CSM 12 Summit 1: Minutes Discussion

csm

(yellow parasol) #102

No, i’m messing with nothing. You said your freedom of movement is affected and i pointed out, that it not only isn’t, but also that it could be even worse.

Furthermore are you somehow managing to completely ignore that you are a player in a game that’s made of capsuleers in ansociety of spacepeople.

I don’t know why I should get killed by factions other than I’m working with just because I’m shooting NPC pirates that interfere with their business.

When you shoot people, even npc people, it makes perfect sense that these people won’t like you anymore. Using “just because”, as if there was no in-game relevance behind what you’re doing, doesn’t change that it’s relevant for those you shoot down.

Now you know. You’re welcome! :blush:


(Jeremiah Saken) #103

Game of consequences would be joining pirate factions, have some sort of pirate FW against empires and have an impact on lowsec map. Artificialy locking me behind standings to make them more of a use is low.

True, and I should not be treated as Caldari for example but capsuleer, hired gun, mercenary and there is no such thing as we don’t like mercenaries, we pay them to do the dirty work.

but they do not like me, most of pirates hate me, but why faction police should shoot me because of that I still don’t know…


(yellow parasol) #104

(satire, humour)

i dont know either, but i believe everyone should just suffer for whatever they do to the poor, defenseless npc people, who get slaughtered IN THE MILLIONS, EVERY SINGLE DAY!

I have no idea what’s going on in the minds of the leaders of the empires. You can actually contact your empire’s official representative about it, and ask him! ((I have no idea how to find the name quickly, but it’s out there))

Sorry, but it completely breaks my immersion, that so many people get away so easily from slaughtering all these poor guys who never stood a chance! Don’t you ever feel that maybe you shouldn’t be attacking defenseless people, basically risk free?

:blush:


(Jeremiah Saken) #105

:grinning: I have -9.0 with BR I think, they should start droping cyno on me soon, with few titans… :wink:


(Benje en Divalone) #106

If you want players to come to the forums then CCP needs to make it the primary source of communications. None of this social media crap or obscured Slacks. Anything posted to Facebook, Twitter, etc. should point back to a topic started here.

While I’m at it, videos should always be transcripted. I don’t have the luxury to watch stuff at work and when I’m home I’m busy playing. I read a heck of a lot faster than somebody talking at me and I absorb the information better.


(Black Pedro) #107

I get your point of view and your desire to have access to everything with no trade-offs or consequences for you choices, but it really won’t cut you off from content. It will just force you to choose which empire you will support, and thus which empire doesn’t like you. Running the Amarr or Minmatar flavoured version of the same scripted content is the same after all.

I also get why CCP wants to make you deal with a trade-off and force you to make a choice. It is the recipe for a more engaging game and a more living universe.

You seemed perplexed as to why CCP would want to do this and I am telling you. Whether they will, can or even should is another issue, but why they want to do it is no mystery to me. Yes, there is a certain player who doesn’t like making choices or picking a side which will hate such a system that forces them to give something up in exchange for something else, but it will make for a more interesting and dynamic game.

Those aren’t consequences. That is just a boring grind you are describing. You lose nothing grinding up all factions, do not trade anything off against something else or are forced to accept consequences for your actions. You just get everything.

I agree you should have the freedom to play as you want but that doesn’t mean you are entitled to have everything. I think you should be able to be pretty neutral and friendly with each faction, but in that case your neutrality comes at the cost that none of them trust you enough for the best paying missions. If you want those, you have to pick one and ally with them and in the process, give up some access to the other factions.

I don’t think this is a radical idea and one CCP has expressed interest in. We’ll see if they ever get around to implementing it, but I see no reason why they shouldn’t other than some player mindsets won’t like it. Maybe that is enough to hold their hand, but I think it would definitely make for a more interesting game.


(Bjorn Tyrson) #108

you are trading time and efficiency, 2 things that are very important in a game like eve, it also forces people to get out of their home region and travel around. which in turn makes eve a more vibrant place.

you do loose standings no matter what you do, those are the consequences, but why should consequences be insurmountable? with enough time and effort why shouldn’t someone be able to mitigate the negatives? hell thats the entire point of the diplomacy skill.

in order to keep good standings with all 4 empires you need to actively handicap your mission running. that alone is a consequence. how many more should there be?


