open All Channels
seplocked EVE Information Portal
blankseplocked New CSM Blog: CSM reports: Sense and Sensibility… and Spaceships
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6

Author Topic

Shandir
Minmatar
Brutor Tribe
Posted - 2010.10.29 09:57:00 - [121]
 

Originally by: Vaal Erit
Everytime I read the CSM summit meeting I can't believe the CSM members are so clueless, they amaze me every time. Let's whine about Incarna and freak out over a test case of one micro-transaction that will have no impact on the game. Good job, way to get nothing done as usual.

I have assembled my favorite quotes so you, the average reader, do not have to go through the massive pdf document.

Originally by: CCP
Furthermore, the recent subscriber trends, although showing the number of subscribers decreasing minutely or about 0.9% in the last two months

Originally by: CCP
It is a fact that forums are full of thoughtful discussion which can be useful

Originally by: CCP
CCP Management approves team formation, on the condition that a better name than "Fluffers" is found; Team Gridlock is born

Originally by: CCP
When an infestation get stronger or isn‟t cleaned out several negative things will happen on a system wide scale. There will be a bounty tax applied to all bounties acquired in the system, the Sansha fleets will cyno-jam the system, and other annoying things will happen


CSM blows, CCP is getting back on track and people are not leaving in droves as the bitter vet rage-quit posts would like us to believe.


You must have missed the thread that shows clearly that the EVE community as a whole thinks that this one MT does matter.
Furthermore, I actually think the CSM was far too flexible on the MT issue - they allowed that "vanity only might not be too bad", but the thread (T'Amber posted above) says that the EVE player base as a whole (look at the results, they are not subtle) thinks that vanity only is not *as* bad, but still not acceptable.

I think CCP will be making a dire mistake if they ignore the landslide victory of 'No' votes and plough blindly ahead - the players have spoken, take notice.

Yes, there are probably some thinking that this is a vocal minority, but that alone can't account for the numbers shown.

*This I ask to CCP - if CCP goes ahead with MT in spite of player objection, will they be a significant feature in Incarna?

Jowen Datloran
Caldari
Science and Trade Institute
Posted - 2010.10.29 10:41:00 - [122]
 

If CCP wants to ruin their own success and business for being better knowing of what their customers want than the customers themselves it is their deal. I know well enough when it is time to hit the unsubscribe-button.

It is a shame that with the growth of CCP they have also picked up a lot of bad habits from their competitors. The same habits that have meant the closure of more MMOs than I can count. Maybe CCP also wants to try the experience of closing a MMO, which one should it be: WoD, DUST or maybe EVE?

Mashie Saldana
Minmatar
Veto Corp
Posted - 2010.10.29 11:46:00 - [123]
 

Originally by: CCP Explorer
Originally by: Camios
Originally by: CCP Explorer
constant cross-node communication is something we avoid.
For what reason?
Network traffic is slow compared to the internal memory/bus and remote service calls are much more CPU intensive than internal node calls.

How about just have "camera ships" stream a video from the outside and project it on screens? Shouldn't be that CPU intensive to compress such a stream in realtime and project it as a texture on the Incarna node?

The other option would be to have the incarna node act as a client and as such hook into the sol node or even one of the proxy servers if needed. Considering how little data is transferred between TQ and a normal client I can't imagine this would be a spectacular network overhead. Not to mention, it is a window, you don't need a sub 50ms latency, a delay is just fine as you can't undock that fast anyways. Not to mention trying to FC from within the station with no overview is kind of stupid...

Where there is a will there is a way.

T'Amber
Garoun Investment Bank
Posted - 2010.10.29 12:40:00 - [124]
 

Originally by: Shandir
You must have missed the thread that shows clearly that the EVE community as a whole thinks that this one MT does matter.
Furthermore, I actually think the CSM was far too flexible on the MT issue - they allowed that "vanity only might not be too bad", but the thread (T'Amber posted above) says that the EVE player base as a whole (look at the results, they are not subtle) thinks that vanity only is not *as* bad, but still not acceptable.

I think CCP will be making a dire mistake if they ignore the landslide victory of 'No' votes and plough blindly ahead - the players have spoken, take notice.
Quote:


Let me pull a number out of mazz's hat. 80%.
80% of the CSM were COMPLETELY against MT.
20% (Which is like 2 and a bit csms) were not.

