CSM 14 Second Summit Meeting Minutes


Greetings,

The Second Summit Meeting Minutes have been finalized and are now available for download by clicking on this link. Please use this thread for general comments about the format of the minutes and its content.

Anyone who would like to chat with other pilots about specific sessions, either to provide more ideas or to share their point of view, is encouraged to create a separate forum thread in the CSM Jita Park section.

6 Likes

lol read that as “14 second summit meeting”

oh, and
FIRST! :grin:

5 Likes

Yikes. Ready the popcorn.

You mean the Brisc lead Summit , right?

While I appreciate the hard work both CCP and the CSM are doing to improve the game, somethings really struck me as being off.

Claiming that the nerfs were to “Fix capital balance with sprinkling of subcapital work.” Sprinkling…*snort

That every perspective on needed changes and balances were viewed from being NS (or LS /WH); which is not surprising since everyone outside of Steve on the CSM are affiliated in some ways with NS. Sad to see almost all examples used were about the effects on spaces outside of HS. What are the percentage of players per sec levels currently in the game?

That Olmeca Gold states that the goal of non consensual PvP is to lead to consensual PvP and that PvE is a no risk endeavor. That CCP needs to add rewards and tools for the PvP hunters. Good look selling that to most HS players.

Was glad to Dirk call out CCP for their lack of communication in the past. NPE has improved and reversed the player decrease. Overall there seemed to be a CCP refocused and with a certain goals set forth. The CSM seemed to be fully engaged, although I wish that both them and CCP would imagine what any planned effects would have outside of NS. However, has not that always been the case?

6 Likes

:red_circle:

An idea to increase the stakes when attacking citadels could be a claimable token worth a certain amount of ISK available upon destroying the structure. The token would also be required for anchoring,cannot be removed without de-anchoring the citadel,andit would prevent structure spambecause clearing unused structures now becomes lucrative.

What a load of rubbish. Citadels already give you in the hundreds of millions in reward for their destruction in the form salvage and loot. All this would do is create more frustration.

Incursions … A suggestion was to flag players running them as suspects.

That worked so well for Abyssal traces that CCP had to remove the flag so that people would run them at all. Good idea. You can already blap these incursion ships easily with a few bombers or Throaxes/Taloses. Blackbirds also work really well. Just a few things that make Incursions dangerous from a PVP perspective that are easily possible already. That people don’t gank these instances more often has other reasons than missing flags.

Sort Dragon mentionslevel 5 and burner missions being low-risk high reward with Venal burner missions being incredibly broken.

Goes to show what kind of an incompetent fool Sort is. All it requires are a few campers to intercept the Daredevils running the burners. That he is not competent enough to do it does not mean it’s not possible or effective.

CCP Rattati thinks about introducing depleting bounties to stop people from staying in one system forever

Great idea. That works really well with the infrastructure that literally anchors you in one place. Not to mention that smaller groups with fewer systems are much more impacted by such a change than bigger groups with swaths of space and ample protection. If this is the line of thought that CCP follows, we will be in for truly amazing times.

Olmeca Gold would like to see some diminishing return implemented tied to the number of Rorquals on grid.

Not diminishing returns. Rorquals outright need to be hard limited to 1 per resource field so that barges and exhumers have to do the bulk of the mining again. Anything else is not going to help in a sufficient manner.

CCP Rise says that capital EHP needs to be addressed. The exact design hasn’t been set yet, and there are several angles that could be used to approach this.

And that is why all resists of all ships were nerfed. Good to know.

Muninns could see more changes as people are tired of flying them

Who said that? Muninns are one of my favorite ships. I can shoot tackle that threatens my fleet while still being able to whore with one gun on actual targets. Not to mention that Muninns do not cause as much lag and load as missile ships, which is particularly important in tidilagfests. Whoever said they are tired of Muninns have no clue.

Anti-logi modules.

We have that already. It is called sensor dampening and ECM.

13 Likes

Olmeca Gold feels that there should be more done to avoid the perception of incompetence and to give players more to be excited about when it comes to communicating. It seems that there is a variable in patch notes depending on what team is deploying the change.

This is pretty close to my personal viewpoint. I’d like some of the changes to have actual reasoning behind them. If I just see number tweaks with no explanation, I just take it as “they don’t know what they’re doing so they just tweaking numbers to see what sticks”.

I remember crap like this: https://imgur.com/wpuR2Sl during the spring update last year and wondering why any of this crap happened.

  • Why did Medium Beams get +10% Optimal Range? Did CCP see that most engagements using Medium Beams would benefit from the increased optimal? Or were people just not using it? Why Range and not something like tracking modifiers?
  • The Cyclone got +25 CPU… okay? Why? Was CCP finding that too many people were using implants to try and make up that missing CPU? Was it to help fit an Invuln? Was it just a “people aren’t using Cyclones, so let’s up a random attribute and see what happens” thing?

