CSM 12 Summit 1: Minutes Discussion

csm

(Steve Ronuken) #41

I’ve spoken with the UI team a few times about this.

It’s all just about time. Some of them have the RSI induced by setting up new planets and would quite like to do something about it. Ask me for anything but time.


(Circumstantial Evidence) #42

so much difference between “a week” and per day, I thought surely an error. You would like to see these vulnerable to attack, essentially all the time? what is the difference between 16 hours and just saying “24”? Allowing 8 hours designated gunners might have per day to sleep? Seems extreme, is all.


(Jin'taan) #43

I fully believe that being able to choose the two later timers is easily enough of a defenders advantage, especially when combined with the tactical advantages Citadels provide - even Refineries. I was more placing my point down as sharply as I could, take a look at the Structures notes for more depth.


(Circumstantial Evidence) #44

On PI - this wouldn’t take much dev time: I would like CCP to start calling the feature “Planetary Industry” because “Planetary Interaction” is a description of game mechanics. The current official name does not fit in the character of a player.

CCP originally spent art time creating 3D objects to represent the structure pins, but we only get to see them as holographics floating above the pins. (Sometimes blocking my view, when attempting to micromanage nudging pins as close together as possible.) It is sad we can’t see any representation of structures on the surface and have been stuck with simple pins and lines since the feature was introduced. AND game designers keep adding more and more demand to use the system, to build new items.


(DrButterfly PHD) #45

How does making systems easier to defend/harder to capture, and making FW difficult for newer players and smaller gangs reward the pirates?


(Jin'taan) #46

It’s encouraging people to fight by making leaving the complex not the optimal way to discourage roaming groups - It makes holding your ground and fighting the optimal solution. I disagree that running away and denying content to your enemies should be something that, in a game, we encourage. I think the 3-4 frigs vs 20 Cruisers is an extreme example, look more to 1 on 1’s for example. If you know the pirate isn’t looking to run the complex down, the best solution is for you to safe up and wait for him to move on, rather than fighting him. That’s bad game design IMO.


(DrButterfly PHD) #47

1 v 1s is something than happens very rarely and even when it does, its normally bait vs 1. A large priate gang rolling through the system you’re trying to capture happens several times an hour during peak play time.

This change wouldn’t force fights - people are always going to run from fights they can’t win - but it will have other (bad) consequences like those I outlined.

Encouraging fights means making it easier for people to have fair(er) fights and making it easier for people to replace ships they will lose. Cheap fully-fitted t1 frigates on lp stores would be one way to do that.


(Circumstantial Evidence) #48

CCP Larrikin asked the CSM what they thought if structures didn’t have the ability to use a scramble and point. There were several proposed options.

I wonder if one of the suggestions (that I wish were transcribed in the minutes,) was to remove auto-repeat from the module. This would allow the targeted player a chance to escape, before the gunner clicks the button to re-activate it. I don’t imagine CCP would want to increase development complexity by adding the option to incapacitate the module (although it would be a “POS parity” feature, to enable incapacitating structure weapons during a siege.)


(Jin'taan) #50

:thinking:


(Mina Sebiestar) #51

Rhiload asked about the Ships and Balance team, and how that is coming along. CCP
MrHappy explained that previously Team Size Matters was a monetization team, but now
development is moving towards a model of having all the teams be mindful of
monetization, and that Team Size Matters is transitioning to a gameplay team again. Final
details on that change and the ships and balance team are being worked out as the decision
to form it was made just before summer vacations.

What does mindful of monetization means,specifically how it ties up with balancing game play and ships?

Is monetization becoming bigger focus with spreading it across all teams or smaller?

Does CCP have time table of containing plex hoarding or just talk at this time?

More of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L24hGLbmNrw
this doesn’t spur game back to life you guys know this …right?


(DrButterfly PHD) #52

5-6pm EVE time on a weekday (that screenshot is Friday 8th September). We obviously play in very different timezones.

Also, doesn’t that prove that, for some timezones at least, it’s already easy to get 1v1 fights? So why the change needed?

I now understand why you’re pushing for this though - you’re not a FW pilot. You get to happily dock in any station in the warzone and aren’t directly affected by these changes yourself. If the CSM and CCP want to improve FW and make it more accessible to new players, they should talk to FW players about what makes FW enjoyable and easy to play.

Off topic: Where were CVA later on that Friday when we popped into Providence by the way?


(Jin'taan) #53


(Jin'taan) #54

To further encourage it, and nerf stabbed plexing, which is - in my opinion - a bad mechanic as it’s difficult to interact with and doesn’t provide any content to the game.

Actually CVA has been a part of FW for long stretches (6+ months) on my insistence, we only dropped recently due to the fact that PL is actively attacking us in Providence and we need our logistics route to there to be as clear as possible. I don’t think if you asked most FW players (having talked to plenty myself) they’d agree with you on the fact that rabbit plexing is what they enjoy.

No clue, I don’t FC small gang defence, I mostly focus on the strategic aspects of that.


(DrButterfly PHD) #55

I’ll tell you: they were docked up.

Now, if we really want to encourage more fights how about a mechanic where roaming null gangs can eject nullbears from stations. Or how about remove all stations and structures from null entirely? Then you’d really get some fights in there.

As a FW player, I wholehearted think that’s a great thing to do to null.


(Jin'taan) #56

Giving ratters a reason to undock and fight roamers would be a great addition to the game and something the CSM has also repeatedly requested. This is a consistent philosophy.


(DrButterfly PHD) #57

Well, that’s good to hear. But would you support a change designed to do that, which as a null player you knew would have a negative impact on null space and probably wouldn’t lead to more fights anyway?

I really don’t think it’s possible to force people to fight, you have to instead create opportunities for those that want to, and make it easier for them to get back out there after they go boom.


(Jin'taan) #58

I disagree that the impact this change would have is negative, for the reasons I’ve expressed earlier in this thread. Interaction is the most important part of EVE, and incentivising that should be a priority in game design.


(Circumstantial Evidence) #59

Jin’taan asked if Tech Co could increase the number of contact slots available to an alliance. CCP Larrikin replied that it should actually be an issue for Five-0.

More than just contact slots, I would like the ability to append a short note with every contact standing change. Why did xyz corp get set +5? Why was xyz corp set -5, three days later?


(DrButterfly PHD) #60

So, imagine the scenario. You’re sat in a site and you see an enemy on d-scan. You’re a relatively new pilot in a relatively cheap ship and your experience of FW so far tells you that even if this enemy is on their own, you’re going to lose this fight. You have two options:

  1. You can run away. Choose this option and you survive and frustrate your enemy, but the timer on your site will start to tick back in the other direction, even though the enemy is not a FW pilot or if that enemy pilot leaves the site.

  2. You can stay and get blown up in a few seconds. Again, the timer on the site will roll back after you die, but this time you have to go away and re-ship, so it’ll take longer for you to get back into the site after the enemy leaves and stop the timer ticking.

Which option would you choose?

If you really want timers to run back down, just join FW and the timers will run back down so long as you are in the site. Why should you get to run timers down and influence the site when you’re not even there; this isn’t moon mining. We should force the attacker to stay in the site if they want to influence the timer, giving the defender the option to come back with friends and re-take the site.


(Corraidhin Farsaidh) #61

I’d like to see PI reworked to use citadel like planetside structures with modules for factories/extractors/ storage etc. This would be as part of a full rework though.