While it looks like the 20% that I pulled from my, er.. mazz's hat was infact everyone due to the wording of the minutes, rest assured that this wasn't actually the case.

Erm. the cameras are watching me.
better go back to watching the poker tables.

-T'amber








Shandir
Minmatar
Brutor Tribe
Posted - 2010.10.29 13:29:00 - [125]
 

Originally by: T'Amber


Let me pull a number out of mazz's hat. 80%.
80% of the CSM were COMPLETELY against MT.
20% (Which is like 2 and a bit csms) were not.

While it looks like the 20% that I pulled from my, er.. mazz's hat was infact everyone due to the wording of the minutes, rest assured that this wasn't actually the case.

Erm. the cameras are watching me.
better go back to watching the poker tables.

-T'amber



Can you answer the question - "do you think CCP will at least consider pulling the planned Attribute Reset/MT?" - or is that NDA?
Basically, I'm wondering if you got any feeling on whether it was a done deal before we even heard about it?

Ak'athra J'ador
Amarr
Imperial Shipment
Posted - 2010.10.29 13:37:00 - [126]
 

I cant believe torfi and oveur would say such things Sad

how can you be so distant from the gaming community, whilst being in the game making business. Micro transactions are infesting more and more games and people hate them.

eve was one of the last refuge places left, that had no micro-transactions. And you want to (taken from the pdf) ****ing experiment!? You do realize that most subscriber numbers rise very fast, reach a peak, and then plummet to the death of the game. eve is an exception to this rule, would you like to keep it this way?

again, take from the pdf, "CCP must try new things". Well not if they are dumb ass ****ing stupid!!!

You want to try new things Oveur, you want to experiment? Fine, here are some plexes, now get your fat ass over here and drop those pants, because if you are willing to sell the game, you are willing to sell yourself...
what's that you say? lube? I am sorry, lube is 2 plex.

Trebor Daehdoow
Gallente
Sane Industries Inc.
Posted - 2010.10.29 14:01:00 - [127]
 

Originally by: T'Amber
Let me pull a number out of mazz's hat. 80%.
80% of the CSM were COMPLETELY against MT.
20% (Which is like 2 and a bit csms) were not.


Sorry, T, but this is a distortion of the opinions held by the CSM.

100% of the CSM was against MT being used to buy things that provided in-game edges -- which includes PLEX for Remaps.

A majority of the CSM felt that if CCP wants to play around with MT for vanity items, then fine (but "meh"). Some others felt it was the "least bad" alternative, and there was concern about diversion of resources (ie: time spent creating faction panties could better be spent on other things of more use to the community).

There was also concern about overloading another function on PLEX.

Bottom line, CCP has a right to make money of their game. CSM's job is to express concern when we think they are not fully aware of the consequences of a proposed move.

Originally by: Shandir
Can you answer the question - "do you think CCP will at least consider pulling the planned Attribute Reset/MT?" - or is that NDA?


The discussion that began in Iceland is continuing on the CSM internal forum. How's that for a great political answer?


Shandir
Minmatar
Brutor Tribe
Posted - 2010.10.29 14:43:00 - [128]
 

The job of the CSM is also to represent the opinions and needs of the current players.
If there was a majority not against vanity MTs, then that is not being done.
Can you elaborate on the majority? Who is following the wishes of the players and strongly opposing MTs in all forms?
Who is 'okay' or neutral on vanity MTs?

Dr Lebroi
Posted - 2010.10.29 14:45:00 - [129]
 

Good work CSM and CCP.

Giving these discussions real perspective by following the events over the historical timeline, I regard this current round of discussions as representing genuine progress both in the CSM/CCP relationship and the benefit it will bring to the Eve community.

Microtransactions need to be viewed with Eve's falling subscriber rate in mind. Eve is a pain in the ass to look after because it's old and clunky and parts of it are probably obsolete. If it becomes a pain in the ass which no longer generates significant income due to falling subcriber rates then its future is bleak. Particulary as new things are waiting in the wings. If falling subscriber rates are due to lack of polish then CCP must take the blame. However this also represents a real good reason for them to retire the game if it becomes unprofitable as well as unworkable.

