Cornak4CSM2k19: Vote Cornak for CSM14

Couple of questions:

I enjoyed watching the AT but I wouldn’t claim it’s a core part of the EVE experience. I absolutely adored the 2v2 EVEsterdam tournament. Regarding the AT I’d say it was enjoyable by a minority, almost hardcore, group. Do you have the login vs viewing figures to prove this wrong?

Botting wise: It looks like a labour intensive process to ban botters without collateral damage (resulting in even more CCP manpower problems). Do you have any ideas for features that would improve the ability of players to deal with the botting menace? For example, I’d like to see an “hours active in the last 48” stat on every players Info screen. It’s an opsec nightmare but would you support something like this and support the diversion of resources from other development to see it happen?

What’s your reasoning for CCP wanting to make specific ships OP? There have been times of balance in EVE, the issues mainly stem from one ship being slightly better than the rest, so everyone starts flying that. EVE is a game of numbers, and having a 5% advantage means you’re going to fly the ship that gives you that advantage 100% of the time. And because you don’t need to reroll a new character like you do in other MMOs, instead just needing to train the skill, it’s a lot easier to get into that slightly OP ship. This creates a situation where, within the space of a month or so, every major alliance will start flying anything that is remotely better than anything else. Thus, it becomes a very difficult balancing act, which is why the whole game is so hard to balance, and why I’d like to see the shorter balance cycles to compensate.

I would like to see your logic behind the assertion that CCP is directly intentionally making these ships OP though.

I can’t really provide any specific login stats that correspond, since it’s tough to determine why people are joining EVE without CCP data. That being said, anecdotally, there’s a whole lot more viewers than players in the AT. The stream gets thousands of people, and I know most alliances tend to have a whole lot of people on mumble in their viewing channels. It gives people something to rally around and show off alliance pride, and I think that’s very fitting with EVE’s nature. Beyond the thousands of viewers, there’s also always a ton of people in chat who have never played EVE before and start asking about it.

So far they seem to be underbanning rather than overbanning, erring on the side of not getting collateral damage as you put it. Dudes who are ratting 23/7 get banned a lot faster, just because that’s an easy one to spot. Therefore, I’m not sure that providing those activity numbers would help a whole lot, and it would take a ton of dev time and give out a load of free intel not directly related to botting. One of the reasons I’m so in favor of CCP cracking down on the corps and alliances that harbor bots is because it reduces dev time needed. If you hit the issue at the source instead of playing whackamole on the symptoms, it’s suddenly a whole lot easier to deal with the problem. If bots can’t easily worm their way into various null alliances, that’s a massive section of prime botting space they’re cut off from.

History itself doesn’t count? I don’t need a citation for talking about actual EVE history. Unless you can somehow prove that there hasn’t always been an OP ship. I rougly remember a time when minmatar were called “winmatar” because the whole race was the top dog.

I remember the drake being OP for a long time, I think when I’ve started. It’s a fading memory. Some drone boat a few years ago, but I forgot which one. I remember the rifter being the king of frigates.

I specifically remember the svipul being OP. The gila being OP. Never really looked at the frigate PvP scene any deeper, gotta admit. There has always been at least one OP ship people use and flock towards, until eventually they nerf it, just to make another ship OP.

The conclusion is mine, sure, but believing that they’re doing everything intentionally - including the Rorqual’s OPness in regards to mining - is what makes sense, compared to believing that CCP has no actual clue about what they’re doing.

You’re right, I’ve just rambled on on about the same thing, basically. That it’s extremely hard convincing people of the idea that CCP is intentionally doing what they’re doing. I believe it would be beneficial for everyone, because perspectives would shift away from “opposition” towards “understanding”.

Ha, wow, I kind of ■■■■■■ that post up.

My bad. Thank you.




That might as well be the sole reason. What else can you come up with, when they’re doing it literally every balance pass? It’s been like this since probably forever.

https://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=510643&page=9

Back in older days they’ve buffed and nerfed whole races, probably because they felt that population numbers were out of balance. That’d be a really good reason to buff/nerf whole races, because people will switch towards those.

If I knew how to search this kind of information on zkill, I’d be happy. :slight_smile:

Yeah, it also gives new players (or people talking to new players) the idea of skilling for these ships, because they’re the strongest. Something many people naturally flock towards. For nullsec I remember tengu fleets and cane fleets. People use what they can, and tinker with what they have until someone finds a way to use a ship to it’s best of abilities.

How long did they wait until they nerfed wrecking balls and slowcats ?
Or Slippery Pete?

I’m writing them as my memory spits them out. Appears to be complicated searching for “OP” ships etc specifically, but it works out roughly. Why would you think what they’re doing isn’t intended?

Remember when the pancake got released? The whole line of Mordus’ ships was OP. The most likely reason I can see, is plain simply that OP ships are going to be used, so they’re also going to be built and seeded on the market. Really beneficial for new ships especially.

