Jita Park Speakers Corner

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
13 Pages123Next pageLast page
 

EVE Online Development Strategy (CSM Public)

First post First post
Author
New Eden Trading Company.
#1 - 2012-11-18 22:04:26 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Xhagen
Earlier this month, EVE’s Senior Producer CCP Ripley called a meeting with the CSM to solicit feedback on some challenges and goals CCP was addressing during an upcoming strategy planning meeting. During the course of this meeting, the CSM offered to provide CCP with a different perspective on what EVE’s development strategy could be. CCP Ripley stated that she would find such a document helpful, but that this did not imply a commitment to implement what the CSM would give her.

The following document is the result of that collaborative effort and was submitted to CCP approximately two weeks ago. Our goal was not to provide a prescriptive “wish list”, but instead to influence the strategic planning conversation in a positive direction. CSM7 would like to thank CCP Ripley for not only distributing it to CCP’s development teams but also agreeing to its timely publication.

A Few Notes to the Community:

  • The intended audience for this document was CCP, not the community; please keep this in mind when reading it.
  • We tried to avoid, as much as possible, specific suggestions like “fix sov by doing x.” Instead, our emphasis was to explain why “fixing sov” will address specific business goals.
  • The primary coauthors of this document were Alekseyev Karrde, Hans Jagerblitzen, Trebor Daehdoow, and Two Step. It was unanimously endorsed by all active members of the CSM.
  • Nothing has been edited or removed due to the NDA; aside from minor edits made for clarity, this is exactly what the CSM sent to CCP.


DOWNLOAD HERE

Alek the Kidnapper, Hero of the CSM

Gallente Federation
#2 - 2012-11-18 22:04:56 UTC
I endorse this product and/or document.

Private Citizen • CSM in recovery

Mercenary Coalition
#3 - 2012-11-18 22:05:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Seleene
Just want to add this bit - this document is in no way a stand alone proposal. It represents just one piece of a much larger engagement with CCP over several weeks. There have been multiple voice meeting sessions and other exchanges of ideas along with the normal daily chatter. This document just serves as a good way of capturing what most of these discussions have been about lately. 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!

Shadow Cartel
#4 - 2012-11-18 22:05:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Hans Jagerblitzen
I'm looking forward to a productive discussion about 2013 goals for EVE from a player perspective as we go into the summit. We're all looking forward to different features, different objectives - but I think a lot of us share the sentiment that we've had a good run on purely iterative expansions and ready to tackle some of the core issues in the coming year, and without fear of engaging in big projects just as 0.0 Sovereignty, the economy, and POS's.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary

Gallente Federation
#5 - 2012-11-18 22:12:05 UTC
Everyone above this post is on the CSM.
#6 - 2012-11-18 22:26:14 UTC
I do find it inciting and enthralling that CCP and the CSM are starting to recognize that the newbies, veterans, and bitter-vets, all have important considerations.

It is important to not only retain older players, but also to garner the interest of new ones. Hopefully with the appropriate balancing of these mindsets (rather than on the stereotypical 0.0 versus industry, versus pirate, versus wormhole, etc) that a greater balance is achieved. Hopefully we shall continue to see positive and constructive criticisms and changes to this game.

I am sure we can all agree that progress is important- eve can never simply 'exist.' Stagnation equals death.
Caldari State
#7 - 2012-11-18 22:26:46 UTC
Reading now :)

Burn the land and boil the sea You can't take the sky from me

#8 - 2012-11-18 22:28:58 UTC
Nerfing the reprocess thing should be the #1 top priority. ♥

I AM SPACE CAPTAIN REPPYK. BEWARE.

Proud co-admin of frugu.net, a French fansite about EVE !

Clockwork Pineapple
#9 - 2012-11-18 22:32:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Snow Axe
n/m

"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["

Goonswarm Federation
#10 - 2012-11-18 22:33:39 UTC
Only have time to skim it but my gut-check impression is that this isn't bad. I've got some issues with it. For example, compression nerfs should not happen until after framework is in place for local production. All too often, CCP nerfs something, promises a buff to offset, and that buff never comes. I'm also not a fan of the group mining thing either, but that's more because I'm skeptical about CCP being able to implement it and also deliver other revamps nullsec needs in a timely manner, as opposed to devoting 100% of dev time to "group mining", releasing it as a jesus feature, and forgetting about it.