If additional income can be generated by Eve by MTs for VANITY PRODUCTS ONLY, then I don't think it would be wise to stand against it. Obviously, we all oppose MT that effect game mechanics etc.

IF CCP WOULD PLEDGE TO SPEND ALL INCOME DERIVED BY Mts FOR VANITY PURCHASES IN EVE ON EVE AND PROMISE THAT THE FUNDS WOULD NOT BE RE-DIRECTED TO OTHER PROJECTS THEN MUCH RANCOUR COULD BE AVOIDED.

Jowen Datloran
Caldari
Science and Trade Institute
Posted - 2010.10.29 14:56:00 - [130]
 

Originally by: Trebor Daehdoow
[
Bottom line, CCP has a right to make money of their game. CSM's job is to express concern when we think they are not fully aware of the consequences of a proposed move.



According to CCP as per the pdf presented here this whole situation has nothing to do with making money so what is it you are trying to say?

Commoner Reclaimers
Posted - 2010.10.29 15:45:00 - [131]
 

I for one see absoutly no issue what so ever with the possibility of a plex for remap.

I myself have tons of skills trained back in 03 that i never should have trained.

If they did it right such as progressive system 1 first time 2 second AND limiting how many remaps you can do in a year.

I honestly can not find 1 single issue. Actually now that i think of it. Eve is the ONLY mmo i've ever played that didn't have some kind of remap ability.


Kile Kitmoore
Posted - 2010.10.29 16:16:00 - [132]
 

Quote:
"CSM: why did it take so long to recognize there was a serious problem server performance?
CCP: It was a matter of reprioritization within the company and other problems had a higher priority at that time. Dominion was a tipping point, where long-standing issues reached a critical mass. CCP reprioritized after the CSM meeting in June."


Could anyone elaborate on this? Before the "reprioritization" how many petitions/bug reports did CCP receive? The above Q&A has me concerned that you needed CSM to tell you your house was burning, if that is true you have a serious problem. Care to elaborate on these "higher priority" issues? I realize that CCP is working hard on fixing lag but it sure did take a LONG time before they reacted.

Quote:
"The CSM restated their opinion that Incarna should not be forced on players, and it should not give you a flying in space advantage to use Incarna."



Strange, last I checked ISK is an advantage hence if I can gamble in a station to earn ISK I have an advantage. My concern with this very broad CSM statement is Incarna should be nothing more then a sideshow. Yet, CCP inquires later on their advice on what Incarna should include. I think in this case CCP might be better served by asking it's players directly. Use a survey, post the question on MMORPG or any high traffic MMO site. Just as important, gather feedback from players who don't play EVE because there are no avatars. Is that not one of the goals behind Incarna, draw those new players into EVE?

Quote:
"CSM: if CCP is considering including contraband in Incarna, will it be moved from the current contract system into Incarna? If so, CCP will be forcing people to use Incarna, and it will put some pilot at a disadvantage because Incarna will not be available in all stations (for example, if players can only acquire boosters by exiting their ships).
CCP could not offer any concrete answer to these concerns as nothing has been decided in regards to the gameplay and availability of Incarna."


It amazes me that you committed the amount of developer resources and PR all this time and you don't know what game mechanics your striding toward? That absolutely blows me away. It is not enough to simply walk in a station, there HAS to be meaningful, fun game mechanics as to why someone would want to. Which pretty much means do the opposite of what you did in PI. Credit to CSM for making a similar argument about the need for game mechanics.

Quote:
"There is a general consensus that micro-transaction games are different from EVE in many aspects, and as such they are perhaps better suited to support micro-transactions than EVE is."


Thank you CSM for stating that but it begs the question which MMO's use a MT+Sub model that CCP aspires to incorporate into EVE? LOTR? DDO? PVE games where player advantage through MT is less pronounced. Who are these MMO's which CCP uses to measure whether MT is a worthy pursuit?

Regardless, thanks to CSM & CCP for all their efforts communicating and working together to enhance the game we all love.

Bhattran
Posted - 2010.10.29 18:09:00 - [133]
 

Originally by: Jowen Datloran
Originally by: Malcanis

What? The? Hell?



