open All Channels
seplocked EVE Information Portal
blankseplocked New Dev Blog: CSM December Summit - Meeting minutes (Part 2 of 3)
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 [2] 3

Author Topic

Iraherag
Posted - 2011.01.13 20:21:00 - [31]
 

Edited by: Iraherag on 13/01/2011 20:21:18
Originally by: Grady Eltoren
In RE: to Micro Transactions - I like the idea of vanity only - as CCP admitted they do not have many ideas I would suggest to the CSM that a push be made to make a System wide survey or at least something at Fanfest to the PLAYERS as what THEY would like to see. Your best ideas will come from there.


You like the idea of vanity items in EVE? Are you serious?

Why does EVE need micro-transactions AT ALL?
Why does CCP think micro-transactions are somehow needed and now use the rationalization "only for irrelevant stuff" to justify that move?

Grady Eltoren
Minmatar
Aviation Professionals for EVE
Posted - 2011.01.13 20:27:00 - [32]
 

Originally by: Iraherag
Edited by: Iraherag on 13/01/2011 20:21:18
Originally by: Grady Eltoren
In RE: to Micro Transactions - I like the idea of vanity only - as CCP admitted they do not have many ideas I would suggest to the CSM that a push be made to make a System wide survey or at least something at Fanfest to the PLAYERS as what THEY would like to see. Your best ideas will come from there.


You like the idea of vanity items in EVE? Are you serious?

Why does EVE need micro-transactions AT ALL?
Why does CCP think micro-transactions are somehow needed and now use the rationalization "only for irrelevant stuff" to justify that move?



Yes I am serious. What is wrong with them - seriously? IF SOMEONE wants to EXPRESS their creativity with a custom ship skin or outfit or something non-game balance affecting - WHO CARES!? Let them take their ISK and pay CCP for it. As long as it doesn't lag my game I could give two $hits.

Why does EVE need them? Short answer: They don't. CCP just wants them to add an extra income stream if possible. Again it comes down to people expressing themselves creatively and I say to you again - WTF do you care what they do? Do you go around policing people's outfits in the mall?? It's just extra money for them and last time I checked making money wasn't a bad word or immoral.

It has already been iterated by the CSM that they don't want people buying more isk (advantage) with isk more than what is in game. So as long as that and the lag thing is addressed I can't see a reason why not and thus do not get why you are so upset with my post. GOOD DAY.

Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange
Nabaal Syndicate
Posted - 2011.01.13 20:32:00 - [33]
 

Originally by: Iraherag
Originally by: Grady Eltoren
In RE: to Micro Transactions - I like the idea of vanity only - as CCP admitted they do not have many ideas I would suggest to the CSM that a push be made to make a System wide survey or at least something at Fanfest to the PLAYERS as what THEY would like to see. Your best ideas will come from there.


You like the idea of vanity items in EVE? Are you serious?

Why does EVE need micro-transactions AT ALL?
Why does CCP think micro-transactions are somehow needed and now use the rationalization "only for irrelevant stuff" to justify that move?


CCP wants them, and this is CCP's game. They see a cash cow, and they want to milk it - normal enough sentiment for a company. And frankly, as long as it's vanity items only, and the advertising isn't too obnoxious, I don't see a problem.

Altaree
The Graduates
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2011.01.13 20:42:00 - [34]
 

Thanks for the Minutes! hmm... 4 days until the release and still no patch notes.... HUH?

Max Kolonko
Caldari
Worm Nation
Ash Alliance
Posted - 2011.01.13 20:51:00 - [35]
 

since all the botting/RMT stuff is NDA, can CSM at least state their opinion on what was said under the NDA hood - if it is going to be sorted out in some way or not? Does the means CCP uses is sufficent in Your (CSM) believe?

Thanx for any answer you can give

Iraherag
Posted - 2011.01.13 20:55:00 - [36]
 

Edited by: Iraherag on 13/01/2011 20:56:28
Originally by: Grady Eltoren
Originally by: Iraherag
Edited by: Iraherag on 13/01/2011 20:21:18
Originally by: Grady Eltoren
In RE: to Micro Transactions - I like the idea of vanity only - as CCP admitted they do not have many ideas I would suggest to the CSM that a push be made to make a System wide survey or at least something at Fanfest to the PLAYERS as what THEY would like to see. Your best ideas will come from there.


You like the idea of vanity items in EVE? Are you serious?

Why does EVE need micro-transactions AT ALL?
Why does CCP think micro-transactions are somehow needed and now use the rationalization "only for irrelevant stuff" to justify that move?



