Pre-CSM Summit Open Thread

I read everything you guys put up. If you want to take the time, I will read it.

4 Likes

Disable the whole wardec mechanic until they come up with a new version of it because it is driving away so many new players who are just victims to this grieving mechanic, it does not make sense. Make 50 dudes from Marmite happy at the expense of thousands of noobs quitting eve? Good job ccp

1 Like

Can you talk about this event screw up and the community left on side …

The importance of a good customer service and problem resolution ?

Before this game don’t need anymore CSM …

  1. Improve server stability,performance, and resistance to interruption so that we can play the game.

  2. Bots and alpha account abuse must stop/ be greatly reduced.

  3. Take the AI and programing used for generating abyssal missions/sites, refine and improve it, and use the resources to introduce a mission/exploratory site generator to reinvigorate a rather stale facet of EVE.

  1. There needs to be something done about super/titan ratting and rorqual mining. Both the obscene amounts of ISK and minerals lead to uncontrollable super cap proliferation up to a point where you have to live under the wing of a power block right now or they just park their big asses on your structures. And no, changing the jump range is no solution to this.

  2. Stress balance. While we did have some balance changes earlier this year it is not enough. It really wouldn´t hurt this game if CCP took one of each ship class and play with it for 3-4 months until the next balance pass and then either revert it or keep it if it proved balanced and healthy for the game. Give attack bcs role bonus for fitting grapplers? Proper shield mach for a few months including slot layout change? Give the abaddon role bonus for cutting mjd spool up time by 70% like marauders? Mjfg tempest anyone?
    Eve has a lot of ships and a lot of fun modules. Throw two of them together and let the players decide what could end up being fun. While stuff like adjusting a base stat or increasing/decreasing a ships bonus helps the balance it doesn´t change the staleness regarding some things.

  3. Fix long broken mechanics, starting with FW and wardecs. Afaik cosmos missions are broken too. Maybe LP stores and ESS need some love. Fixing the general issues this game has would help a lot more with player retention than stuff like the abyss could ever do. A new player won´t stay forever in a game where he cannot do half of the stuff or enjoy his evening when being faced with broken stuff left right and center.

1 Like

#3 My post #4 in the highsec thread: Agent Finder: it wasn’t broke, but CCP “Fixed” it.

#1 Update / expand / overhaul the Mission system. CCP Dragon has said they are “aware” of it needing updates, but that its not on any ‘road map.’ This is a sad state of affairs.

#2 Make small roaming BC / BS fleets great again. Capitals (specifically carrier fighters) are too effective vs subcaps, nerf this please. Subcap roams happen, but not as often as they could because they are so easily countered. My comment in the nullsec thread references this 2011 dev blog, when the pendulum last swung against capitals, vs subs.

Also ties with this comment by Ripard Teg / Jestertrek:

CCP refers to titans and supercarriers as “aspirational ships”, like they’re the automatic and required end state goal of every EVE player. But EVE is a sandbox and I just don’t care about that corner of it. As CCP increasingly requires such aspirational ships to succeed at EVE, I become less interested in EVE itself.

Forgive this second post, but there is a late-breaking issue I wish to add:

  1. The proposed external cargo bay access. I am all for couriers being able to complete contracts, but not dock, if their docking rights are revoked. I am not as fine with allowing anyone who can get on grid with any citadel, including one they are shooting, to have open access to asset safety. Asset safety may be a necessary evil right now, but we don’t have to make it that trivial to use especially for enemies or neutrals to use your structure. Solution: limit the transfer only to courier packages for those without roles, and give unrestricted access to users with docking/tether rights (for the caps/super caps which are prevented from docking).

CCP might complain that your fix would add server costs of checking access lists and item type.

While site runners deep in unfriendly space may get past gate camps with less loot if they use the option, others may not be willing to give up 15% and wait two weeks. Perhaps CCP hopes this new form of safety will INCREASE low and null traffic. More “mobile loot containers” running around, is surely a good thing.

I’d love to hear CCP make that complaint. This is why I asked @Brisc_Rubal to take this concern to them at the CSM meeting.

No, I do not think that is what happened. What happened, is that CCP got the reasonable advice from a focus group and others that courier contracts scamming was too easy, and something needed to be done to prevent just locking out a courier after they accepted a contract. CCP came up with a solution, and to justify budgeting the development time, they looked to apply that solution as far and wide as possible, which is, in general, a good way to leverage your limited game development resources. However, in this case the game design people on the team failed to recognize, or underestimated, the wide-ranging effects giving easy and unrestricted access to asset safety will have on the game balance itself.