I can only echo Malcanis sentiments. It should be obvious to anybody working in the industry that if these questions regarding purpose and content of Incarna not has been decided upon at all until now it will not happen within the next eight months either. At least not to a point where a product can be released.


Yet they, in all likelihood will release a 'product', and much like all the other things they've spoken about in the past will be butchered and whittled down to 'must have' so they can deliver it then tag on bits and pieces to 'flesh' it out before calling 'mission accomplished' or state 'we are iterating it'.

My expectations for the content of incarna are low very very low, CCP has said they wanted to do this and that then changed their minds so what was left seems like nothing and they haven't set the record clear on what they will do now that they sc****d fighting for example. I think they are wisely not putting anything out about their lofty goals cause they will more than likely strip it down, at least if they even have a clue as to what content they envision, I wouldn't put it past them to be so focused on building the avatars and or world that they don't make anything compelling or interesting for you to do with those pretty things.

PC l0adletter
Posted - 2010.10.29 18:26:00 - [134]
 

Originally by: CCP Explorer
Originally by: Bomberlocks
Originally by: CCP Explorer
...While CCP did not have a focus on these issues as a company until late June this year,....
You don't know how angry this makes me. You yourself were claiming back in June how hard CCP had been working on lag. I actually saved the whole thread in a PDF. Would you like me to show this to you?

Honestly, this, especially since your own boss has finally admitted how little you cared and how it only changed when the player outrage grew to huge volumes and players started deserting your company en masse, is simply pathetic.Rolling Eyes

Stop making excuses already. That train left the station back in June.
You are selectively quoting me and that's bad m'kay! Here's the full quote:

While CCP did not have a focus on these issues as a company until late June this year, then CCP Atlas had started to work on those issues in December last year with a team of senior programmers using all available spare time they had.


Boy, that selective quoting really did you an injustice! There was a team with your senior programmers doing things in their 'spare time.' Okay, then.

I know when there are mission critical flaws in my company's product, our standard procedure is to wander around the cubicles where our overworked coders live and ask if anyone has some spare time that they'd care to donate...

Trebor Daehdoow
Gallente
Sane Industries Inc.
Posted - 2010.10.29 21:24:00 - [135]
 

Originally by: Shandir
The job of the CSM is also to represent the opinions and needs of the current players.
If there was a majority not against vanity MTs, then that is not being done.


The CSM represents the players, but is not a mindless conduit for player opinion (otherwise, what would be the point, CCP could just poll players). We are supposed to use our best judgment, using all the information available to us (including some NDA info the players don't have) -- and we are responsible to the players for those decisions at election time.

Which leads us to...

Originally by: Jowen Datloran
Originally by: Trebor Daehdoow
Bottom line, CCP has a right to make money of their game. CSM's job is to express concern when we think they are not fully aware of the consequences of a proposed move.



According to CCP as per the pdf presented here this whole situation has nothing to do with making money so what is it you are trying to say?


CCP says, and I take them at their word, that the whole PLEX for Remaps idea is an experiment. But it is clear that they want to experiment with some sort of MT, with the goal of eventually increasing their income.

There is nothing inherently wrong with this -- CCP is a business, not a charity.

As a CSM, if I want to influence their decision making, just saying "MT are the spawn of the devil, no, no, a billion times no!" isn't going to cut it. I have to make a business case for why MT -- or some particular flavor of MT -- is bad for business (ie: it will reduce their profits). Otherwise they'll just ignore me, and rightfully so.

If you re-read the meeting notes, you'll see the CSM trying to point out to CCP the consequences of various MT flavors, and strongly advising them against certain types (PLEX for in-game advantages, like remaps). In that case, a strong business case can be made that it's a bad idea.

On items that have no in-game advantage, vanity items such as PLEX for Panties or PLEX for Paintjobs, the situation is more nuanced. One concern there is that if the increased demand for PLEX by panty purchasers is not matched by an increased supply (because rich EVE underwear fetishists turn their ISK into faction panties, but the overall supply of PLEX does not increase as much), then PLEX will cost more ISK, and people who depend on trading ISK for PLEX to play will get squeezed. There is a case to be made that this might be bad, but it's not as strong of one.

