Jita Park Speakers Corner

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
13 PagesPrevious page1234Next pageLast page
 

EVE Online Development Strategy (CSM Public)

First post First post
Author
New Eden Trading Company.
#21 - 2012-11-18 23:15:36 UTC
Snow Axe wrote:
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.

This was simply not possible due to both the timeframe and the NDA. That is why getting feedback now is all the more important.

As to your point about the order of improving 0.0 industrial capacity and breaking mineral compression, you wont get any argument that mineral compression is the only way 0.0 industry can function right now. If that were to change, which is something i feel all three examples contributed to in a different way, there is no reason to keep mineral compression, and removing it would have the benefit of allowing local mining to thrive without old habits suppressing that activity.

So your point is well taken, but I don't think this document advocates anything but taking steps to fix 0.0 before ******* it.

Alek the Kidnapper, Hero of the CSM

#22 - 2012-11-18 23:16:38 UTC
corestwo wrote:
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.


well if its not profitability and more of a case of ease of movement, then nerfing movement is going to hinder movement of minerals IN nullsec not just from high to null.

what about the compression being a nullsec activity / only achievable in nullsec stations via a station service?
Clockwork Pineapple
#23 - 2012-11-18 23:21:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Snow Axe
edit: n/m, rather see discussion of the topic

"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["

#24 - 2012-11-18 23:34:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Raid'En
interesting.
However I'm sad thinking CCP would need 3 years to tackle all of these things :(
crucible, inferno and revelation made lots of good things come true, but I consider they don't deliver enough... mostly because what I really wait are what are written on this document ; sov remake, pos remake, and industry remake... and this incarna we're still waiting for also.
Mercenary Coalition
#25 - 2012-11-18 23:41:59 UTC
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!

Gallente Federation
#26 - 2012-11-18 23:43:12 UTC
I think you might find it more illuminating to focus on the first half of the document, which describes the problem (balancing the needs of current and potential players) and a proposed change in development strategy that addresses the problem. The second half are just examples that illustrate how that strategy could be applied.

While I'm sure we all can argue ad nauseum as to why our personal pet issue is the most critical and must be addressed ASAP, the key problem to my mind is finding a development strategy that addresses both CCP's business goals while at the same time providing the resources to address any of the critical issues.

tl/dr: focus on the forest, not on the trees (or the shrubberies).

Private Citizen • CSM in recovery

Shadow Cartel
#27 - 2012-11-18 23:44:48 UTC
Chitsa Jason wrote:
It is weird that WIS is not mentioned at all.

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


CCP Unifex gave the community an update on the future of Incarna back in October, here is the link so you can read the official statement from CCP on Walking in Stations / Walking in Space content.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary

#28 - 2012-11-18 23:53:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Grojar Flesp
Hi there,

Read the doc (well scanned it and read the interesting bits) and I have to say: "meh".

Tbh I can understand all the focus on 0.0 sec and sovereignty and such but for me? No, I don't care, I don't want to go to null sec, I am quite happy here in High Sec. There is a lot of stuff already going on in null sec so why focus on that even more?

Ok, so I have heard that a lot of nothing is going on in null sec as well. Ok, let's expand high sec towards low sec and low sec towards null sec. If you claim a sector, get your own sec status (positive, or negative, what ever you want). From a role-playing perspective I have always found it hard to believe that a successful corporation didn't expand into low sec and brought their own justice with them. Once the system had been populated (this doesn't have to be a single NPC corp, but could consist out of a conglomerate) then the security status could be transformed to high sec. Better even, let the NPC be owned by the players themselves.

Oh yeah, one of my major problems with this: "Don't tell me what to do, don't tell me to go to low or null sec, I don't wanna."

I consider myself a newb in most Eve things, but I enjoy the relative safety of High Sec, it suits me. Let me keep it that way.

Regards and all that sort of stuff.