This change is not shaping up to be a targeted change to address a real problem limiting the utility of courier contracts. Instead, it is going to be a general buff to safety everywhere but wormhole space, and turn your private Upwell structures into a very useful tool for your enemies and any rando that wanders by to secure loot.

If CCP really thinks that nullsec needs to be made even safer and that is the reason for this change, I’d love to hear that from them. So please Brisc, add this concern to the pile if you will be so kind. I’ve been around long enough to know that this is probably in vain as “features” like this one announced so close to shipping usually just get pushed through and are rarely iterated on later or delayed to be tweaked, but it can’t hurt to make it clear what is likely to be the outcome and make sure that is really their intention.

Sorry for making another suggestion but this may interest the capital pilot crowd - pirate LP stores.
So the Serpentis capitals can be obtained in the Serpentis LP store and with the addition to the blood raider and Guristas capitals, the only way to obtain those or not is to run this sotiyo sites which require at least 5 titans to run.
The Guristas, True Sansha and blood raider capital would be awesome additions to the pirate LP stores for the same amounts of LP and isk as the Serpentis ones.

I haven’t look at the Serpentis LP store recently but I am guessing that 100 burner missions would do the trick or the pirate agents could begin to give out level 5 missions like the ones we have in lowsec.

Your corp don’t have 5 titans?

I’ve seen KM’s with 3 titans. So 5 would make it pretty easy, right? [mild sarcasm alert] Seems like all the cool kids are doing them solo with their titan alts these days. Sadly, some of us will never get into the ‘cool kids’ club.

I will. I knew there was something itching at the back of my head as to why I was uncomfortable with this plan, but what you’re saying is exactly it - with asset safety, you can roam into deep null, kill a bunch of stuff and not have to worry about how to get it out anymore. Just dump it, asset safety, and hope you picked a lowsec system that’s not constantly camped. :slight_smile:

1 Like
  1. Capital/Supercapital proliferation, its smothering the meta. Capitals need their application reduced to subcaps. Also, mineral costs could use adjustments or their insurance payout nerfed. HAW dreads and carriers are basically the battleship meta now. You can welp HAW dreads much cheaper than pirate BS and Marauders.

  2. T2 ship costs are… Too Damn High. This feeds back into the whole capital cost equation. When a marauder hull alone is 2b and a carrier is 1b and a fitted dread is 1.5b (after insurance), its pointless to drop more isk on a ship that has less survivability in a similar role. Marauders are capital magnets, that will probably never change. Id feel a lot better being blapped by dread if my marauder didnt cost twice as much.

Same thing with command ships. Not that theyre getting blapped by caps, but their cost is absurd when only about 3 of them are worth anything. Plus if you want a good link ship for a gang, a command dessie or navy BC is just as good and cheaper.

  1. Balance, balance and more balance.

I dont want a perfectly balanced EVE where every ship is perfect. I want an EVE where the meta actually evolves at a reasonable pace and the weak get stronger and the stronger get new counters.

Having strong, even OP ships is fine, for a short period. Having capitals making subcaps slowly becoming obsolete and causing capital proliferation is also fine. The issue is, there needs to be consistent balance passes done to keep the meta fresh and evolving.

Capitals strong for a year? Nerf caps or provide new subs to counter them.

For example, the retri too strong? Nerf it or create a better hard counter (like jags and wolfs).

Caps need to be knocked off their pedestal and brought down to a reasonable level. Other ships that need love/rebalancing:

-Navy battleships
-Command ships
-Finish rebalancing HACs
-Reduce pirate BS BPCs to only belt spawns (not DEDs, which are easily farmed) like the barghest.

New ship ideas as an alternative to nerfing capitals:

-Anti-capital subcap
-Cyno suppression ship

Anyway, out of everything here, CCP needs to hear that there is a severe need for balance. We dont need new gimmicks or features, lets breathe some new life into the game through what we all came to play this game for. The ships and blowing things up.

4 Likes

Learning implants and ability scores: A thread was heavily discussed about the removal of learning implants and ability scores and potential solutions for the LP store.

2 Likes

Reduce the cost of manufacturing Zeugma and Ligature already. Drops from data sites are too low and industry demand are hundreds of each type. Market will not stabilize even if each single material hit 1 mil treshold per one item because we need 100 of each. Data sites are dead anyway. Abyss didn’t help much because filaments market aleady satured to the FUBAR level.

10 materials of each type.

Hi @Brisc_Rubal, I hope the start of the CSM meeting is going well.