Now consider if remaps, panties, etc were all available for ISK. Would anyone complain? Is there a significant business case to be made against this?

Where along the continuum from "No MT ever" to "All MT, All The Time" is the right place for EVE? Where should the line in the sand be drawn, and what can be done to ensure it doesn't get stepped over?

The CSM made a first attempt at answering that question at the meetings. We are continuing the discussion internally, and we'll certainly discuss it with interested players. No doubt our individual opinions will become more nuanced over time. And hopefully, CCP will take these opinions into account when deciding what they want to do.

Arganato
Posted - 2010.10.29 21:27:00 - [136]
 

Originally by: Don Pellegrino
Quote:
I really don't find CCP's claim that microtransactions aren't about the money to be credible. Uh yeah, we're trying to be on the cutting edge of... new ways to get your money? It kind of insults the intelligence.


this.

You want to be edgy and follow the wave, but WHY? WHY would you want to introduce microtransactions AT ALL if it's not to squeeze more money out of the players?

Quote:
Hilmar commented that “We love when people call bull**** on us”.


I'm calling bull**** on you.


Say NO to microtransactions!

microtransactions can be a great way to finance a game. Many small games are great with microtransactions, and I've had much fun with it, as it allows a more casual playstyle.

But IT DOESNT WORK FOR EVE!
Please.
I love Eve, and I'd hate it to see it adopt this...

-Arg

CCP Explorer

Posted - 2010.10.29 21:33:00 - [137]
 

Originally by: MotherMoon
[
Originally by: CCP Explorer
Originally by: Bhattran
Quote:
but stations in New Eden don't have windows!
A simple solution is to have a couple of 'general' camera views, even if you persist with this fallacy that stations have no windows simple cameras can provide the video feed to show players what is outside, even a simple version of the overview listing the objects outside space up to standard 'grid' range somewhat satisfies this request but in a much more CCP 'we cut that cause we ran out of time way'.
The technical reason for not doing this is that the stations and the interior of the stations will not be on the same node as the solarsystem itself (the space). This information would therefore have to be fed from the solarsystem node to the station node and constant cross-node communication is something we avoid.
That doesn't at all explain why you don't just have windows that show a skybox.

my eve online ships have windows on them but I complain that I can't zoom in and see inside them. Windows have a place in sci-fi, why do you think they have to be functional to be in the game?

Then again I have a feeling the lead artist already had this argument with you :P
Windows with a skybox is the slippery slope, next expansion everyone wants to see what's outside.

CCP Explorer

Posted - 2010.10.29 21:39:00 - [138]
 

Originally by: Taedrin
Originally by: Louis deGuerre

2. If you're going to add difference in icons between AB and MWD why not do it for BPO and BPC right away also ? People have only been asking for that for what ? 7 years ? ugh
IIRC, BPOs and BPCs have the same item IDs - meaning that the server can't tell the difference between them at a glance. In order to tell the difference, it has to do a more resource intensive call to the database to check to see if that particular item is a BPO or a BPC.

So essentially, in order for BPOs and BPCs to have different icons, CCP will have to do some significant rewriting and redesigning of their code. Or in other words, this is not a simple change for CCP to make.
This is mostly right, except that BPO's and BPC's have the same type ID's and the Inventory System only stores common information such and the item ID, type ID, location ID, etc. It doesn't store the BPO vs BPC bit because that specific information for blueprints and not general information that would apply to all other items such as ships and planets.

Vincent Athena
Posted - 2010.10.29 22:09:00 - [139]
 

Originally by: CCP Explorer
The technical reason for not doing this is that the stations and the interior of the stations will not be on the same node as the solarsystem itself (the space). This information would therefore have to be fed from the solarsystem node to the station node and constant cross-node communication is something we avoid.


This can be done without cross node comms. Just send info from 2 nodes to the client. You already do that. For example if I'm mining and doing market orders my client is getting info from the space node and from the market node.

Another way: have widows normally just show a generic space scene, but if I want to look out, I got to select doing so, and then that is all I'm doing, like a session change.

Ixtelle
Posted - 2010.10.29 22:32:00 - [140]
 

I see lots of people referencing this being an improvement over June, that one being a bad deal, etc., but I can't bring anything up from memory about that. Is there a relevant thread / blog post? I browsed through the archives of the news / announcements forum and dev blog, but didn't see anything, although I did find the archived minutes pdf from the event. What gives?

