EVE Forums

 
Capture Portrait
  • Date of Birth: 2011-12-22 09:40
  • First Forum Visit: 2012-02-01 00:13
  • Number of Posts: 787
  • Bounty: 11,000,000 ISK
  • Likes Received: 0

Sugar Kyle

Security Status 0.5
  • Middle Ground Member since

Last 20 Posts

  • CSM X - Summit II in Council of Stellar Management

    Akrasjel Lanate wrote:
    Summit Minutes won't take long Blink


    Moving back to a multi month minute release to help stretch out the anticipation.

  • Faction Warfare and Citadels: Anchoring Discussion in EVE Gameplay Center

    Oreb Wing wrote:
    vov It's eve. We like to make people lose things..

    Besides. I still think the proliferation of these things is a detriment to FW, in that it introduces a foreign structure that completely ***** on home field advantages. Why should we even have docking restrictions with these present? A tower always created a kind of sadistic convenience; pos are hard to use and quickly ship out of in comparison to a station, which this thing is superior to in every way. Not integrating them into the body of FW, as I've said, makes them arbitrary and something of a nuisance. They will completely ruin the importance geography plays in war. That is a bad thing that reduces content quality and diversity. Sacrificing strategy and tactful thinking for the sake of new stuff is not good. Why can't you see that?



    This is why I am looking for discussion both for and against or just in general about these structures. I brought up the docking restrictions in the warzone and that a Citadel is a bit different from a POS. However, currently people can drop and stage from a POS. The take down mechanics are significantly different but are they different enough to warrant exemptions. In wormhole space the movement, access, and usage was enough.

    Citadel are a game wide change. I could very well stand nose to nose with the development team and say "No!" That does not mean they will go, "Okay." I also look at what can be done to put these in the best place for FW when they do come.

  • Faction Warfare and Citadels: Bonuses in EVE Gameplay Center

    LP taxes to corporations and alliances have been discussed with CCP. Both will require an extensive rework of the lp store and lp distribution system. While that would be lovely, and the current state of the LP store has been extensively discussed, taxing LP is out of the scope of these structure changes.

  • Faction Warfare and Citadels: Bonuses in EVE Gameplay Center

    Bienator II wrote:
    if ccp decides to give structures a FW bonus please make sure that it only applies to structures whose owner is in FW. Last time this could not be done because of legacy code but luckily the structures are all new code now.


    That is my goal. That the bonuses would be for those who own the warzone.

  • Faction Warfare and Citadels: Anchoring Discussion in EVE Gameplay Center

    May Arethusa wrote:
    By limiting L and XL citadels, we retain the ability to use mediums and smalls as FOBs for system pushes, and provide corporations and alliances with an official home along with significant benefits for holding onto it.


    Just tossing in that there are no small citadels. Small structures are our current deployables.

  • Faction Warfare and Citadels: Anchoring Discussion in EVE Gameplay Center

    Oreb Wing wrote:
    Sugar Kyle wrote:
    Oreb Wing wrote:
    Have them become the structure hub we have to destroy for occupancy to trade hands. This would limit how many there will be and how central they are, or when they can become vulnerable to attack. I did not read anything on where exactly these are going to be allowed to anchor or how ownership is determined. By Corp would make the best spread. I cannot see how a large number of these in low can be good for FW..


    They can be anchored anywhere.

    They are owned by corporations but will have more granularity. They can also be made public for docking and use of the market and other services.



    What is the delay for reputation changes? From public to non, for example, and will assets be forfeit? Can they be un-anchored? Will owners of assets be informed when these changes occur?


    The asset safety mechanics wrap your stuff up and ship them to a NPC station. You do get a notice. You can in some way do this on demand. The standings will probably hit as normal but I'm not 100%. You won't be forfeiting your stuff but you will/can be inconvenienced.

  • Faction Warfare and Citadels: Anchoring Discussion in EVE Gameplay Center

    Oreb Wing wrote:
    Have them become the structure hub we have to destroy for occupancy to trade hands. This would limit how many there will be and how central they are, or when they can become vulnerable to attack. I did not read anything on where exactly these are going to be allowed to anchor or how ownership is determined. By Corp would make the best spread. I cannot see how a large number of these in low can be good for FW..


    They can be anchored anywhere.

    They are owned by corporations but will have more granularity. They can also be made public for docking and use of the market and other services.