Further elaboration will have to come later, I'm on my way out the door...

This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.

fofofo

New Eden Trading Company.
#11 - 2012-11-18 22:38:09 UTC
Snow Axe wrote:
Well, since it's too late to attempt to give any feedback on this document or even discuss it in any meaningful way, I have to ask: what's the point of this thread? This is the type of thread that should have been posted before it was submitted, to at least see if there's anything you may have missed, arguments about priority/etc, that sort of thing. Posting it after submission, let alone two weeks after submission, is kind of pointless, don't you think?

It's not too late, feedback away. Once we got the OK to do so, we felt it was important for transparency to let the players know what was done.

Alek the Kidnapper, Hero of the CSM

Goonswarm Federation
#12 - 2012-11-18 22:38:45 UTC
Snow Axe wrote:
Well, since it's too late to attempt to give any feedback on this document or even discuss it in any meaningful way, I have to ask: what's the point of this thread? This is the type of thread that should have been posted before it was submitted, to at least see if there's anything you may have missed, arguments about priority/etc, that sort of thing. Posting it after submission, let alone two weeks after submission, is kind of pointless, don't you think?


The point, I think, is to be more transparent and open about what the CSM is discussing with CCP.

Point out to me a person who has been harmed by an AFK cloaker and I will point out a person who has no business playing this game.” - CCP Soundwave

Clockwork Pineapple
#13 - 2012-11-18 22:40:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Snow Axe
n/m

"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["

Mercenary Coalition
#14 - 2012-11-18 22:41:19 UTC
Snow Axe wrote:
Well, since it's too late to attempt to give any feedback on this document or even discuss it in any meaningful way, I have to ask: what's the point of this thread? This is the type of thread that should have been posted before it was submitted, to at least see if there's anything you may have missed, arguments about priority/etc, that sort of thing.


No, this was done and submitted over a weekend. It is, as stated, a condensed version of many ideas that are discussed daily.

Snow Axe wrote:
Posting it after submission, let alone two weeks after submission, is kind of pointless, don't you think?


It's an FYI / transparency thing to the community to show the mindset of the CSM leading up to the December summit and let folks know what we are talking to CCP about. 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!

#15 - 2012-11-18 22:45:37 UTC  |  Edited by: GeeShizzle MacCloud
on the whole a good and concise document there guys!

echoing the concerns of others though is the suggestion of removing mineral compression. Although its an understandable angle to take on the problem its prone to being too hard a nerf that actually breaks the system the other way rather than pressuring players that partake in it to do things differently.

another way is to adjust fuel usage for jump freighters so that its economically less feasible to move low end minerals up from highsec even when compressed.

i am unsure how many jump freighter pilots have jump fuel conservation to 5 but i doubt its a large proportion of them. its less of a requirement for such pilots unlike jump drive calibration 5. Adjusting fuel requirements to jump a freighter into their respective nullsec destinations (say on average 1 full range jump) so that with jdc5 is only just on the cusp of profitability will help curb null sec populations usage of highsec low end minerals.

tldr: dont nerf compression, adjust JF's fuel requirements to full distance jumps to curb profitability on moving low ends into null.
#16 - 2012-11-18 22:48:41 UTC
Snow Axe wrote:
Well, since it's too late to attempt to give any feedback on this document or even discuss it in any meaningful way, I have to ask: what's the point of this thread? This is the type of thread that should have been posted before it was submitted, to at least see if there's anything you may have missed, arguments about priority/etc, that sort of thing. Posting it after submission, let alone two weeks after submission, is kind of pointless, don't you think?


This is what the CSM are elected to do. The contents of that document should be summation of everything they have learned of the player community's wishes for EVE's future throughout their term and everything leading up to it that got them elected. It is purpose of the CSM to listen and then speak on our behalf.

The transparency is that we are able to read it before the summit begins, so by all means feedback away.

http://uglebsjournal.wordpress.com/

The Jotunn Risi are now recruiting, Brutor ancestry required in order to best represent the Brutor interest.  Join channel JORIS to learn more!