Grojar Flesp
#29 - 2012-11-19 00:03:52 UTC  |  Edited by: GeeShizzle MacCloud
to be fair grojar the next expansion on dec 4th is full of stuff for people in highsec and lowsec, and not too much for nullsec... so yahh this doc may not be full of things for you specifically but thats because a lot of the good stuff thatd affect you is actually being finalised right now!
Goonswarm Federation
#30 - 2012-11-19 00:06:53 UTC  |  Edited by: corestwo
GeeShizzle MacCloud wrote:
corestwo wrote:
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.


well if its not profitability and more of a case of ease of movement, then nerfing movement is going to hinder movement of minerals IN nullsec not just from high to null.

what about the compression being a nullsec activity / only achievable in nullsec stations via a station service?


Dumb, since the point of compression is to get minerals there in the first place.

Frankly I disagree that it should be needed at all, even in the ideal scenario, but I'm posting from a phone and can't articulate my reasoning as easily; it'll have to wait.

E: to make it clear to people it may not be clear to, "compression" is building things like large guns with a high amount of minerals relative to their volume, not rorqual compression. Just to make the topic clear.

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

fofofo

#31 - 2012-11-19 00:25:07 UTC  |  Edited by: GeeShizzle MacCloud
corestwo wrote:
GeeShizzle MacCloud wrote:
corestwo wrote:

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.


well if its not profitability and more of a case of ease of movement, then nerfing movement is going to hinder movement of minerals IN nullsec not just from high to null.

what about the compression being a nullsec activity / only achievable in nullsec stations via a station service?


Dumb, since the point of compression is to get minerals there in the first place.

Frankly I disagree that it should be needed at all, even in the ideal scenario, but I'm posting from a phone and can't articulate my reasoning as easily; it'll have to wait.


The proposal is to remove compression all together (be it actual compression or compressed minerals in modules).

  • The argument for is that itd greatly increase the work for anyone moving low ends into null from high sec.
  • The argument against is that itd greatly increase the work for anyone moving minerals anywhere not just from high to null. and therefore will dis-incentivise the movement of minerals everywhere increasing work for ALL manufacturing. (regardless of where it takes place)


As far as i can see it this is essentially what it boils down to, PLEASE correct me if i am wrong here.

The current state of affairs in manufacturing is that most is done in highsec, some in null (mostly capital/supercapital). Movement of freighters is exceptionally risky in null and much less so in high. Hence the much higher use of jump freighters in null than regular freighters.

IF the aim of fixing this is to promote manufacture in null and curb the movement of low ends from high to null in jump freighters.....

.....then removing compression and increasing the size of items used to compress materials (ie 425mm rails) in high sec and allowing a better standard of compression of minerals in null (only in stations and not via rorqual compression) would mean:


  • highsec still has large volume transit with relatively little risk with high volume freighters.
  • The movement of minerals via jump freighters from high to null is reduced as itd take many more trips moving uncompressed low ends
  • The incentive of compressing in null for ease of movement in null to promote manufacture would occur.
Clockwork Pineapple
#32 - 2012-11-19 00:32:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Snow Axe
GeeShizzle MacCloud wrote:
The proposal is to remove compression all together.


And he's telling you that's a stupid approach to take, since compression is a symptom of the problem that supply can't be met in nullsec, not the other way around. Mineral importation of any form is only done because the supplies simply cannot be reliably sourced locally, and thus compression is used to optimize that process. Removing compression does nothing to solve the problem of low supply of minerals (esp. lowends) in nullsec while making things even harder for nullsec producers for no reason.

Suggesting removal of compression as a fix to anything would be akin to buying a bottle of cough syrup for someone with terminal lung cancer.

"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["

#33 - 2012-11-19 00:40:19 UTC
Snow Axe wrote:
GeeShizzle MacCloud wrote:
The proposal is to remove compression all together.