  • Faction Warfare and Citadels: Bonuses in EVE Gameplay Center

    Hi again,

    The structure revamp is well on its way and we are looking to see Citadel enter the game next year. I'd like your thoughts on a few things regarding potential bonuses that could be connected to warzone control.

    (I am writing a separate post to discuss Citadel anchoring in the warzone)

    Over the last two years, Faction Warfare has lost several bonus aimed at improving the quality of life of a Militia Pilot. The removal of clone costs for instance. With the arrival of Citadel, I feel that we are in a position to look into recreating bonuses to the Militia Pilot for living in their space. What I am looking for is a list of potential bonuses to structure owner's with warzone control.

    A simplest example is: a fuel consumption bonus so that the structure consumes less fuel.

  • Faction Warfare and Citadels: Anchoring Discussion in EVE Gameplay Center

    Hi some more,

    The structure revamp is well on its way and we are looking to see Citadel enter the game next year. I'd like your thoughts on a few things regarding anchoring and warzone control.

    (I am writing a separate post to discuss Citadel bonuses in the warzone)

    Citadel, unlike POS, can be docked at. They can be taken down but the system will be a bit different from POS. (Please check the dev blog: Citadels, Sieges and you v2)

    Along with changes to attack, XL Citadel will be able to house supers. While capitals are changing in the future (Please see the dev blog: Reworking Capital Ships: And thus it begins!) this is still a big change in how forces will potentially be able to attack in the future.

    I feel that the ability to dock in the new structures creates a different situation than POS does when it comes to fleets having a safe retreat or a base of attack. I'd like to gather your opinions on the topic.

  • Cargoholds, Ships, and Capital SMAs in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Removing some of the SMA restrictions came up at the round table in Vegas. We'll continue to follow up with it and I am sure that it will come up again as part of the Capital Focus Group that CCP Larrikin is creating.

    Removing the contraband restrictions on boosters is one of the things I have pushed for. I have no idea how much headway I've made but hopefully!

  • Dev Blog: Exploring The Character Bazaar & Skill Trading in EVE Information Center

    Can't say I like it. Ive been against it since it was presented.

    This is supposed to be a predecision discussion as I have understood it. Please make your opinions known.

  • In Response to Sugar Kyle - Highsec development in EVE Communication Center

    Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:
    Anize Oramara wrote:
    (...)

    PvE players don't want to PvP or they would be PvPing.

    (...)


    Exactly. And yet when CCP adds new PvE (Burners) they do so in ways that would force PvErs to PvP (wormholes, lowsec...).

    Sometimes it's not that CCP doesn't does something, but that what they do doesn't makes sense from players perspective.


    How do burner missions force you to go to low sec and wormholes to PvP?

  • In Response to Sugar Kyle - Highsec development in EVE Communication Center

    Liberty Belle wrote:
    How about fixing the god awful corp interaction/permissions as soon as possible? How about expanding ways to collaborate both in corp and with individuals? There are plenty of opportunities being held back, particularly industry as I see it. I don't want to sound ungrateful as CCP has made a remarkable shift to improve in all areas from a few years ago, but just the same I've never truly felt like my sandbox has ever fully materialized. I just wonder if it ever will.


    Considering that is on the roadmap including a post by CCP Punkturis who is part of the team working on corporations, I'm a bit puzzled. Corporations are one of those all areas of space things. That's why I asked about high sec focused change.

  • In Response to Sugar Kyle - Highsec development in EVE Communication Center

    I'm the one who wrote the blog that spawned the thread so I guess I'll chime in with the original goal.

    I stepped back from the whats and whos of ganking and this space and that space and this nerf and that buff and simply wanted to know what is the development that people are looking for in high sec when they say 'high sec has been ignored'.

    A lot of changes that have come across effect all areas of space. But I will then see, "high sec has been ignored" or "when will it be time for high sec to get attention."

    I'd like to know what that attention is supposed to be. What is that development? What are high sec players waiting for CCP to produce for them? What is Eve Online: High Sec the Expansion supposed to be about? Its theme? Its content?

    When I first ran for the CSM I had a very clear idea of needs and problem areas in low sec. Over the last year and a half I learned more of them in low and in other areas of the game. Yet, I don't seem to understand those pain points for high sec. At least not by what people tell me. I have no hate for high sec. I've never picked up a 'nerf high sec' pitchfork or worn a complimentary 'burn high sec to the ground' t-shirt.