Yes I am serious. What is wrong with them - seriously? IF SOMEONE wants to EXPRESS their creativity with a custom ship skin or outfit or something non-game balance affecting - WHO CARES!? Let them take their ISK and pay CCP for it. As long as it doesn't lag my game I could give two $hits.

Why does EVE need them? Short answer: They don't. CCP just wants them to add an extra income stream if possible. Again it comes down to people expressing themselves creatively and I say to you again - WTF do you care what they do? Do you go around policing people's outfits in the mall?? It's just extra money for them and last time I checked making money wasn't a bad word or immoral.

It has already been iterated by the CSM that they don't want people buying more isk (advantage) with isk more than what is in game. So as long as that and the lag thing is addressed I can't see a reason why not and thus do not get why you are so upset with my post. GOOD DAY.


Yeah, not wanting to have micro-transactions introduced into EVE is pretty much the same as policing people in a mall in RL. (BTW your post is about the same as demanding censorship in RL newspapers - I'm still entitled to my opinion!)

However, I'm sure CCP will not devote too much development time to create an ample supply of micro-transaction-enabled items / things to buy / do.

The question is not always "Why not?".
In fact it's usually the most silly reason of them all...

TeaDaze
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
Posted - 2011.01.13 20:58:00 - [37]
 

Originally by: Evelgrivion
Why is all the Incarna related discussion buried under an NDA?

Because the CSM don't buy the "don't worry, it will be ~awesome~ bull****" and instead asked difficult questions which CCP promptly classed as NDA.


Originally by: Evelgrivion
Why does CCP not realize the reason for the decrease in belt ratting? A simple check on day to day activities reveals the reason to be Cosmic Anomalies; they provide far better ISK per hour and at a lower level of risk than asteroid belt ratting has.

I swear a few of the CSM stated this as one reason (there are others). I'd say this is a mistake in the transcription.


Originally by: mvrck22
Read the PC Gamer article with their lead designer ridiculing the faith customers put in him with his comments of how they just want to do new stuff, but hey, got to do stupid stuff like keeping customers happy with rockets - as if that was the beef of 18 months was about. Amazing display of contempt.

It is a pretty frank admission that a group of Devs within CCP are no longer interested in iterating on the old boring Flying in Space parts of Eve and instead want to spend their time on new features. Meanwhile the core game continues to suffer as significant development time from the dedicated Eve teams is spent towards Incarna.


Originally by: mvrck22
Basically, nearly 5 years later all they have is the same as the last hundred times hey gave Incarna insights. Selling hot air is an art, which works quite well, but it does not keep.

They don't wish to do any expectation management which means the people most looking forward to Incarna will be the most disappointed when feature X they were sure would be in turns out not to be.


Originally by: mvrck22
Has there been any tangible and meaninful collaboration between the Incarna and CCP's creative vision teams and the CSM? At all?

None at all. Zip, zero, Nada. The Incarna teams have gone out of their way to avoid dealing with the CSM to the point of vetoing the entire 3 hour discussion from this summit from being released to the players.

CSM have seen :-
No demos
No vision document
No roadmap

We just got the same marketing fluff that they gave to EON and PCGamer (based on nothing substatial and "where we would like Incarna to be in 2 years" wishlists). When the discussions got difficult they sidestepped the questions.

Totally different attitude to every other team we've spoken to during summits.

Iamien
Democracy of Klingon Brothers
Posted - 2011.01.13 21:20:00 - [38]
 

Originally by: TeaDaze
...


Thank for for the context. This is how the CSM should act, as advocates for US and not CCP. They should not be kissing CCP's ass in hope of CCP feeling gracious enough to lighten up with the vetoing. Seems some CSM members are honestly fine with the current state of development or they have dellusions of some sort of job offer coming to them or something.

Mynxee
Veto.
Veto Corp
Posted - 2011.01.13 21:21:00 - [39]
 

I concur with everything Teadaze said. Some people think CSM is too hard on those responsible for Incarna, but it is worth noting that we've asked plenty of tough questions of other teams and yet, they still engaged us in some very productive ongoing discussions outside the Summits.

I do sometimes wonder what the outcome might be at this point regarding messaging from the CSM about Incarna if those responsible for it had engaged us as other teams have. Of course, it may not be too late for them to do it...there's three months left in our term. The question is whether they WANT and maybe more importantly are capable of doing so in a productive fashion.

Meissa Anunthiel
Redshift Industrial
Rooks and Kings
Posted - 2011.01.13 21:31:00 - [40]
 

Edited by: Meissa Anunthiel on 13/01/2011 21:48:24
Edits: typos
Originally by: TeaDaze
Originally by: Evelgrivion
Why is all the Incarna related discussion buried under an NDA?