Attached below is something that grew out of some conversations between Solstice Projekt and myself over the last few months. He really wanted to get this to you before the CSM minutes, and well, we are a little late, but I post it below for your, the CSM and CCP’s consideration. If you want to engage further, you can find either of us on the CSM or Wardec Project discords.

Good morning, @Brisc_Rubal, sorry for being so late to the party. We did not manage to come up with something written by everyone, so I step forward to make sure that the idea by Pedro and me is being properly written down and heard. It is not really a whole idea, it is one step of an idea which will and should take several months to be implemented, needs to be iterated on based on new data gathered through it.

From my perspective wardecs are a ■■■■■■■■ mechanic. They’re an excuse, because of CONCORD’s existence and I would rather see a “peace tax” instead of a “war tax”, because a “war tax” as we have it now actually makes zero sense in the context of EVE ONLINE … but I digress.

This post isn’t about that. There is no “fixing wars”. Most proposed solutions I have read are really, really shallow and do not actually attempt to fix wars at all. They’re just band aids, or … the equivalent of adding or changing a few cogs in a broken system. The end result is a broken system with new/changed configuration of cogs.

There are people who believe that taking a pain killer fixes the issues causing the pain, but in reality all the pain killer does is masking out that there is something broken. They still believe it’s a “fix” and we see this kind of thinking literally everywhere.

For example, tying wardecs to structures fixes exactly nothing. Most of the very people who are doing wars are already telling everyone else that it’s a bad idea. When the very people, who are supposed to be doing some feature tell everyone else that they don’t like it, then that should be taken as a sign that it is a bad idea. So, instead of keeping the status quo and just pretending that things changed, we want to have things ACTUALLY changed and we want that to be thorough! I am allowed to speak for those who want wars fixed. They have lost their hopes completely, and they see no chance towards betterment. They only see that things will be getting worse, and that feeling is being fed also by people who do not even do wars yet believe that they know better for whatever magical reason.

Fact of the matter is that not one idea I’ve read actually tries fixing the problem. Everyone just wants to “fix” the symptoms by slapping a new type of painkiller onto it, but what they are actually doing is taking a broken system and trying to change a few cogs, or maybe adding one. It remains a broken system! Wars are too deeply tied into society to make any such attempts ever work! No one’s really good at analysing the problem and understanding what is wrong with it. No idea I’ve seen considers EVE’s history, culture or the very people who are supposed to be doing the content in the first place. They also do not consider that new players should also be able to do the content if they wanted to, without having to shell out 50 million isk for it.

I understand that the bar has been raised this high to keep new players from doing wars in the first place, but was that really a smart thing to do? Preventing new players from exploring game content? ■■■■ no! So … instead of fixing wars, we start fixing things around them. It is a necessity, because wars do not exist in isolation. They. Simply. Don’t.

The implementation of this idea will help CCP categorizing players better. It will allow CCP to learn more from them, their wishes and desires, their behaviours, their capabilities and how they are dealing with responsibilities. Yes, people have responsibilities, despite no one ever talking about them!

A big problem of EVE’s (highsec) society is the fact that we only have one single type of player corporation. One size fits all, it’s all or nothing. This has to go. It creates the wrong assumptions about the game. They learn to believe they absolutely should be making a corp if they wanted to! Too many believe they’re a potential leader and everyone can create a corp when he wants to. This has to go! It’s not how you can run a society where people do not actually have to put their actual lives and well beings on the line, like in real life! People feel entitled, instead of understanding that first and foremost they need to be able to handle the responsibilities and problems that come with their decisions!

Freedom without restrictions tends towards chaos!

This is a relatively universal rule and it applies to EVE’s corporations. Not having restriction always leads to a loss of structure (and maybe hierarchy), which is an important part for complex systems to function properly. As we have it now, every single person can create a corporation. This causes grief! Many are oblivious, many overestimate themselves and many think they can do what they want just because their ego’s big enough for it.

Economics teaches that when the supply is far above demand, the value plummets. That is exactly what we have now. Thousands of corporations never going anywhere, abandoned and locking the name away from those who could make better use of it. There are thousands of “identities” literally lost, because someone created it and just stopped playing for whatever reason.

Thousands of corporations who can not deal with the game in the way they believed. Thousands of corporations which are being stomped down by wars for WHATEVER reason (like that one asshole corp member who keeps asking for it, then whines about it without mentioning that it was his fault in the first place), thousands of corporations ruining new players thanks to asshole CEOs who think they’re leaders, and or want to exploit them, and or because they’re megalomaniacs with no actual brain behind whatsoever.

Too many create corporations explicitly to exploit new players and many just tell them to “log off for a week” causing harm to the game itself, by not teaching them even basic survival techniques! This has to end!