    I also addressed missions in my original wall of text because missions are a very common request. However, thanks to decisions at Eve's birth, missions require a lot of time and energy. The PvE team has been working on the AI which will soon bring up roving NPCs and head into NPC events and interactions. The idea expressed was not to remove PvE but to take future PvE into a more dynamic phase that uses the new tools built. This leaves the old mission content for those that like the old mission content and introduces new content that will not just stagnate because you still do it 100 times.

    That stagnation is a problem with missions. Or is it? That's been a very mixed point as well. Adding another room or redoing the text will entertain you for how long? Unfortunately, the PvE team is one group of developers and when we are asking them to focus on things to improve Eve that fact does not go away. I'd love us to have infinity number of developers allowing us to have infinity dreams, but we don't. People will not want to hear that but I'm dealing with the reality of the situation and seeking potential pathways for the future.

    It may be that people want missions. I've been dazed by the response and I've told the PvE team that I will be gathering the data and seeing what is said. Maybe that data will say people want missions over anything else.

    The arguments over what high sec is, its place in Eve, and the evolution of the sandbox and game society are all fascinating. There is a constant push and pull when it comes to this topic and what people should or should not be doing. Thank you for the in depth discussions.

  • In Response to Sugar Kyle - Highsec development in EVE Communication Center

    Thanatos Marathon wrote:
    Increase the strength of the faction police to help protect nubbin FW pilots.
    Reduce incursion payouts by 50% and replace that faucet somewhere else in game.


    Working towards that goal.

  • Data Site Improvements in EVE Gameplay Center

    The modules are being rebalanced as they go through the sets they belong to.

  • Data Site Improvements in EVE Gameplay Center

    Muahhaha!

    Aww yisss

  • CSMX - SUMMIT I in Council of Stellar Management

    Freelancer117 wrote:
    Monday:

    Meeting with CCP’s CEO

    One would expect a meeting with CCP games lead game designer and / or executive producer since they are the ones that are more closely tight into the games development, or does the current CEO have a larger presence in the games design ?
    source: http://www.ccpgames.com/en/company/management


    Why does the Company insist on the idea that "day one" characters can influence null sec sovereignty system ?
    The Entosis link only requires a T1 frigate and Infomorph Psychology 1, is this a directive from upper echelon management ?


    Can you ask CCP Scarpia and CCP Seagull to be step up their messaging effort on the forums to reply to queries and views from the company's customers. Because it's very silent on the other side and replacing reddit for the official eve online forums as a platform is non-logical.

    source:
    https://forums.eveonline.com/profile/CCP%20Seagull (last post a year ago !)
    https://forums.eveonline.com/profile/CCP%20Scarpia (total of 2 forum posts, last one 10 months ago !)

    Regards, a Freelancer


    That meeting is Tuesday morning.

  • Stepping into Faction Warfare in EVE Gameplay Center

    Thank you for all the thoughts and feedback. Now I get to do the glamorous job of pouring this all into a singular document for CCP. :)

  • Stepping into Faction Warfare in EVE Gameplay Center

    Silverbackyererse wrote:
    Good luck with this mate. And congratulations on getting what I reckon is the first and only sticky I've ever seen in this section of the forums. Blink

    What do CCP envisage for a FW newbie? Hopefully it's not the quadruple warp core stabilised ship farming novice complexes. Blink Tell us what they are aiming for and maybe we can help. Otherwise it's all just lip service.


    Perhaps CCP need to provide a lot more information or links to information about faction warfare first up on the enlistment page.
    Expanding the rules of engagement could use a lot more information also.
    To put this into context, our corporation bulletins have more relevant info that a new bro would find about FW than CCP provide via in game sanctioned methods.


    Make it easier for new bro's to find a new-bro friendly corporations. Expanding the corporation recruitment ads could facilitate this. Include a check box for newbie friendly and the faction. Add a MOTD in the NPC chat channels directing newbies to these corporation ads might work perhaps? Make it easier for the new player to get out of the NPC corporations where they will always be met with suspicion and prejudice.



    EDIT : - Please don't dumb FW down by aiming to please the lowest common denominator!


    I understand your request but that is not the direction that I will find what I need. I need to know what is needed jow and what pain points there are. I don't need people to temper and try to design it. I need them to share what is said and heard and expierence from logging in each day.

Forum Signature

Member of CSM9 and CSM10.