Because the CSM don't buy the "don't worry, it will be ~awesome~ bull****" and instead asked difficult questions which CCP promptly classed as NDA.


On the other hand, considering our nearly unanimously negative reaction to what we were and were not shown, another reason might be that they're listening to our comments, are going to take them into consideration and don't see the value in building up a lot of negative reaction to a product they're placing a lot of resources on before they even begin being dedicated to it.

Originally by: TeaDaze

Originally by: mvrck22
Basically, nearly 5 years later all they have is the same as the last hundred times hey gave Incarna insights. Selling hot air is an art, which works quite well, but it does not keep.

They don't wish to do any expectation management which means the people most looking forward to Incarna will be the most disappointed when feature X they were sure would be in turns out not to be.


On the other hand if they don't do expectation management and release information beforehand, if it's going to be hot air, the reaction is going to be worse come release time.

Originally by: TeaDaze

Originally by: mvrck22
Has there been any tangible and meaninful collaboration between the Incarna and CCP's creative vision teams and the CSM? At all?

None at all. Zip, zero, Nada. The Incarna teams have gone out of their way to avoid dealing with the CSM to the point of vetoing the entire 3 hour discussion from this summit from being released to the players.

CSM have seen :-
No demos
No vision document
No roadmap

We just got the same marketing fluff that they gave to EON and PCGamer (based on nothing substatial and "where we would like Incarna to be in 2 years" wishlists). When the discussions got difficult they sidestepped the questions.

Totally different attitude to every other team we've spoken to during summits.

The reason we were given for some of the missing bits are that release planning (and therefore some of the roadmap) will only be available in January.
We have seen demos (mostly in October). While I agree with Teadaze that what we've seen so far wasn't very convincing, it's wildly different from saying we haven't seen anything.
We haven't seen a roadmap.

That bit of nuancing aside...
I agree that, unlike every other team we've met so far, I share Teadaze's feelings we were actively prevented from seeing things or beeing told things about InCarna. I didn't look forward to InCarna before, I don't have any reason to look forward to it now (I actually look forward to it less, if that's possible). I think what we were shown and told sucks donkey balls.

That being said. That is the whole reason we, the CSM, go there to talk to the devs. So we can provide feedback, unnuanced and unfiltered, so the devs can take into into account without generating more negative reaction than is required.

We've had lots of negative reactions to many things over the past 4 terms I've been a member of, we have seldom been mild to the devs, and while some of the features did turn out crap in the end anyway, most of the comments we made were taken into account and many of the things that turned out good did so at least in part because we were able to tell them "this bit sucks", "this bit is good" privately, thereby expressing our concerns in a constructive fashion (read the prior minutes, everytime the CSM "expressed concern", someone in the room said "this sucks" ). Many times our concerns were addressed.

I have no way of knowing whether InCarna is salvageable in my eyes. But everything I had to say about it I did say. I have had no reason to believe CCP discarded our comments as invalid in the past. So I'm not going to bash them without giving them a chance to address our comments first.

Iamien
Democracy of Klingon Brothers
Posted - 2011.01.13 21:38:00 - [41]
 

Originally by: Meissa Anunthiel
Originally by: TeaDaze

Originally by: mvrck22
Basically, nearly 5 years later all they have is the same as the last hundred times hey gave Incarna insights. Selling hot air is an art, which works quite well, but it does not keep.

They don't wish to do any expectation management which means the people most looking forward to Incarna will be the most disappointed when feature X they were sure would be in turns out not to be.


On the other hand if they don't do expectation management and release information beforehand, if it's going to be hot hair, the reaction is going to be worse come release time.




That's not the otherhand, it's the same hand. Tea is saying that with them doing no expectation management, "people most looking forward to Incarna will be the most disappointed".

With expectation management, less hype gets generated but also much less disappointment. Seems CCP wants as much hype as possible regardless.

Cyaxares II
Posted - 2011.01.13 21:48:00 - [42]
 

Edited by: Cyaxares II on 13/01/2011 21:55:49
Originally by: TeaDaze
It is a pretty frank admission that a group of Devs within CCP are no longer interested in iterating on the old boring Flying in Space parts of Eve and instead want to spend their time on new features. Meanwhile the core game continues to suffer as significant development time from the dedicated Eve teams is spent towards Incarna.

that's a normal problem and I don't know of any way to really fix it.

maintenance work often is boring and doesn't allow for visible achievements - writing new features is fun, refactoring/rewriting large parts of code can be complicated but is still more fun than working around limitations of the old code while trying to fix obscure bugs (or implement small new features/improvements on top of an existing stack).