(Jeremiah Saken) #109

Dynamic gameplay by locking players in choosen empire space? Grinding mission would basically end like this. If I would lose standings towards I would choose not to the the content. Very immersive… I not against action without consequences, like losing security status but EvE is about player vs player interactions. Removing or constraining that ability will not end well. Why do you think cloak trick exists?


(Black Pedro) #110

Again that isn’t a consequence. At the end of the day, you have not had to trade anything off to gain access to all the content. You earned access to level 4s with one faction, then started working on a second, making sure to alternate so your standing never gets to low and so forth. Once complete, you have access to everything and lost nothing. I’ll grant you you spend a little more effort and time, but you still haven’t made a choice. You just get everything.

A trade-off would require you to choose one faction at the expense of another like when you join Faction War. You have to pick a side and live with those consequences. What your describing isn’t that. It is just juggling standings and max-mining to get everything.

I wouldn’t worry though, I don’t think CCP will ever throw out the current base standings system for current content. I might expect though that new PvE content might force you to make a real choice. I honestly don’t have strong feelings either way, I am just explaining to you the likely thought process of the game designer. Letting the players get everything means that getting everything is always the only optimal solution. Forcing them to pick a side sets up interesting choices and lays the groundwork for a more dynamic universe.

I guess it would be the end of grinding missions for you if you cannot handle having one of the numbers associated with your character go down. I don’t think they will ever do that by the way for current missions, but I don’t at all think it would be especially catastrophic to make you pick a faction to access some new PvE content in Empire space. Having more people picking a side and working for their faction might stimulate the game and make your feel more part of a living breathing universe.

It’s not my call, and I don’t really care that much, but I see where they are coming from and think it might be a good idea if done right. Providing a reward for picking a side and suffering the consequences of that choices seems to me like an interesting game mechanic. You should make your objections known to the CSM or CCP directly with reasons beyond “I don’t like it” or “I want access to everything” as to why it is a bad idea.


(Bjorn Tyrson) #111

let me try and explain things more directly for you.

option a) I don’t care about my faction standings, or i’m locked into a choice of only 1 faction.
I find an agent, I blitz them taking every mission thats available until the next one is unlocked, which gets me those 16 missions I need for a storyline mission faster. repeat, until I can run lvl 4’s. I then blitz lvl 4’s to my hearts content making that dank isk, as well as shooting up my faction standing lightning fast.

option b) I do care about faction standings.
I find an agent, run missions for them, I need to turn down RNG% of those missions because they are faction kill missions, if I get more than 1 in a 4 hour span (which happens a lot) I am then locked out of that agent for the remainder of the 4 hours and need to travel to a new agent.
every 16 missions I get a storyline mission, but RNG% of those are also faction kill. so need to be turned down. even once I get my faction standing high enough, I then need to travel to the opposing faction, and repeat the process, except I also need to repair the standings loss first. repeat for the other 2 factions, and even THEN once I go back to the original faction, I will need to run EVEN MORE missions, with the same handicap on what can be selected, just to repair the loss from the 2 opposing ones.
EVEN THEN I still cannot blitz missions forever, because I am still handicapped by needing to turn down faction kill missions if I don’t want to undo all of my work.

the consequence is in a massive increase in the amount of effort required, and the “reward” is simply being able to run high lvl missions in any area of space, at the permanent cost of needing to turn down RNG% of the missions you get offered.


(Gian Bal) #112

Sure CVA were in amarr FW for a while but you fail to realise that only 2 or 3 guys from CVA actively participated in helping amarr fight, 99% of CVA just went about their provi business as usual…


(Black Pedro) #113

Again that is not a real consequence. You suffer no negative effects. No trade-off has been made in regards to the game universe. You traded off some efficiency for access in how you got there I agree, but in terms of the game universe you have access to everything and lost nothing. You didn’t pick a side.