It’s not really my logic. I’m trying to just look at what they’re doing and try working with that.

I believe I’ve answered your query?

1 Like

This week’s post, featuring the latest news from CCP Peligro.

3 Likes

Cool story. And why are you still frenemies with Goons, who arguably harbor a crap ton of bots? Nothing but empty words.

The other big side of it is the public shaming aspect.

Then start shaming your frenemies. They got the most big ships destroyed during the Yulai Colosseum (and this and this).

Speaking of which: What is your stance on this installment. Do you agree there should be more Yulai Colosseums where bots are being publicly lynched by other users? Dumb twitter posts that no one sees are one thing. Actual fun at destroying bot users in EVE in space is a lot more satisfying.

1 Like

Oh come on . . .ask me that one.

m

I have, this whole post is inspired by a public CCP callout of Goons and Frat for having the most bots in their rental alliances. That’s the entire reason it exists in the first place. The Yulai Colosseum is not a representative sample of the number of bots, and I would caution you from using that logic. The stats released by Peligro are however.

And yeah, I’m a fan of public CCP action towards bots. It’s important to be clear on exactly what’s ongoing though so that people don’t misinterpret it as representative.

You have not. You have not called out Goons or even FRT a single time directly. :smiley: Public shaming, start with it.

Again, PBLRD and Frat Treasury are the rental alliances for Goons and Frat, and represent a substantial portion of the most recent 600 bans, meaning up to a third of the membership of those alliances is banned right now. I specifically cited this in that post.

1 Like

This week’s post: Lowsec and FW

Join the faction warfare committee discord https://discord.gg/4Cs8nM

If CCP were to table a motion that made a playstyle completely obsolete, would you challenge that even if you disagree with the playstyle and, if so, how?

On a similar vein, you say you have experience in high sec - what are your views on high sec ganking. Should any further mechanics be brought in or are miners protected too much already?

It would have to depend on the playstyle. If I think something is a net negative for the game, I’m not going to advocate for it. I think removing the helicopter dick across EVE using office death clone cynos was a bad playstyle, and therefore would not defend it. If, on the other hand, you mean a playstyle my personal gameplay is negatively affected by, then yeah, I’ve been pretty vocal about my willingness to advocate for it there. A significant chunk of my platform would weaken my alliance, that doesn’t mean it’s not good for the game as a whole. Ultimately, what’s good for the game is good for everyone playing it in the long run, because with no game, your alliance or corp or gameplay style does not exist.

I think ganking is a pretty key part of EVE, and a representation of the best type of clever use of game mechanics. I don’t think it’s in a bad place at current, and I would not nerf it. Related to it, however, I’d like to see the bumping timer that CCP had talked about a while back implemented, as being bumped for 20 odd minutes is not fun for anyone involved. If you can’t get enough dudes on target to gank something in a few minutes then you need better planning, not to trap the dude there for ages.

Two new bits of media:

First off, my nullsec examination: https://www.voteforcornak.com/latest-news/2019/6/9/nullsec-a-detailed-examination

Second, my TiS interview is out: https://www.talkinginstations.com/2019/06/csm14-cornak-firefist/

The Jin interview should be out later today, as in Sunday.

Here it is now! Good luck next week, and thank you for spending the time to talk to me;

1 Like

Just heard your interview and have a follow up question.

With the focus on LP in FW, how do you see corps and alliances ability to make money when it is untaxable?

2 Likes

Oh man, yeah this was one of the biggest struggles when we were in FW. The only easy way we found to get income was a corp LP buyback, which is a whole lot of work and tough to pull enough income to operate a corp from. Even going into it, talking with the militias, it was one of the first things they warned us about. In general, corps to have lower incomes and higher costs than people expect, so when it’s amplified by the issues FW has with corp income, it’s an even bigger problem.

Moons are a traditional place for corps and alliances to pull in money, but in lowsec, FW included, they tend to be occupied by pirates who are much stronger than the alliances in FW. Taxes are another big anchor of most areas, but because most income for FW pilots comes from LP, the isk is not exactly high.

The solution that seems the easiest to implement is essentially an LP tax, functioning much like how ratting taxes do currently, where a share of the LP gain is put into a corp LP account. I am not a dev for EVE, and cannot say this with any certainty, but to me this seems like the easiest to implement given the simplicity of the concept. Once in the account, LP could be cashed out using corp isk/hangars. While this would ordinarily be a burden, as seen with ESS in null, in FW, most corp officers will be cashing out LP anyways, and therefore it would not add much additional workload. Theoretically, this could also mean corps could contribute to ihub upgrades. This is of course, very dependent on how easy those mechanics would be to implement, and I could see it needing to instead be done in a broader revamp of corp mechanics, which is something EVE desperately needs.

This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.