Projects like Incarna, Dust & WoD allow CCP to attract fresh talent that would otherwise not be interested in continuing development of a 2003-game (and it probably prevents some of the older "star" programmers from leaving for greener pastures).

Note that Blizzard confirmed it's "Titan" project for the sole purpose of being able to use it in recruitment (as "develop a next-gen MMO from scratch" sounds more interesting/challenging than "increase level cap for WoW by another 5-10 levels in about 1-2 years").

I actually like how CCP handles this problem: fixing lag is probably one of the more tedious and thankless tasks (especially if the community is convinced that it is just a regression that needs to be fixed and no "true" improvement) - yet CCP gives a lot of public attention to Team Gridlock and has build up CCP Warlock as some kind of CS superstar recruited straight from MIT to solve all the (NP) hard problems.

genius move as it
- signals players: we takes this problem seriously and think beyond "just wait for the next hardware upgrade"
- signals CCP Warlock: we are really interested in keeping you
- signals potential employees: we are still able to attract top talent

you need the "stars" with interesting projects (distributed computing, Incarna clothing simulation, Stackless Python, ...) to be able to maintain a meaningful presence at conferences - which helps a lot to attract potential employees.

Meissa Anunthiel
Redshift Industrial
Rooks and Kings
Posted - 2011.01.13 21:56:00 - [43]
 

Originally by: Iamien
Originally by: Meissa Anunthiel
Originally by: TeaDaze

Originally by: mvrck22
Basically, nearly 5 years later all they have is the same as the last hundred times hey gave Incarna insights. Selling hot air is an art, which works quite well, but it does not keep.

They don't wish to do any expectation management which means the people most looking forward to Incarna will be the most disappointed when feature X they were sure would be in turns out not to be.


On the other hand if they don't do expectation management and release information beforehand, if it's going to be hot hair, the reaction is going to be worse come release time.


That's not the otherhand, it's the same hand. Tea is saying that with them doing no expectation management, "people most looking forward to Incarna will be the most disappointed".

With expectation management, less hype gets generated but also much less disappointment. Seems CCP wants as much hype as possible regardless.

No, Tea is saying that "CCP doesn't wish to do any expectation management".
I'm saying that that's not the case, we told them they needed to do it, they knew it, we told them they needed to start doing it ASAP. That was a few weeks ago.

Considering the fact that what they're deciding on actually including in the first InCarna release is about to be decided this month during release planning, it wouldn't make any sense for them to say "we're not going to do this bit" or "we're going to do this bit" before they've actually decided it...

Before concluding that they're not listening to what we said, it stands to reason we have to wait to see if they seize or not the opportunity we told them unanimously and unequivocally that they must.

If they don't release any significant information before fanfest, I'll join the crowd that says "darn basterds didn't listen to what we told them". Until then, I reserve my judgment.

Trebor Daehdoow
Gallente
Sane Industries Inc.
Posted - 2011.01.13 22:07:00 - [44]
 

Originally by: Iraherag
Would it be possible to estimate how much time is used for CCP explaining things to the CSM and how much for the CSM explaing things to CCP?


It varies between sessions, but it's usually around 50/50. Some sessions are more "infodump" oriented; the QA meeting was an example of that. Note that subsequent QA meetings, now that the infodump is done, will likely be more balanced.

Originally by: Iraherag
QA section is a great example of how generic and bland the information from those summits can be:
Yes, bugs slip through (whowuddathunkit), the real question is "How can obvious bugs slip through?" (eg PI, gate jumping in Dominion). But you don't ask those questions, you prefer to ask for the "most hilarious bug" instead.


Bugs slip through for a lot of reasons, and often they don't rear their ugly heads until they hit the real world of TQ -- the session-change blackscreens being a good example (already explained in a devblog, btw). Talking about specific cases would not have been all that useful; what we wanted to know is who makes the decisions when the fecal matter hits the rotary impeller.

Turns out, QA can't push the Emergency Stop button by themselves; it's basically a group decision. Which brings up the interesting question, does QA have enough influence in that decision-making process?

Or, to put it another way, is part of the answer to "why do obvious bugs slip through?" that QA does not have enough influence?

Originally by: Max Kolonko
since all the botting/RMT stuff is NDA, can CSM at least state their opinion on what was said under the NDA hood - if it is going to be sorted out in some way or not? Does the means CCP uses is sufficent in Your (CSM) believe?


This is impossible to answer, since CCP has not told us any specifics of any future plans for anti-bot/RMT efforts, other than (apparently) continuing to ban accounts as they have done in the past.

Vincent Athena
Posted - 2011.01.13 22:39:00 - [45]
 

Im a little concerned about the total lack of relevant information about the botting issue. Cannot something be brought out from behind the NDA? Sure future plans and countermeasures need be hidden, but what about:

Does CCP acknowledge that bots are used for reasons other than RMT?