Giving us good explanations of these changes would at least convey to us that they’re collecting the data and addressing the areas of the game that should be improved. Instead of, “Corax, PG increased to 53 (was 48)”, give us something like:

“Hey, our data shows that the Corax is performing a little below its other T1 Destroyer counterparts, in solo, gang, and fleet fights. In order to help bring it up in strength, we’re keeping most of its speed the same, but increasing its power grid by 5 to give it more wiggle room when it comes to fitting a stronger shield buffer tank.”

Or something like that to show us that 1) you understand how players are using the ship, and 2) you’re specifically addressing the areas of weakness (either because of player complaints or because your data shows it). That kind of message would give me greater sense of confidence that CCP knows what they’re doing.

I also see that we’re still not even fancying the idea of locking SP to prevent Extractions?

13 Likes

You gonna offer up any ideas?.. We can all snipe from afar without offering our own suggestions, that’s easy!

I’m wondering what this will be!

New ships and weapons.

This was sitting between

Invasion chapter 3 is planned during second Quadrant

and

Capital balance is being looked into

in the agenda notes.

1 Like

Offering up suggestions is just as pointless.
The development team has their own agenda, and there really isn’t anything that’s going to change the path this game is on. Not until they’re done with the changes they have planned this year.

Maybe then offering up suggestions wouldn’t be an exercise in futility.
Till then, it’s just sit back and watch.

4 Likes

I Reading a Short Part of the Miting Minutes and i See you have a Problem with made ISK is to easy in 0.0… Why you not Install Mission agents who give PVP Missions out to Destroy Player Ships or Drones or an another Stuff of them and The Reward is near the Destroyed Material.
So you can have Realy high Loot bud if you are not good it´s the hardest Missions you can ever get.
-> You can set it for an Region, Constellation or something like Alliance.
For the Information all Traders are Happy when the Competitor can´t bringt Material so he can Sell Expensiver and so you can Generate Isk out of the Game and Some Player have Fun and Get their Isk with PVP!

1 Like

Vily is snorting strong stuff… one can easily make ~10M/h running L2 missions in destroyer in hisec. That is enough to afford cruiser. L3 missions are easy and reliable ~20M/h when run in battlecruiser - they can make way more (up to 80M/h) but that requires support skills… and here is the thing: running L4 missions is not a matter of simply swapping into battleship, it actually requires loads of support skills. And magic 14 is barely the start of it…

It means that new players will be stuck running L3 missions for a long while before they can do L4 missions. And no, just because you can DO L4 missions doesn’t mean you SHOULD - if you end up making less running L4 missions than running L3 missions then why run L4?

7 Likes

I‘m scared about the planned UI rework, overview, etc.

4 Likes

They are run in multiboxed t1 frigates… that is why they are so broken - no one wants to hunt cheap punishers/atrons/kesterels/whatever.

flagging players suspect in incursion fleets seems pretty bad.

I dont even do them fleets anymore and the main reason i stopped is the sheer lack of engagement. The people running them have min/maxed that ancient content into the floor. Theres 3 types of sites they do generally, thats it. 3 sites with static spawns and triggers and waves. I havent flown them in years but I could still list out the waves and triggers… Its that simple

There needs to be new sites with more elements of random and difference. As a portion of an overhaul they could always go the wow method of having normal incursions, heroic incursions and mythic, with the current payout being mythic, but have stuff hitting harder or larger waves (perhaps random spawning elements too). I would also call for larger fleet sizes but less isk per person given So like fleets of 60 players with each player getting say 10-15m per site, not the 40 getting 30m each. Spread the isk over a larger area so it doesnt just funnel into the pilots who are most well known or dont have day to day jobs/duties that greatly limit their playtimes.

I’m not denying here that high sec incursion isk is good money, this one I post on I dont play anymore, but it has 21 million concord LP’s and like 40b of isk just from running those and thats in spite of the many many legions and lokis I tossed away doing daft stuff over the years. That said incursions arent the dominating isk source BUT they could desperately use an overhaul in the mechanics and configurations of that content.

ooh just saw this bit

CCP asks what they should be teaching new players? Their ships are their ammo and they are going to lose them and shouldn’t be afraid of that.

On an alt pilot i started earlier this year i did the introductory missions to see what they were like and did notice the absence of that mission I did on this pilot when it was new where i sacrificed a ship, and the after mission rundown was all about how “you’re going to lose ships, deal with it” essentially. Where did that mission go?

2 Likes

Failed logic assumes everyone in HS prefers HS.

None of those people are running errands but prefer low/wh/null… :roll_eyes:

1 Like

well we are getting a new avatar model.

1 Like

it’s still there… its one of the advanced military ones if i’m not mistaken… you lose a merlin, but if you are smart, you’d insure it for some free iskies.

I agree with Scoots on something. This is the apocalypse.

1 Like

:red_circle: Are TEST members too stupid to read? You seriously give that impression away. All quotes in my analysis consist of suggestions. In contrast to CCP and TEST leadership, I never take the easy route when I criticize something. I always make an effort to come up with something better that actually solves issues in a targeted manner.

2 Likes