Shandir
Minmatar
Brutor Tribe
Posted - 2010.10.29 22:37:00 - [141]
 

Edited by: Shandir on 29/10/2010 22:45:37
Originally by: Trebor Daehdoow
...stuff...

I notice you didn't answer my question about which CSM members are in support of limited microtransactions.
As a representative, you have the right to choose which parts of the playerbase you represent, or indeed if you choose to decide you know better than the playerbase and represent your interpretation of our interests.
As someone who votes, I have a right to know which members of the CSM think they know better than the people they claim to represent, so I can vote for someone *else* come the next election.
So, I'll ask again - who among the CSM, other than you, is in favour of limited MT?

Edit: In response to your question - I firmly believe that EVE on the scale of No MT < - > Lots of MT, should be as far towards 'No MT' as possible.

I accept the reasons for PLEX, I partially accept the reasons for character purchases, and I partially accept the real money charges for portrait changes and character transfers.
There is no such 'benefit to the players' logic that says we should be happy about more microtransactions being added.

MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong
Posted - 2010.10.30 00:57:00 - [142]
 

Edited by: MotherMoon on 30/10/2010 18:11:17
Edited by: MotherMoon on 30/10/2010 01:00:42
Originally by: CCP Explorer


EDIT

Even I couldn't understand what I wrote.

I'm an environment artist instead of trying to do anything with words I'll do some concept art to illustrate my alternative views to the window issue.

because all I'm trying to get across is that having no windows is a slippery slope because players will notice they aren't there.

HOWEVER, having the windows with a skybox is an even bigger slippery slope that I can see why we wod be trying to avoid. However windows themselves are something an environment needs.

so what to do?

fake windows
paintings of space
windows that face areas other than the outside of the station

I'll do some concept art to give you something to take, look at and say, hey ok I like it, or no this isn't the direction we want to go.

Just, as an artist I think they might be an uncanny valley of environment art.

Look at the game Breath of fire 5. the whole game takes place underground, yet it's FULL of windows. windows looking into the next room. windows looking out to vast underground cities. stuff like that.

Quote:
Another way: have widows normally just show a generic space scene, but if I want to look out, I got to select doing so, and then that is all I'm doing, like a session change.


cool idea

Trebor Daehdoow
Gallente
Sane Industries Inc.
Posted - 2010.10.30 10:11:00 - [143]
 

Originally by: Shandir
I notice you didn't answer my question about which CSM members are in support of limited microtransactions.


I would not feel comfortable answering that question with specifics; they can speak for themselves should they be so inclined. However, I did check an internal forum thread about this topic and made a quick count. Of the CSMs who expressed an opinion (including T'Amber and one other alt), MT for vanity items was acceptable (with various caveats) by 2/3 of the group.

Originally by: Shandir
As a representative, you have the right to choose which parts of the playerbase you represent, or indeed if you choose to decide you know better than the playerbase and represent your interpretation of our interests.
As someone who votes, I have a right to know which members of the CSM think they know better than the people they claim to represent, so I can vote for someone *else* come the next election.


I totally agree with this, and I am always happy to explain my positions on matters of interest (where permitted by NDA, of course). And if another CSM has made a public statement that is relevant that I am aware of (or remember), I will point to that statement. But I won't put words in their mouths, it's just rude.

Originally by: Shandir
Edit: In response to your question - I firmly believe that EVE on the scale of No MT < - > Lots of MT, should be as far towards 'No MT' as possible.

In the absence of significant evidence that MT will not be harmful to the current players of EVE, I tend towards your position, and have been urging CCP to take the smallest of baby-steps (ie: reversible, and not going to screw you if it goes horribly wrong for some unexpected reason). It's one thing to drop a pebble in the pond to see where the ripples go, but something like PLEX for Remaps is a pretty big rock, IMHO.

Lors Dornick
Caldari
Posted - 2010.10.30 11:40:00 - [144]
 

Originally by: Trebor Daehdoow

As a CSM, if I want to influence their decision making, just saying "MT are the spawn of the devil, no, no, a billion times no!" isn't going to cut it. I have to make a business case for why MT -- or some particular flavor of MT -- is bad for business (ie: it will reduce their profits). Otherwise they'll just ignore me, and rightfully so.