If I were to ask a dev "On any given evening, what is your gut estimate for the percentage of players that are in fact bots?", and he answered with a number, what would that number be?

How many accounts per day does CCP ban for botting? Personally, Id like to see this number on the login screen, and updated daily.

It is widely believed that CCP does not ban bot users that are not involved with RMT, because it would reduce CCP revenue. Can CCP please explain to such players why they are wrong, and why it is in CCP's best interest to ban bot users? (My answer: A game that becomes mostly bots will eventually die, and then CCP gets no revenue from it).

Telling the players how many accounts get banned for botting, and even telling them some of the counter measures could be a deterrent to botting. Its like showing the big bar on the castle gate and the heads on the pikes: invaders decide to go somewhere else.

Thanks CSM for putting up with us players on one side and CCP on the other.



Meissa Anunthiel
Redshift Industrial
Rooks and Kings
Posted - 2011.01.13 22:54:00 - [46]
 

Edited by: Meissa Anunthiel on 13/01/2011 22:55:32
Originally by: Vincent Athena
Im a little concerned about the total lack of relevant information about the botting issue. Cannot something be brought out from behind the NDA? Sure future plans and countermeasures need be hidden, but what about:

Does CCP acknowledge that bots are used for reasons other than RMT?


Yes

Originally by: Vincent Athena

If I were to ask a dev "On any given evening, what is your gut estimate for the percentage of players that are in fact bots?", and he answered with a number, what would that number be?


They don't know exactly and so wouldn't give a number.
Originally by: Vincent Athena

How many accounts per day does CCP ban for botting? Personally, Id like to see this number on the login screen, and updated daily.


We asked for that, CCP said no. I don't recall the exact argument...

Originally by: Vincent Athena

It is widely believed that CCP does not ban bot users that are not involved with RMT, because it would reduce CCP revenue. Can CCP please explain to such players why they are wrong, and why it is in CCP's best interest to ban bot users? (My answer: A game that becomes mostly bots will eventually die, and then CCP gets no revenue from it).


Bots don't bring revenue because they register with stolen credit cards, the chargeback for which CCP has to pay.
Also, they screw up the economy, irritate users, hack accounts to steal assets and isk.

Originally by: Vincent Athena

Telling the players how many accounts get banned for botting, and even telling them some of the counter measures could be a deterrent to botting. Its like showing the big bar on the castle gate and the heads on the pikes: invaders decide to go somewhere else.


CCP did this once for unholy rage, the CSM is given updates on the evolution of banned accounts and some information into trends on that front each visit. However we are lead to believe that releasing that kind information on a permanent/regular basis could help RMTers detect which practices are effective and which not, etc. We've however encouraged the GM Team to post updates more regularly than they do now.

CCP Gangleri


Minmatar
Posted - 2011.01.13 23:41:00 - [47]
 

Originally by: Iraherag
Edited by: Iraherag on 13/01/2011 19:56:08

QA section is a great example of how generic and bland the information from those summits can be:
Yes, bugs slip through (whowuddathunkit), the real question is "How can obvious bugs slip through?" (eg PI, gate jumping in Dominion). But you don't ask those questions, you prefer to ask for the "most hilarious bug" instead.
One big happy family, eh?


Are you referring to this 'obvious' jump bug? That blog was an honest attempt at explaining how these slip through and are subsequently dealt with.

Louis deGuerre
Gallente
Malevolence.
Posted - 2011.01.14 00:16:00 - [48]
 

Edited by: Louis deGuerre on 14/01/2011 00:18:15
Good stuff.

Pet Peeve :
The lack of any mention of the broken new editor combined with the '2 years for UI improvements' line has me worried.

The Bigger Picture :
Everyone and his dog will fly a MOM within a year and PVP will die out causing the market to crash and burn and start another server fire, probably fittingly in 2012.
Sadly, no solutions or even directions to search for solutions are mentioned. Seems like the 'hot potato' is being passed around and CCP lacks long term strategy and vision.

Comments ?

Vincent Athena
Posted - 2011.01.14 00:18:00 - [49]
 

Originally by: Meissa Anunthiel

Bots don't bring revenue because they register with stolen credit cards, the chargeback for which CCP has to pay.
Also, they screw up the economy, irritate users, hack accounts to steal assets and isk.



Thanks for the reply. But Im still a little confused. For example, a bot runs sanctums in 0.0 with a Nyx. How did that user keep an account long enough to get the SP to fly a Nyx, if its on a stolen credit card?