This current amount of freedom does not serve EVE’s society. It does not provide proper Identification mechanics and serves no one by attempting to serve everyone. It is costing us players, which means it has go.

Instead, what we need, are MORE OPTIONS TO CHOOSE FROM! We need several types of corporations defined for the needs of the players based upon all the data we already have! We need corporations that enable players to do what they want, within the limits of risks and responsibilities they can handle.

Another benefit is that with different types, educating players about positives, risk and responsibilities becomes EASY due to the fact that they need to be making a choice!

You can’t defend your structure? Don’t put one up, you might get wardecced! Instead run a corp that does not allow you to have structures, but in turn prevents wars from being rained down upon you!

I’ve been trying to list several types of corps, but I fail at doing it properly. Properly. I simply lack the data to make good calls, otherwise I’d be presenting them to you. I can not figure out if there should be no “corp hangar”, “corp wallet” or any of the others things. I do not have enough information to make such calls for each type of corporation. That’s for CCP to figure out.

A short list of the most basic ones, which should be implemented, is here:

  1. Undeccable corps. A corporation that can not be decced, but in return can not have any structures. They may have an identity, but their member size should be limited to prevent people from creating huge corps meant only to farm ISK. They should instead upgrade their corp to a higher tier. This is CCP’s work, i can’t help with that.

  2. Corporations allowed to plant structures. Wardeccable by default. Maybe have several types limited by member-size, so they can only plant one or two structures, defendable within their capabilities. The players need to make that call themselves! The most natural case is “learning by doing”.

  3. A bigger type of wardeccable corp for all the structures, and all the things. Basically like the current one.

  4. Specific “new player friendly corps”, undeccable and limited in size. This is self balancing, because anyone who “just creates another corp” will also have to deal with all the work that comes with it. People need to be steered into staying within their limits. A “lucky” player having a huge influx of others will suffer from “Eternal September” so hard, it corporation implodes. Hard coded limits help when implemented where they are needed!

  5. Specific “new player friendly corps” that are wardeccable by other “new player friendly corps”. They would come up eventually. Even the rather apathetic wardec community would eventually start at least one. The myth that new players need to be protected by default is nonsensical. A horrible, overly exaggerated generalisation backed up by nothing and CCP knows this. The option for new players to go to war right from the start should definitely exist. People do not join this game for it’s happiness and peacefulness.

  6. A type of corporation that allows players to opt-out of CONCORD protection. It absolutely should be an option, and it is a damn good one, and even if i myself will be the only ■■■■■■■ one playing in that kind of corp, i will make it ■■■■■■■ worth it! You should give those who wish to dare the options and mechanics to be daring!

This (especially 6, “MUST”) is not me telling CCP what to do. It is me telling CCP that they are locking out a lot of possibilities by default, by having only a one-size-fits-all corporation. It is not comparable to nullsec, btw, because highsec is a completely different dynamic. When a nullseccer comes to highsec saying “neutrals everywhere is scary”, then that’s because it’s a completely different social experience.

The last part:

EVE having different types of corporations gives the new people choices about things they, currently, do not even know they have until far later in their progress. CCP could steer the population, as is needed in every society, towards paths of interests. They would get them to head towards groups of like-minded people, skyrocketing the chances of gaining a long term player.

And here’s the one part most will have a problem with. The only way of making sure that corporations have actual value again is by increasing the cost of creating one, which helps turning them into a more serious feature of EVE’s society/the game.

The current cost no where near reflects the actual value a corporation should be having. Higher, tiered costs make sense. Costs in relation to the abilities and responsibilities. These corporations should not come cheap. The price helps defining the perception of every single player out there. I am damn sure CCP is well aware of that.

Anyone who does not want any of this, of course, needs to have the option to stay within the status quo. My idea is not meant to replace anything, but to add to the current system. It would be necessary to adapt the current system towards the new one, but most things will stay the same. The cost will likely have to go up, though.

In any case does it allows both evaluation and removal of the new, or the old, if desired. Types can be phased out, new types can be added relatively safely by simply restricting their creation.

All corporations need to have base values for tax, which they can not go below, unless they accept the necessary responsibilities that go with them. A 0% tax corp should only exist as a wardeccable corp! There needs to be a base line for all undeccable corporations. No tax reduction below this point, unless they accept the responsibilities!

Punish corp hoppers by preventing them from creating specific types of corporations for some time limit, which CCP will be better able to figure out. Slam them with a tax, by limiting them to corporations that have a tax in them!