And he's telling you that's a stupid approach to take, since compression is a symptom of the problem that supply can't be met in nullsec, not the other way around. Mineral importation of any form is only done because the supplies simply cannot be reliably sourced locally, and thus compression is used to optimize that process. Removing compression does nothing to solve the problem of low supply of minerals (esp. lowends) in nullsec while making things even harder for nullsec producers for no reason.

Suggesting removal of compression as a fix to anything would be akin to buying a bottle of cough syrup for someone with terminal lung cancer.


LOL i can tell you dont read things through and just skim read as im NOT saying that i am in favour of the complete removal of compression altogether, its great when people quote you completely out of context, cause it just makes u look bad at arguments.

removal of compression altogether (as said in the doc that this thread is all about) is a BAD thing. it'll impact all manufacturing everywhere negatively. i am in fact NOT promoting this.
Clockwork Pineapple
#34 - 2012-11-19 00:48:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Snow Axe
GeeShizzle MacCloud wrote:
LOL i can tell you dont read things through and just skim read as im NOT saying that i am in favour of the complete removal of compression altogether, its great when people quote you completely out of context, cause it just makes u look bad at arguments.

removal of compression altogether (as said in the doc that this thread is all about) is a BAD thing. it'll impact all manufacturing everywhere negatively. i am in fact NOT promoting this.


You've been arguing the finer points of minerals moving to and from nullsec and how to make it harder since your first post in this thread, first with your JF fuel changes, your "maybe it can only be done in null" thing, etc. Even doing this shows you seem to be under the same mistaken impression as the CSM - that somehow mineral compression is even part of the reason that the supply of lowends is insufficient for large scale production in nullsec. What I've argued (and seemingly what corestwo has so far, though I don't presume to speak for him) is that this is false, and that focusing on compression as something that needs action one way or the other does a disservice to any attempt to actually fix the real problem with industry in 0.0.

Aleks posted earlier in the thread something along the lines of "when, and only when nullsec industry is fixed, then compression should be removed". What we're saying is that once nullsec industry is "fixed", you won't even need to remove compression as it won't be done anymore.

edit: I'll even go a step further as to why this is A Bad Thing. The fact that mineral compression even made the sort of narrow-yet-important scope of this document (think Mittani's "sucking chest wounds") is a sign that the CSM has a poor grasp on what the problems with nullsec really are. The fact that it got its own paragraph (in a category that referenced station upgrades, no less) should worry the hell out of anyone who actually expects effective representation of the game's 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["

Gallente Federation
#35 - 2012-11-19 01:48:00 UTC
Snow Axe wrote:
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:
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.


What "ok" are you talking about? You guys created this document yourselves and submitted it to CCP - are you seriously saying that the NDA is so restrictive that you can't even share things you haven't proposed to CCP yet?
I was going to point this out as well, but I second Snow Axe's question/astonishment.
Gallente Federation
#36 - 2012-11-19 01:51:57 UTC
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:
Snow Axe wrote:
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.

This was simply not possible due to both the timeframe and the NDA.
Your own wishlist on where you all think EVE should be heading is under NDA?

I'd better be careful posting about what I'd like to see out of EVE in the future. I could be sued.
Plucky Adventurers
#37 - 2012-11-19 01:59:54 UTC
The NDA argument is dumb. The point is not the legal details of what the NDA covers or doesn't cover. CCP asked us for the document, and releasing it to the public ASAP would have greatly hurt the discussion between us and CCP. We released the document as soon as we were able to do so without hurting the process.

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

#38 - 2012-11-19 02:01:09 UTC
I can see that no one in the CSM is actively involved in industry. Super yield mining? Create incentives for miners in null by increasing yield? Create incentives for miners in null by breaking mineral compression? Your super capital fleet addiction is showing.

Shiny things for new players: how about being able to set courier or "delivery of material" contracts with POCO hangars as the pickup or drop off? With the POS rework coming, it would be really nice to have POS hangars as pickup/drop off points too. Simple things like this will greatly enhance the prospects for people interested in space trucking as a career.