Also bot users need not use stolen credit cards as they can just use a small fraction of their gains to buy PLEX, which someone else bought with a real credit card.

But I do see the point: CCP has a battle with hacked accounts, stollen credit cards, etc on top of the bot issue. But that would seem to be more of a RMT issue.

I am mainly concerned with bots being used for other purposes, like making supercarriers for 0.0 alliances, or just Joe average PvPer running an ice mining macro so he can buy new ships.

It seems as soon as botting is mentioned to CCP, it immediately goes to a conversation about RMT. What I would like to see is something about what CCP is doing about players who's one and only EULA violation is use of bots. Not hacking, not credit fraud, not RMT, just bots. Could we please get something more than "Yes, we know"? The original unholy rage blog gave us that; data on how the game environment was changed by CCP actions. More, please?

Dogo Duma
Posted - 2011.01.14 00:31:00 - [50]
 

Originally by: Vincent Athena
It seems as soon as botting is mentioned to CCP, it immediately goes to a conversation about RMT. What I would like to see is something about what CCP is doing about players who's one and only EULA violation is use of bots. Not hacking, not credit fraud, not RMT, just bots. Could we please get something more than "Yes, we know"? The original unholy rage blog gave us that; data on how the game environment was changed by CCP actions. More, please?


That's because that path leads directly to asking painful questions on game design, decisions for creative vision and direction, the people responsible for this and so forth. And no, that is not a pretty investigation.


From these minutes it even seems still that CCP still do not subscribe to how both botting and RMT have changed over the past years. 500 dollar Nyx, Planetary Interaction, etc. But no, let's stick with outdated metrics and concepts and battles long evaded and surpassed by both botting and rmt.

Meissa Anunthiel
Redshift Industrial
Rooks and Kings
Posted - 2011.01.14 00:47:00 - [51]
 

Edited by: Meissa Anunthiel on 14/01/2011 00:49:24
Originally by: Vincent Athena
Originally by: Meissa Anunthiel

Bots don't bring revenue because they register with stolen credit cards, the chargeback for which CCP has to pay.
Also, they screw up the economy, irritate users, hack accounts to steal assets and isk.



Thanks for the reply. But Im still a little confused. For example, a bot runs sanctums in 0.0 with a Nyx. How did that user keep an account long enough to get the SP to fly a Nyx, if its on a stolen credit card?

Also bot users need not use stolen credit cards as they can just use a small fraction of their gains to buy PLEX, which someone else bought with a real credit card.

But I do see the point: CCP has a battle with hacked accounts, stollen credit cards, etc on top of the bot issue. But that would seem to be more of a RMT issue.

I am mainly concerned with bots being used for other purposes, like making supercarriers for 0.0 alliances, or just Joe average PvPer running an ice mining macro so he can buy new ships.

It seems as soon as botting is mentioned to CCP, it immediately goes to a conversation about RMT. What I would like to see is something about what CCP is doing about players who's one and only EULA violation is use of bots. Not hacking, not credit fraud, not RMT, just bots. Could we please get something more than "Yes, we know"? The original unholy rage blog gave us that; data on how the game environment was changed by CCP actions. More, please?


I understand, sorry for the confusion, I indeed replied to "bots" as if you had said "RMTing bots" with regards to credit card & hacking.

The distinction is one that is indeed valid and one I've asked about for a long while. The answer so far has been, and I'm paraphrasing, "we warn and ban actual players who use bots but do not RMT when they are reported to us, however it is harder for us to detect them automatically because there's less or no asset/ISK transfer and since they are less damaging to the game as the RMTing variant, there's less effort being put into chasing them". That's paraphrased a lot, that's MY perception of what the devs said, but I don't think any GM will contradict this description as invalid. Obviously beyond a certain point the ISK generation becomes such that they fall on the same radar as RMTers, so we're talking about the "milder ones".

I understand CCP's reaction and it's a semi valid ones, however I hate those non-people with a passion and would like to see them go just as much as you do (except the ice miners, I got POSes to fuel and ice mining is just too boring). Several solutions have been discussed/suggested over the years. One of which is to make things that are botted because they're boring (ice mining) more fun. Tough one...

Second one is put some effort into developing tools/detection systems to chase those. It's in the pipes, but less of a priority than chasing the RMTing ones. Also, "highly efficient players" look like bots. So it's not easy either. We've discussed some methods to detect those bots during this last meeting (and everyone and their brother has their pet theory about how it's actually easy to automatically detect them, but it's not). I don't remember if they were held formally or informally (when CSM eats with devs after meetings, discussions keep going) but we talked about those for certain.

