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


 
Pages: first : previous : 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... : last (12)

Author Topic

Lili Lu
Posted - 2011.01.16 00:42:00 - [61]
 

Where is the discussion about Technetium? Is it working as intended to have the valuable moon goo concentrated in one coalition's space, because it is a racial moon goo type? What is your economist doing if he and the rest of the devs are not aware or concerned about having thrown out the old distributed Dyspro and Promethium paradigm and replaced it with a more imbalanced Technetium supremacy?

Where is there any discussion about how invention still is not profitable with the terrible ME that can't get anywhere near a researched BPO? Do you want all command ships etc to be only produced by the few BPO holders?

Came expecting to be disappointed with CCP perspective and priorities. Left, indeed, disappointed with CCP perspective and priorities. . .

Louis deGuerre
Gallente
Malevolence.
Posted - 2011.01.16 00:51:00 - [62]
 

Interesting reading except for all the NDA NDA NDA

With regards to Incarna CCP has itself stated they have no clue what we're supposed to do with these avatars but NC tag has already been taken so NDA as well Razz
Hope you guys think of something interesting to do like allow me to run that exotic lapdancer bar with Caldari sashimi takeaway *wink* *wink*

It seems the conclusions I stated in previous CSM communique is reflected here, stupid MOMs just won't die so within short time everyone will have one and economy will die as no one needs new ships Razz No one dares to fight because OMG MOM hotdrop imminent !

I think killing logistics is a terrible idea. For a small alliance keeping decent 0.0 logistics operating is a ***** already. If anything, it should be made easier.

Well, I hope to be pleasantly suprised the 19th but we'll see Razz


Meissa Anunthiel
Redshift Industrial
Rooks and Kings
Posted - 2011.01.16 01:21:00 - [63]
 

Edited by: Meissa Anunthiel on 16/01/2011 01:24:25
Originally by: Lili Lu
Where is there any discussion about how invention still is not profitable with the terrible ME that can't get anywhere near a researched BPO? Do you want all command ships etc to be only produced by the few BPO holders?

Where is your post on the assembly hall section of the forum about it?
Did you contact anyone to raise this?

We're your representatives. There's a process in place. Post on Assembly Hall, get a CSM member to raise it for discussion within the CSM (we actually do that on our own, but bringing it to our attention sometimes helps), CSM votes on the thing, if it gets 5 votes out of 9, we talk about it in Iceland for certain.

Not saying I would actually support such a proposal, but this is the reason it wasn't discussed.

Originally by: Louis deGuerre
I think killing logistics is a terrible idea. For a small alliance keeping decent 0.0 logistics operating is a ***** already. If anything, it should be made easier.



The point is not to kill logistics, but to make them significantly less easy, particularly for larger entities. It all ties into the question of mobility.
As a small alliance, you also have to worry about some bored large bloc 3 regions away taking 30 minutes to travel to your region, wiping the floor with your face and going back in the same amount of time. Wouldn't you rather have to worry about your neighbours only?

Fred Freedom
The Scope
Posted - 2011.01.16 02:14:00 - [64]
 

aaargh goddammit why did I make 3 posts in the wrong thread oh well

Jump bridges:

After reading these minutes, I'm led to believe that the CSM and the dev team both think jump bridges are a bad idea on the grounds that they overly encourage force projection.

I think intentionally balkanizing this game would be a massive step backwards both for small stakes PvP (if you think small gang PvP is dead now, wait until you have to fly 30 jumps to get anywhere from anywhere else) and for fleet PvP (if you think it's bad now, wait until a 0.0 alliance is required to have a dozen titans to move people around - never fear, we'll get them...but I'd hate to be in an alliance with under a couple of thousand people). It is also a completely ******ed step backwards when it comes to industrial activity in 0.0.

Industry in 0.0 in general:

It is apparent that both the CSM and CCP a)think that people (as opposed to bots) mine in 0.0, b)have no idea how much mineral consumption takes place there, and c)live in some magic fantasyland where convoys full of freighters and industrials going 20 jumps through gates are a good idea.

Let's put it this way: please do not change your game to make travel harder until you have run a quick calculation on how much tritanium is required to make 100 battleships, how many trips it takes to ferry that tritanium to a factory from the refinery you have uncompressed it from (no, you can't ferry that many uncompressed minerals into 0.0, and no, you can't uncompress it in a refinery since you're lucky if it has 7 build slots), and how long it would take those same people to build those 100 battleships in a refinery if they went that route instead.

