ring mining, POSes would be available for lowsec too, but that doesnt Solve the lowsec problem. What lowsec needs it is a purpose, an identity.

I think CCP sees low sec like a training ground or a road to pass from highsec into null. And i agree to that idea but actual lowsec just doesnt deliver it.

How i see it is that Lowsec should retain 4 kind of player base.

- Militia ( which i think is finally solved and its in a good place),
- Stand alone organized corps ( these corps should ve incentives to go live in lowsec, train and prepare for harsh 0.0 space. They should be able to exercise both of their industry and Military capabilities)
- Lone wolves (trying to Ninja PvE, exploration, fast mining OPS, prolific missions etc.)
- And pirates (Basically if u got the 3 above solved u ll have happy pirates too)

For example i am atm in a lowsec pirate corp and we are atm around militia grounds because its the only active lowsec part for more organized pirate corporations. And guess what, we got almost no ways to gain isk.

So what should be done?

There is need of a rise in reward in lowsec. Those features needs to be doable in small amount of time 1 to tops 2 hours and reward be very high.

Exploring is the way. 6/10 are really good excellent profit time/reward. Only regular visitors from highsec are ppl that do those sites. But there needs to be some more of em. Rise the spawn rate. It will attract ppl from high and null and animate some more low sec PvP. Boost the rewards of 5/10 and 4/10 and make them not to be blitzable. 4/10 to be doable in 20 mins, 5/10 in 30 mins and 6/10 in 40 mins. That is a proper risk/reward ratio. Not too much time to be finished, but still enough time go get probed and caught.

Add 1, 2 and 3/10 to lowsec also and make them a bit more profitable than highsec ones. Those wont boost huge amount of isk to lowsec dwellers cos is not much isk/hour, but will be quite more for the hisghsec inhabitants who could risk their frigates/destroyers/cruisers for some fast income of 20/40/60 of mils per 20/25/30 min of time needed to do them.

lv 1/10 d accept only frigates. Lv 2/10 d accept destroyers and less. lv 3/10 cruisers and less. Remember that the right system d needed to be found, same as the plexe. So its NOT like u d farm 3/10 60mils per 20mins = 180mil but it d be in line btw 50-100 mil per hour if only 1 player clears all. It will be a fast excursion to lowsec, inject some nice ammount of isk and be done for today.

Also lv 4 and 5 missions. Rise the rewards. It should be in line with FW isk/hour.

These changes bring lots of of frigates/destroyers/cruisers from highsec. But also more expensive ships for 4/5/6 of 10. U d see low skill players coming in a group with their frigs, destroyers or cruisers doing those plexes.

What else? Make the gravimetric sites to have all kind of expensive ore but high concetraded. Let say that u d need 5 hulks and an orca full skilled and boosted to empty it in 1 hour. But so they can earn few bills from that asteroid alone. What will happen. There will be some ninja miner ops (who knows maybe rorqs d be used more). Miners could pay to lowsec pirates to protect em or even mercenary groups also. Lot of possibilities rise.

And finally static anomalies. These now in lowsec are useless. Make 2 kind of those anomalies appear in lowsec randomly once a week but in same constellation always and with quite a higher reward. One anomaly d require 5 players minimum to be done cruiser and below and one d require 10 players (BS and below). Would add lots of content, highsec excursions of players or even some wars btw lowsec corps to stay within those anomaly grounds.

2 more things should be considered are Incursions (make them more profitable in lowsec) and make drug production a valuable option in lowsec, it is afterall "Low" security space.

Make some conflict drivers in lowsec not with sov, but with fictional sov. Make constellation around lowsec that have higher radar spawns with higher rewards. Some constellations with awesome belts, gravimetric sites, some with DED complexes. Some with awesome agents that have unique rewards.

These places with static anomalies i mentioned above will drive more organized corporation and pirate corps to fight over them and claim that fictional sov by just chasing the other party away. These changes will attract renters, will add a lot to mercenary market.

These changes with new POSes, ring mining and new agro mechanics that are getting out in December (Finally no 15 mins pause roams) will make lowsec a hit.

HANS please read this and give it a thought. Its everything what lowsec needs.

BALEX, bringing piracy on a whole new level.

Caldari State
#79 - 2012-11-19 09:54:37 UTC
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
The Mittani, last year, brought the issue of Monocles, the in-game demonstrations, and the failures of Walking in Stations straight to the gaming press, very likely to the consternation of CCP. He was less worried about his besties and more concerned about correcting the course of CCP development on EVE Online.

Given all that, I don't think his relationship with CCP was hurt all that much. (His fanfest gaffe is beside the point.)


This is just blatantly twisting history to suit your silly agenda. It's widely known that The Mittani roasted CSM5 for their indignant letter, which huffed and puffed and got REAL MAD at CCP and ended with the council members being labeled "terrorists" by the developers and effectively shut down communications until CSM6 was able to restore the relationship not only through their personal relationships with staff members but also good ole' fashioned diplomacy (Remember, CSM6 included Vile Rat as well).

CSM6 did not hesitate to take a stand publicly when pressed against a wall, but this idea that they got mad at every turn the way you've called out CSM7 for refusing to do is a falsehood. CSM6 understood the value of a cooperative, constructive dialogue with CCP and they spent the first half of their term repairing the credibility of the institution by acting like professionals and friends instead of children throwing tantrums.

Is a similarly professional CSM7 disappointing for a self-proclaimed sperging drama llama with an obsession for hit counters? Yup, but it doesn't mean you get to run around making **** up just to fuel this ridiculous narrative you keep trying to weave. Players are smart and most of them see right through it.

If and when CCP drops the ball and foists another set of Incarna news on the CSM, and they roll over and let it pass without standing up for player concerns, than such allegations will be valid. But in the meantime, please brush up on history (I'll assume for the moment the possibility exists that you're simply ignorant instead of just the manipulative troll that most people see.)

Also, next time you start ranting about transparency - take a moment and read up on that history thing again. I think you'll find a sharp contrast between the minutes that CSM6 outsourced to CCP to handle (talk about too much trust in the company) and CSM7's similar efforts, and maybe read some of the public press releases The Mittani handled where he did everything BUT give specific credit to individual CSM contributions and peel back the curtain into what was actually going on. You're not fooling anyone with your attempts to rewrite events the way you'd like them to be.
Takahashi Alliance
#80 - 2012-11-19 09:56:24 UTC
Having read the document, I think it has covered the 3 key areas that need sorting as a priority.

How they are solved is till up for debate, but I'm sure everyone agree's that these are the area's that need work.

Glad to see more communication between the CSM, CCP and the EVE Community.
Forum Jump