So it falls down to player reports for the time being. I have been told (and actually believe) that any and all reports about bots are investigated. So it comes down to us to report them. They won't disappear immediately even if they're bots, but if they are they'll go away.

As far as your last comment about supercaps goes, it doesn't matter whether they farm isk and move minerals or farm in the drone regions. End result is the same, behaviour is the same. They need to go...

Kethry Avenger
PIE Inc.
Posted - 2011.01.14 00:50:00 - [52]
 

Paraphrase "There has been a decrease in PvP. We are unsure why."

There has also been an increase in risk with the insurance changes...

With no increase in reward for PvP.

So you have to spend more time earning isk to afford your PvP.

Steve Thomas
Minmatar
Sebiestor Tribe
Posted - 2011.01.14 00:56:00 - [53]
 

Edited by: Steve Thomas on 14/01/2011 00:59:29
@Meissa Anunthiel

I hate to say this but I have a feeling that the developers have gotten oversensitive to a very real point.

The Reality is that a lot the people who play EvE online now DO NOT PAY CCP A SUBSCRIPTION FEE to make:

"SIMs in space/Second life in space/EvE-Starwars Galaxy a new gameing experience that is not a WoW clone because its set in spacestations"
or
some BDSM wetdream of Sparkly Vampire-werewolf sexoring er "roleplaying" from some failed third rate Larp/RPG company that could not even Give away an autographed leather bound copy of its "game rules" at the last Dragon Con I saw them at
or
a frankly meh looking FPS shooter clone.

yet somehow a game company that can bairly manage to shovel out broken ass crap literaly every expansion like Dominion and PI and Faction warfare for the past few years is somehow also doing all of that other crap ON TOP OF DEVELOPING EVE!

What makes all of this realy even more frustrating is that, after all this time developing all of that crap, the BEST we can get out of them is literaly a Homer Simpsonesk Duhhh we dont know!

Durnin Stormbrow
Posted - 2011.01.14 01:10:00 - [54]
 

Edited by: Durnin Stormbrow on 14/01/2011 01:13:32
Originally by: Meissa Anunthiel
"since [bots] are less damaging to the game as the RMTing variant, there's less effort being put into chasing them." That's paraphrased a lot...


This has been a huge pet peve of mine for years, through every MMO I've played. The arguement is always made that non-RMT bots are less evil than RMT-bots and farmers, since no one is making any 'real' profit.

The reality is that the effect on the game is exactly the same regardless of wether the profits go in someone's RL bank account or flushed to satisfy a gamers need for more. You end up with too much 'gold' chasing too many 'fat loots'. Players that want to be competive are all but forced to plex, RMT or bot, and players that follow the rules are left behind as the bar of achievment gets pushed farther and farther beyond their reach.

It's a self perpetuating problem. The more people do it, the more people need to do it, the more normal it becomes.

Tetrix Akuta
Intaki Pure
Posted - 2011.01.14 01:19:00 - [55]
 

Edited by: Tetrix Akuta on 14/01/2011 02:49:45
Originally by: CSM_CCP_Meetings-part-2_15-17_12_2010
Hilmar stated that CCP's philosophy is to start small and see what happens; CCP does not want to over-design Incarna in the early stages, but see how the players use it and respond to that.


Here is what I would like to know, what did they find happened with their past small starts and which ones will they revisit? It's no secret that CCP loves to lay down the frame work for future awesomeness, but will see some of these frame works revisited? So far we have seen some of this, they revisited Sov warfare for better or worse. In a week they will revisit PI. Will they revisit others? Faction Warfare? Lowsec? Tech 3? Sov structures? Corp/Alliance management? Wormhole space? Bounty hunting mechanics?

EDIT: I just wanted to add that I actually do agree with their method of not jumping in with both feet on a feature set and risk going in the wrong direction. However if things are only ever started and never revisited and finished this strategy falls apart.

Steve Thomas
Minmatar
Sebiestor Tribe
Posted - 2011.01.14 01:33:00 - [56]
 

Edited by: Steve Thomas on 14/01/2011 01:34:35
the reason they prioritize RMT over non RMT bots is simple, but multi part

1)
Non RMT bots are not "up" as mutch as mutch as RMT bots
RMT bots are usualy far more efficient at making money

2)
RMT bots are invariably run by individuals who are causing other problems for gamers (Creditcard fraud and so on)

3)RMT Bots are usualy part of a bot swarm of over 100 accounts,(Blizard once said that going after *one* bot user took out over 800 accounts in the US and another 600+ in europe) even if they not in one system, for various reasons it basicaly takes the same ammount of work to go after the guy whos Farming to get other peoples $$$ with 100 bots as it does to go after Joey Microcorps 1-4 bots being used by someone whos botting to pay for there pvwhatever

4) Player bots are often conected to one or more actual players, Banning thoes bots may result in thoes players (and some of there freinds who were not botting or even aware that that player was botting) leaving the game. something that they only wish would happen to the RMT bots.

