THE SOLUTION TO ALL THE WORLDS PROBLEMS! :-) CCP, CSM

[Ully_Loom]

What is this topic?

Propaganda on the Microsoft-CCP partnership roadmap?

History of drowning the big fish?

Better and better…

Ully Loom

[Rhett_Schouten]

I thought about mentioning voice integration since its possibly the one big exception to the rule of third party app integration. As you might well-know, voice integration technologies are difficult to implement and for the most part are best left to dedicated service providers. There’s a reason that Discord, Team-speak, Mumble etc are the go-to for the gaming industries online verbal communication solutions. They’re a resource intensive service, with very specific problems, in which the quality of the output is critical to performance.

Every solution has it’s limits and voice app integration is outside the intended scope of my suggestion.

Thanks for your contribution.

[Rhett_Schouten]

Not everything can be understood by everyone, thank goodness for diversity right?

[Altara_Zemara]

@Rhett_Schouten

Customers communicate their interest by means of their consumer habits. When players leave the game they are signalling dissatisfaction, loss of interest, or competing demands. When they pick the game up, they’re signalling their approval and interest. The people are communicating, the question is, can you hear them?

The game is bigger than any one issue. I was thoroughly cheesed off when they nerfed the Procurer…removed slots and made the align time a mind numbing 18 seconds. I sold both my Procurers that very day. I could have rage quit in disgust…but really it was a blessing in disguise as the whole thing forced me to do what I’d joined Eve to do in the first place…PvE and PvP, rather than chilling in asteroid belts. In my view the quitters are those who cannot adapt…and who’s ‘Eve’ is one very restricted playstyle for which the slightest nerf or buff makes a huge difference.

[Rhett_Schouten]

@Kezrai_Charzai

And the part I quoted above, where first you talk about the monolithic end-game being stagnant and newbro corps being the “only method for advancement” and then stick in a huge paragraph in all caps demanding “coalition management” tools in-game is just pure farce.

This statement is objectively untrue.

Here’s what I actually wrote;

@Rhett_Schouten

Extreme power (Veteran Domination) has made Null Bloc’s immobile and stagnant, similar to a Nuclear arms stand-off where the initiative is blunted by the consequences.

@Rhett_Schouten

New Bros are facing a solved META that locks them out from the opportunities for exploration and discoverability that players enjoyed during the earlier formative years of EVE and made it challenging, exciting, unpredictable and fun. Creating tools that give New Bro’s and Veterans a chance to explore in new directions is essential. (Veterans have addressed this issue through in game new bro corporations, unfortunately these organisations have become the only means of advancement and therefor are endemic of the problem).

I think that you were trying to frame my argument as contradictory, however these points are made in separate sections of the article.

I’m doing two things here, I’m explaining why I think that the null blocks have been hesitant to go ham at each, mutually assured destruction tends to be an effective deterrent. I might be wrong in understanding their motivations and I’m ok with that.

The second thing that I am doing is contrasting the experience of the current wave of players joining the game with the experience of earlier waves of players joining the game. Nothing contradictory so far.

---

The below is a critique not a demand. I describe the missed opportunity as a mistake. I did not demand that it be included as a feature.

If mutually assured destruction is a factor in Null Bloc entities committing to war, and it may well be, what could potentially change that stalemate is the import of tools that provide a more nuanced approach, tools that allow for engagement and mitigation of risk. If one side believed that it could eek out an advantage, it might be more willing to commit it forces to war. The introduction of any system that aided in the establishment of such an advantage would very likely be the spark that sets the wheels in motion. Coalitions already attempt to sway the odds, why not give them a functional nudge?

@Rhett_Schouten

OF ALL THE FACTORS THAT YOU COULD POINT TO THAT MIGHT DESCRIBE OR DEFINE THE BIGGEST AND MOST EGREGIOUS DEFICIT IN EVE’S DEVELOPMENT, IT’S MOST SIGNIFICANT BALANCE ISSUE, IT’S MOST GLARING FAILURE, NONE IS MORE OBVIOUS OR MORE PRESSING THAN THE ABSENCE OF AN IN-GAME TOOL FOR THE FORMING AND MANAGEMENT OF COALITIONS. IT IS SO OBVIOUSLY THE NEXT STEP IN EVE’S EVOLUTION AS A ‘SAND-BOX’ ‘EMPIRE BUILDING’ SIMULATION, A BLIND DOG WITH NO SENSE OF SMELL COULD HAVE DISCOVERED IT. LEAVING IT UP TO THE PLAYERS TO BUILD WAS THE CORRECT MOVE, LEAVING IT UP TO THE PLAYERS TO MAINTAIN WAS A MISTAKE AND A MISSED OPPORTUNITY. THE PLAYERS CREATED IT, YOU F------G ADD IT, THEN CHECK WHAT THEY CREATE NEXT, THEN YOU ADD THAT

Much later in the article I describe how such a feature might be implemented. Again I do not demand it’s inclusion.