Maybe we are using these terms slightly differently. Let me rephrase then without using “trade-off” or “consequence”: I think picking a side should be rewarded more than remaining neutral to everyone. I think there should be a way to be rewarded more by pledging yourself to work exclusively for a faction and that decision means another faction doesn’t like you anymore. I also think you should not have to do this (an option for players like yourself and Jeremiah) so that all of them still like you, but that access and lack of backbone should come with reduced reward as compared to someone who has picked a side.

As it is, you and your friends-with-everyone system earn essentially the same income as someone who has gone all-in with one of the empires and is now hated by another. I think picking a side should be encouraged, so the game should reward that. Having players on sides sets up for a more interesting and interactive universe rather than everyone just choosing the optimal solution of being friends with everyone. Seriously, how many mission runners actually pick a side? I admit I don’t know many, but every one I have met goes with the juggling strategy (or at least the decline faction mission strategy) once they figure the concept of standings out because there is minimal advantage to annoying another faction but plenty of real downsides so almost everyone avoids faction missions.

TL;DR: There should be more advantages to annoying another faction to encourage people to pick sides.

I also think this all sounds good in theory and might be more tricky to bring into reality. I therefore don’t expect any major changes on the current standing system any time soon, if ever.


(Bjorn Tyrson) #114

This is incorrect, as I said, in order to maintain high standings, you need to turn down an RNG% of missions offered which are faction kill, turning down those missions can lock you out from an agent meaning you need to travel to a new one. all of which contributes to a lower ISK/HR than if you simply accepted and ran every mission you got offered. and depending on the area of space you operate in, your pool of available lvl 4 agents can be quite small, potentially resulting in you getting locked out of ANY missions for the remainder of the 4 hours. Travel time is one of the primary factors when it comes to ISK/Hr in blitzing, which is why most people who do blitz use ascendancy implants and hyperspatial rigs. needing to bounce around to different mission hubs, is all time spent not making isk. not to mention, it puts your shiny mission fit ship at risk of ganks as you travel.

there is an option for those who want to go “all in” and that is faction warfare, the missions pay better across the board, and many of them, even the lvl 4’s can be blitzed in a stealth bomber.


(Jin'taan) #115

Yeah because the vast majority of us don’t really identify with the fight - I do however spend the vast majority of my ingame time in either the FC position in Nullsec, or fighting in the war zone as they are the two activities I most enjoy in the game. I also actively led fleets of CVA in the WZ when Amarr got kicked out last time, and spent time learning the more strategic elements of the mechanics :slight_smile:


(Black Pedro) #116

Indeed there is and is exactly what I am describing. I guess you could say the design goal for new PvE should follow that model more and get players on sides, especially in highsec.

That seems perfectly fine strategy for CCP to follow to me. As I said multiple times I don’t think CCP will or should remove the current mission standings systems. But I do think that it would be more interesting if new content did indeed force you to make a choice and expect that some of it will.


(Benje en Divalone) #117

That may be what you want but is that what most people who run those missions want? Anecdotally it would be a severe QoL issue for most of the people I play with and in many cases being harassed by empire NPCs would be detrimental to their in game activities.

That question was posed in the Resource Wars topic and CCP confirmed that the standings changes only affect the corporation and not the faction.


(Jeremiah Saken) #118

You want to force players? In sandbox? To what purpose? Forcing players to choose side with npc faction to have more interactions between players?


(Black Pedro) #119

I don’t know. But what I am describing is what developers like CCP Affinity have articulated in the past.

Just because players “want” something doesn’t mean it is a good idea. The tough part for the game developer is not just to come up with interesting and compelling game play, but also convince players that their changes are good.

I think standings could be used to make the game universe more interesting and dynamic as does CCP. The real question is how to do it.


(Black Pedro) #120

Yes. Putting players on sides sets up opportunites for interaction and conflict and interesting dynamics in the game universe. I don’t want to force players to pick side, but I do think it would be better game play if the game was designed to reward and encourage choosing and defending a side.

It already does this to some extent. I think more of this would be beneficial. That doesn’t seem to me to be a radical position.


(Jeremiah Saken) #121

You still don’t get it. Force. Content that forcing me to do something is dead to me. It’s like forcing hisec players to do pvp. Dead end. Players should choose how do they want to interact with others not being forced to do so.