Yes, you read that right. Most of the current problems come from the amount of freedom people have, which also gives a huge amount of freedom for abusing the system. Tax evasion corporations, which fold the moment they are getting decced, are in no way or form balanced and need to go. Corp hopping as a whole needs to be punished, because the player is being given better options that align with his willingness to accept risks and responsibilities! Gaming the system like this should be a no-go! You should not be able to have the cake and eat it too!

The End.

If there’s anything I’ve forgotten … my bad. I am free to contact on the CSM discord, you just need to tag Sol. In the last two months i could have written a whole book about all of this and more, with details and insights, whys, hows, explaining problems, do’s, don’ts, potential problems, potential solutions, and so much other stuff. I regret not writing it … and i am regretting it, because this post is just a sad shadow of a properly written solution to the problem at hand.

CCP needs to limit the amount of freedom by giving options. People will not complain, because they still have options. The changes are not breaking anything, because all “classic” corporations can be kept alive along the new system. CCP will be able to learn more about their players, and they will be better able to categorize them. New players specifically will not even care, because that’s it’s their status quo by default. They grow into it. A structured society eventually gives room to everyone, and allows for far more oversight and steering of the population. CCPs intent should be to steer, not control, but i understand that Crowd Steering Productions doesn’t have that great ring to it.

Thank you for reading, this was just the first step.

DISCUSS! :blush:

The TL;DR of it all is that we feel a large amount of the problems of wars stem from the frankly binary option of being in a corp, at war with all of the rest of New Eden, or staying in the NPC corp. This one-size-fits-all solution actually limits choices as there is basically a single decision of risk and responsibility. Much of the angst over wars come from people who shouldn’t be in a corp at all (or at least a corp that is mechanically identical to a 15 year-old corp full of hundreds of veterans) because they are not ready to compete at that level, or be vulnerable to being attacked by everyone else in the game. There should be many more gradations of risk levels (with corresponding reward levels) for corps and methods for players to tune the risk and responsibility they are comfortable with, and still be in a player-run group complete with its own identity and culture.

If players don’t have a choice, or their actions don’t seem to effect who attacks them, it is very easy to cry ‘griefer’ at anyone who declares war on them. If however, there is player choice involved - as a corp they deliberately made a choice to accept certain risks and responsibilities to defend in exchange for increased benefits, it is much harder to cry ‘griefing’ when someone comes along and challenges that corp for that benefit. This train of thought usually leads me on to a rant about conflict drivers in Eve, but since this is suppose to be a TL;DR, I’ll leave it there.

Honestly, it’s crazy there are only two choices for player groups: the NPC corp, or a full-on, open-to-attack-by-all-of-New-Eden player-corp. At the very minimum there should be a way to be part of a social group without accepting to be open to attack by everyone, something like a social corp. There is no good reason why being in a social group should be automatically coupled to accepting increased in-game risk, and many reasons why this is a bad thing. I hope this is discussed at some point this week.

Anyways, thanks for reading!

1 Like

I will speak exclusively of High-Sec here, I plan to make another post for FW later.

  1. Seriously consider the idea of tying Wars to Structures. Despite what some elements want to advocate, this is a viable solution in that it would both give a Spaciality/Locality to wars, and give a way for Defenders to participate in said wars by giving them an option.

  2. Add ways for Attackers to be able to find and attack their targets. A type of Structure that would replace the lost capabilities of the Watchlist while still allowing counterplay on the part of the targeted is one way to do it, more importantly Attackers need ways and tools to slow down the degenerative nature of the tactics they have to use to get targets (blanket wardecs for example).

  3. Discuss the role of High-Sec and settle on what the zone is supposed to do. If High-Sec is to take care of Newbies, then make it focus on that instead of trying to be everything for everyone. Be done with High-Sec Schizophrenia!

Here, this is what I think the CSM should care about. Overall, the CSM needs to address what is happening with High-Sec right now, practically all parties involved agree that something is broken!

IMO, it should be viable for every player to live in any (or every) kind of space, without suggesting a roadmap high->(low)->null.

But this means accepting that spaces are different sub-universes with different mechanics, and stats of things like Upwell structures, with more unique features.

Today everything is designed with sov null in mind only, and then some parameters are scaled back, to try making it fit to other kinds of space, with devastating results to the local ecosystem.

Plus we need strong connections and dynamic; making sov nullsec more independent of imports and other parts of New Eden is plain wrong. Resources shall deplete over time forcing people to move.

Scrap the “everything in player hands and destructible” … there is no way to effectively limiting things if needed once in player hands.

2 Likes

Please fix loot scooping. It’s an easy fix.