@Rhett_Schouten

Imagine if coalitions had to commit to a formal agreement that locked them in over a contracted period of time at some meaningful but significant financial cost and provided them some benefit. Perhaps an industry boost, or resource acquisition boost, or sovereignty boost across their alliances. The risk is the locked-in time commitment and cost and the possibility of having their benefit discovered by spies and a counter strategy employed by their rivals. The benefit is whatever granular element they’ve customised within their contractual agreement. Depending on the coalitions objective, territorial expansion, defence, production, market domination etc. The point is that what is missing are the tools that would enable this dynamic play. (The changes to Faction Warfare may be the beginning of this change-time will tell)

[Rhett_Schouten]

You’re not really disagreeing with me and you might not be intending to. In my post I say essentially the same thing.

@Rhett_Schouten

Players that focus on ship, mining, and industry balance, (all of which are super important and relevant) have missed the larger point, they are just trying to solve the problem by adjusting the current levers, no amount of lever adjusting in the current system will prove adequate

@Altara_Zemara

The game is bigger than any one issue.

@Altara_Zemara

I could have rage quit in disgust…but really it was a blessing in disguise

@Altara_Zemara

In my view the quitters are those who cannot adapt…and who’s ‘Eve’ is one very restricted playstyle for which the slightest nerf or buff makes a huge difference.

So I think that we are in agreement. I also agree with the sentiment that a true sandbox allows players to adapt to changes as they see fit.

It is because of these ideas that I believe that focusing on balance as a solution to the problems that EVE is facing on the whole is a mistake. That is not to say that the game couldn’t use the occasional rebalance, I’m certain that it could.

Rather I am making two observations, the first observation is that EVE has become entirely reliant on third party applications to be playable in just about every serious play style in EVE (I’m sure there are exceptions) and secondly because those third party apps are essentially force multipliers, CCP can not make effective balance changes to the game until they integrate that functionality into the game.

To be clear I am not demanding that thy integrate that functionality. I am simply saying that while the balance of power remains external to CCP’s domain of control, they can not make effective balance changes to the game, even more specifically they can not effectively balance the game without making major compromises.

I’m glad to read that you are enjoying your new play style and that you have effectively adapted, more power to you @Altara_Zemara

[Altara_Zemara]

@Rhett_Schouten

The new Skill Plans system, in terms of the individual AND corporation tabs, is a step in the right direction.

Time and again I have some skill go through…sometimes after weeks of it lurking in the skills queue…and I have zero idea what difference it has actually made. Things like DPS one can notice easily, but it really would be incredibly handy to have not just ’ you now have skill xyz’ but something that showed ’ here is the difference this extra skill actually makes’…perhaps even with a comparative graph of some sort. Now that would be really useful !

No doubt someone will say there’s already a 3rd party app for that.

[Rhett_Schouten]

I agree with you @Altara_Zemara in principle the type of quality-of-life request that you’re describing certainly represent a deficit in the UI’s discoverability.

And you’re correct there are apps that do a better job of presenting skill queue information.

On the bright side CCP has talked about addressing the skill categories as a whole.

In the meantime you can check what a skill upgrade does in the Notification Feed. And by right clicking show me this in the Character Sheet History Tab

[Ursula_Anders]

@Altara_Zemara

and I have zero idea what difference it has actually made. Things like DPS one can notice easily, but it really would be incredibly handy to have not just ’ you now have skill xyz’ but something that showed ’ here is the difference this extra skill actually makes’…perhaps even with a comparative graph of some sort. Now that would be really useful !

If you go to the info window for a ship you’re currently inside of and click on the Attributes tab, each line in that shows you how your skills affect the ship’s attributes. The attributes that your skills affect are highlighted in green and if you hover over that the pop-up tells you base stats and specific skills and modules that make the difference in the ship’s stats.