Thanks for those lines, they reinstated my belief that there are sane and reasonable people in the world.

They do sound like spoken by a politician looking for a re-election, but this is a good thing in this case ;)

T'Amber
Garoun Investment Bank
Posted - 2010.10.30 13:39:00 - [145]
 

Originally by: Trebor Daehdoow
Originally by: T'Amber
Let me pull a number out of mazz's hat. 80%.
80% of the CSM were COMPLETELY against MT.
20% (Which is like 2 and a bit csms) were not.


Sorry, T, but this is a distortion of the opinions held by the CSM.

100% of the CSM was against MT being used to buy things that provided in-game edges -- which includes PLEX for Remaps.

A majority of the CSM felt that if CCP wants to play around with MT for vanity items, then fine (but "meh"). Some others felt it was the "least bad" alternative, and there was concern about diversion of resources (ie: time spent creating faction panties could better be spent on other things of more use to the community).

There was also concern about overloading another function on PLEX.



While everyone was against microtransactions in general, from my seat it looked like a few were ok with vanity items which is the 20% I mentioned. This is what I meant with the 80/20. I do not agree that most were ok with vanity items, but you were sitting in another seat and things may have looked different to you.


CCP Explorer

Posted - 2010.10.30 16:39:00 - [146]
 

Originally by: Vincent Athena
Originally by: CCP Explorer
The technical reason for not doing this is that the stations and the interior of the stations will not be on the same node as the solarsystem itself (the space). This information would therefore have to be fed from the solarsystem node to the station node and constant cross-node communication is something we avoid.
This can be done without cross node comms. Just send info from 2 nodes to the client. You already do that. For example if I'm mining and doing market orders my client is getting info from the space node and from the market node.
But then the client is connected to the location node as well and a part of what we are planning is to reduce the load on it by separating stations from the solar system itself. This would not accomplish that.

De'Veldrin
Minmatar
Norse'Storm Battle Group
Intrepid Crossing
Posted - 2010.10.30 17:21:00 - [147]
 

Originally by: Malcanis
I was intensely interested to see that CCP believe there is too much ISK in EVE.


The number of supercaps hot dropping subcaps for lulz seems to support their point.

MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong
Posted - 2010.10.30 18:11:00 - [148]
 

Originally by: CCP Explorer
Originally by: Vincent Athena
Originally by: CCP Explorer
The technical reason for not doing this is that the stations and the interior of the stations will not be on the same node as the solarsystem itself (the space). This information would therefore have to be fed from the solarsystem node to the station node and constant cross-node communication is something we avoid.
This can be done without cross node comms. Just send info from 2 nodes to the client. You already do that. For example if I'm mining and doing market orders my client is getting info from the space node and from the market node.
But then the client is connected to the location node as well and a part of what we are planning is to reduce the load on it by separating stations from the solar system itself. This would not accomplish that.


thanks for answering our questions by the way. : )

(I edited my post, expect paintings soon :P)

Trebor Daehdoow
Gallente
Sane Industries Inc.
Posted - 2010.10.30 20:05:00 - [149]
 

Originally by: CCP Explorer
But then the client is connected to the location node as well and a part of what we are planning is to reduce the load on it by separating stations from the solar system itself. This would not accomplish that.

Hmm... Seems to me that that you could create a lightweight "viewpoint" node (perhaps in the proxy layer?), one per station grid. Clients connect to the viewpoint, it connects to the location node (on demand) to get the info; no matter how many clients want to look out of a window, the overhead on the location node is equivalent to one cloaked ship on the station grid.

I can see how this might be considered as a lot of pain for not much gain, but in the long term, this is something you're going to have to address in order to not break the immersion, and similar techniques are surely under consideration as long-term lag-fighting approaches.

Bhattran
Posted - 2010.10.30 20:46:00 - [150]
 

I just realized something if there are no windows then we can't space people! No tripping some fool into an airlock, slamming down a lever or button to seal the door then peering through the glass window to watch as they freak out when you cycle the airlock and open the compartment to space! Sad


Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only