The article provided by the CSM is entirely too focused on sov holding in nullsec as the definition of what this game is about. Who will be the barbarians pillaging and razing your farms and plundering your fields? What incentives will there be for bitter vets who left the game due to the politics of nullsec to return? Any work on sovereignty has to include some means of ensuring that a small alliance with fewer than a thousand members can achieve something in nullsec. A force as small as fifty pilots in sub capitals should be a significant threat to any alliance.

Why aren't Incursions as good for nullsec income as they are for hisec income (you get 50% higher payouts in lowsec and null)? Why have wardecs reduced the risk of living in hisec? It was the barge buff which broke hisec ganking, not changes to CONCORD (the barge buff also impacted detrimentally on hisec mining income, BTW, but I see no complaint about that in the CSM paper). Gankers are still profitably ganking freighters in Uedama & Niarja. The nullsec bias and propaganda in this paper indicates to me that you folk should take a good hard look at the assumptions you make about the game and your perceptions of other players' motivations for playing.

The first two pages of this paper aren't particularly well thought out. What evidence do CCP or CSM have that new features attract new players? Haven't the numbers shown quite decidedly that new players are attracted by stories such as the GHSC assassination, the collapse of BOB, etc? Wouldn't Quality of Life and UI be the things that attract potentials? Where is the UI from so many teaser videos, CCP? You advertise using this holographic, animated UI, then saddle people with the 2D UI drawn on top of the 3D universe. I don't doubt that new/shinier/fixed stuff brings back lapsed players, much like new expansions bring back the "wonder what it is like now" crowd to most MMOs for however long it takes the novelty to wear off.

What I feel will attract more potentials is a more meaningful way to interact with people during the first few hours of play: a pilots lounge, a shared emoting space where you can be an actual person instead of a spaceship. Where is EVE's Ironforge or Dalaran? There need be nothing to do there other than see and be seen. Enhance the ability to be recruited right off the bat: allow for corporate uniforms (and corp/alliance logos in chat channel portraits) so new players can more easily appreciate that certain corps have more players active during their play time. The people who look at EVE and stay are comfortable with being a spaceship all the time. How many of the potentials who don't stay end up leaving because they want to have a person avatar? The future of Incarna is shooting in structures, but I really do wonder how much of an impact a space barbie play house will have on retaining new players.

The five pillars presented by the CSM are a very comfortable statement that CSM perceives CCP's current direction a seeing the right one. This direction is great for the moment, but CSM seems entirely blinkered in the mindset of nullsec sov holding alliances being the only place for players to go.

Not listed in the list of pillars is the invisible sixth pillar of communication. The massive face-saving that CCP did between Incarna and Inferno was as much due to CCP “lifting the skirts” as it was about the refocus on flying in space. There must be leaks from the skunkworks! CSM needs to keep reminding CCP that devblogs are appreciated (just as we players do too). Pushing the issue of e.g: defaulting dev posts to unflagged will enhance communication (and different flag colours for game devs vs community devs vs CSM vs ISD vs CCP Punkturis) will be iteration in the community & communication space.

Acknowledge that pillar so that you are reminded about communication yourselves, most silent of CSMs.
Gallente Federation
#39 - 2012-11-19 02:03:12 UTC
Two step wrote:
The NDA argument is dumb. The point is not the legal details of what the NDA covers or doesn't cover. CCP asked us for the document, and releasing it to the public ASAP would have greatly hurt the discussion between us and CCP. We released the document as soon as we were able to do so without hurting the process.
A much more reasonable explanation. Glad to see you not using the NDA as an excuse/weapon against communicating with the playerbase as Aleks and Hans so often do.
Clockwork Pineapple
#40 - 2012-11-19 02:05:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Snow Axe
edit: n/m, not gonna troll

"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["

13 PagesPrevious page1234Next pageLast page
Forum Jump