Goonswarm Federation
#17 - 2012-11-18 22:55:18 UTC
GeeShizzle MacCloud wrote:
on the whole a good and concise document there guys!

echoing the concerns of others though is the suggestion of removing mineral compression. Although its an understandable angle to take on the problem its prone to being too hard a nerf that actually breaks the system the other way rather than pressuring players that partake in it to do things differently.

another way is to adjust fuel usage for jump freighters so that its economically less feasible to move low end minerals up from highsec even when compressed.

i am unsure how many jump freighter pilots have jump fuel conservation to 5 but i doubt its a large proportion of them. its less of a requirement for such pilots unlike jump drive calibration 5. Adjusting fuel requirements to jump a freighter into their respective nullsec destinations (say on average 1 full range jump) so that with jdc5 is only just on the cusp of profitability will help curb null sec populations usage of highsec low end minerals.

tldr: dont nerf compression, adjust JF's fuel requirements to full distance jumps to curb profitability on moving low ends into null.

You obviously do not get it. Mineral compression is less a matter of profit and more a matter of "it's the only way to do production on a meaningful scale in nullsec." Jacking up JF fuel prices does nothing to change that.

This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.

fofofo

Clockwork Pineapple
#18 - 2012-11-18 23:02:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Snow Axe
So I'm not a complete *******, here's some feedback.

It's mostly ok, as far as wish lists go. The real problem comes with the "nerf then proposed buff" cycle that corestwo hit on, that CCP tends to nerf first and figure things out later, and people get stuck with the consequences. The Drone Regions are a fine example of that - the nerf removed the drone alloys, which was needed, but the "buff" to bring the Drone Regions in line with the rest of conquerable space just hasn't happened, and the dwellers have suffered because of it (and potential conquerors go out the window).

An example in the doc of where this happens is the Mineral Compression section. The emphasis of it is on breaking compression to entice this sudden, new wave of miners to mine and sell locally, rather than mine and import to Jita for better rates, which a scant closing sentence to "revisiting" station upgrades. In this scenario, the revision to station upgrades (i.e. make them actually worth anything at all) is the most important part of the situation. Right now, anyone who mines in null exports their wares, as there's no real market for it in null, due to industry and building being nearly impossible to do on any scale. A large reason for this is the dearth of industrial facilities in null, and it creates a feedback loop - new miners may look to sell locally, realize there's no market, and then export (or just mine in highsec altogether, with the far smaller differences between highsec ores and nullsec ores isk/m3 wise), while new builders will consider setting up, realize there's no market for minerals along with terrible facilities, and just produce in Empire.

The way your paragraph on the topic is constructed, it sells mineral compression as a barrier to competition in null, rather than a result of null being completely unsuitable to the type of resource extraction that can happen in highsec. Mineral compression exists because mining in null simply cannot supply the lowend mineral demand in its current form. Only once that's actually been rectified, be it by changing ore structures in null/changing contents of grav sites and/or buffing the hell out of null's industrial capacity, can compression seriously be considered for removal. It's a means to an end and you've represented it as an actual barrier, when it isn't.

This may seem nitpicky, but remember that this document isn't just laying out facts to CCP, it's trying to sell them that what's presented is the way to go, and your presentation of core issues (or the lack thereof) leaves a LOT to be desired. You've proposed ideas, but completely failed to emphasize that the order of implementing said ideas is the real key, not just that they get implemented eventually.

So yeah, that's why it would have been a hell of a lot better to share this (or even a draft of this) with the players before submitting this to CCP.

"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["

The Mockers AO
#19 - 2012-11-18 23:09:07 UTC


Not finding anything profound in that document for myself.

It's a good document for those getting a handle on things and are totally out of the information loop.

POS' then Ring Mining then other little ****.

Along the way, give us a new Industry UI (FOR GODS SAKE) and then new Corporate Roles/Titles (you need this for better DUST integration, so I know it's coming.)

The SHINY stuff IS the old broken stuff at this point.

SHINY SOV SYSTEM! Is going to attract players.

SHINY POS SYSTEM! Is going to attract new players.

Those are in themselves amazing features that you can spin as brand new and creative products if you offer them up correctly.

Where I am.

Caldari State
#20 - 2012-11-18 23:15:35 UTC
It is weird that WIS is not mentioned at all.

Would be nice to see iteration or no iteration plan on it.

Burn the land and boil the sea You can't take the sky from me

13 Pages123Next pageLast page
Forum Jump