I can go on, but I think you get the point

the reality is that nowdays the priority chain for the developers is

1) Go after the hackers and Credit card frauds.
2) Go after the Bot army
3) Fix all the real glitches and exploits in the games economy
4) develope more fun ways for players to make ISK
5) go after people who bot to pay for there Pvwhatever

ok I will be honest, I HOPE that the developers are working on making ISK more fun.

Shurikane
Posted - 2011.01.14 04:21:00 - [57]
 

Contributan gaems!


About Virtual Goods:
I'll reiterate my request that VGs be obtainable through ISK, and never degrade. This has been a pet peeve of mine in most free-to-play online games even though I understand why their business model would get a person to pay a premium to get a permanent version of these items. I do not think EVE needs that seeing as there's already a subscription fee associated to it (no, Oblivion's horse patch is not a good example.) :D


About PVP:
During my nullsec stints, I seldomly encountered PVP. Not because I wasn't a PVPer but because whenever I roamed out with the buddies... we found no one to fight. Either inferior forces ran away from us, or we ran away from superior forces. Boxed in? Logoffski time. I ended up letting go of roaming ops altogether since it took four hours to barely have any chance of shooting at something that wasn't my own fleetmates (no, POS whacking is not a valid example of fun PVP.) There was no incentive in anyone trying to kill anybody else, let alone even try to engage in a fight. It's quite simply too easy to either avoid a fight or walk around a blockade. People often didn't try to break up a camp; they just logged off and checked back now and then until the way was clear.

Unless you are out for loot or conquering territory, you have no logical reason to seek a fight. POSes aside, there is nothing that exists in space that people want to openly defend or attack. In most cases, the defenders find it safer and more profitable to simply run away. There is nothing that limits player capabilities in any way aside from... the Alliance Tournament! It's there that we see great fights and cunning setups. There has to be some way we can work such limiting situations into the real EVE universe to get fleet to "play the right cards" instead of "throwing a blob at someone". This is one point I'm especially concerned with. I have little to no problem avoiding PVP when I don't want to do it - and then I have all the problems in the world finding someone to shoot at.

I also notice among most non-EVE persons I talk to that they perceive the game as being level-based and that they'd have to play for months on end to be even remotely useful at PVP. Most couldn't even grasp the concept that you could be a contributing member of a fleet just a few weeks after signup.


About ship models:
Are there any ship remodels in the short-term pipeline? If so, which ones?


About movie making:
Are the any plans to make a tool available to players such that they can pose, script and move ships in space, and then record them? This does not need to necessarily be a full-fledged gizmo-laden pro tool. Hell, something akin to Garry's Mod suffices.

Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange
Nabaal Syndicate
Posted - 2011.01.14 04:41:00 - [58]
 

Originally by: Durnin Stormbrow
Players that want to be competive are all but forced to plex, RMT or bot, and players that follow the rules are left behind as the bar of achievment gets pushed farther and farther beyond their reach.


That may be true in other MMOs where the only good way to make money is grinding for it. This is Eve, we have a real economy here. Traders and industrialists make more money than macros can hope to.

Faolan Fortune
Posted - 2011.01.14 04:42:00 - [59]
 

Quote:
CCP discussed the Carbon UI technology, which is a framework being developed that will permit the implementation of a new UI. As a verbal teaser, CCP mentioned the 3-D UI elements shown in the beginning of the Causality trailer as being indicative of the kind of cooler UI stuff that the Carbon UI framework may enable. However, it is very, very early days for this framework.

CCP also mentioned that an effects system needs to be developed to support improvements to the effects displayed in-game. CSM mentioned the players’ desire to see the old cyno effect returned to the game, amid laughs and acknowledgements. CSM asked if there is an effects system being used right now to generate effects in-game. CCP replied that currently effects are essentially coded at a low level by graphics programmers. A key reason for the delay in getting back an impressive cyno effect is the desire to not code it as has been done previously, but to generate it via an effects system.


Pretty much made my day.

BeanBagKing
Terra Incognita
Intrepid Crossing
Posted - 2011.01.14 06:24:00 - [60]
 

Quote:
The CSM thinks it is a bit silly that there are features in the game that practically nobody knows about (example: the jump range planner view). In order to RTFM (read the fabulous manual), there has to be a FM (fabulous manual).


Wait wait wait!....

There's a jump range planner view?!?! Shocked


Pages: 1 [2] 3

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