Seriously, the entire 0.0 production part of the economy that you love so much only works at all because of easy travel. If you want alliances to require their dozen titan pilots to log in each and every day to do nothing but ferry freighters full of minerals from Empire to the nearest supercap construction system within one titan bridge from it while deep 0.0 just sort of sits there and rots, please go ahead and say so so we can all quit now.

By the way, this doesn't count the 100-200 POS per region that all have to be fueled every 3 weeks by ships that take 10 minutes to travel 4-5 jumps.

Hybrid guns:

lol did someone in the CSM unironically say that blaster megas are used in PvP? really? please fire that guy.

Fred Freedom
The Scope
Posted - 2011.01.16 02:15:00 - [65]
 

You know what, I'm just gonna C/P this post from our forums because that guy said it better than me:

---

If anyone seriously proposes that things necessary to interact with others (such as any single part of travel mechanics) need to take -longer- you should slap them clean across the face with an open palm. I have this argument on occasion with Kugu guys and it's always some putz who does 15 man roaming gangs and thinks we should also do away with local and that him and his six diemos buddies should be able to break sov. If you ever want to discuss this stuff in detail and why impeding travel is a mind-crushingly stupid idea please post another thread so I can sperg at length.

Here are some of the issues with production in 0.0:

- Minerals. CCP believes people mine in nullsec. Outside of slosh ops and botting, this is not true at all, anywhere in space. 0.0 minerals come from drone drops, ratloot melting, the occasional hauler spawn, and importation from highsec hubs (where they come from bots in the first place.) CCP has explicitly and implicitly nerfed ratloot melting in Dominion, although the Noctis in theory is a buff to it. Coincidentally Guristas space like Deklein is some of the worst space for ratloot in the game, due to dropping missile launchers instead of turrets and shield junk instead of armor plates, no neuts, etc; if you want mins you can still scan out drone anomalies, though.

- Mineral logistics. If you are doing any kind of hull production you either need a way of generating minerals in your production system or you need a jump freighter. Jump freighters then require the cost and additional logistics burdens of fuel and cynos. Rorquals have the same drawbacks and are less versatile. Using a regular freighter or (god forbid) an Orca in 0.0, if you can get one, is a foolish way to generate an expensive lossmail, not to mention that it takes frikking forever to bebop around collecting minerals in one even with a developed jumpbridge network. In Delve I would bebop around in a max-expanded Mammoth or Bestower, but this was barely sufficient for mod and ammo production, and we had probably the most overbuilt JB network the game has seen and ever will see. Even then (and with attention to intel) I still have bad lossmails.

- Refining and Production. Even if you mine (or if you compress) you still need to move your mins from a refinery to a factory. See the last paragraph. Or you're fighting for the refinery's two factory slots. Original 0.0 stations routinely combine refinery and factory functions; it's ******ed that player-dropped outposts can't do the same (or, at the very least, coexist within a system.)

- Manufacturing time and slot capacity. Even with a fairly built up manufacturing character a player can only support even the ratting demands of maybe 10-20 people, and in a high-attrition shooting war this number goes way down. You can only manufacture, what, 10 things at a time? Also, you have to plan for manufacturing demand days in advance. The time isn't a -terrible- issue but sans importing you need an absurd ratio of producers to fighters, the likes of which you will never ever see, because producing is too low profit and high danger in 0.0.

- Finished goods logistics. Either you are building in your market hub or you are moving goods there (it is absurdly impractical to wander around 0.0 space hitting multiple stations to put together a ship in lieu of a single-stop hub.) Moving hulls in particular is worse than moving the minerals to build them, and even using a carrier or jump freighter you can only move a handful of battleship hulls at a time. I personally would never build a hull bigger than a destroyer outside of my market hub system.

Fred Freedom
The Scope
Posted - 2011.01.16 02:16:00 - [66]
 

I know CCP has this wet dream about freighters dozily creeping through nullsec space with a handful of frigates and a Typhoon for escort to defend them from the assfrig and EAS waiting behind the next gate, but the scenario is ridiculous. Take the kind of firepower you would need to fend off even a trivial HAC gang, then think about the time you would have to compenstate the pilots for for partcipating, then think about the margins necessary to fund such an escort. Then remember that 0.0 production has a hard ceiling on prices where it simply makes more sense for a guy to fly to empire (where the producers have no such overhead) and buy his **** himself than for him to rat/whatever to pay for the local markup. Making it -harder- to import (and thus hurting margins, remembering that time is way more expensive than isk) is only going to gut the existing hubs and make 0.0 more of a vacant wasteland.

Essentially the only lever CCP has to affect 0.0 production would be to clobber highsec production somehow, like restricting battleship or T2 hull manufacture to 0.0 outposts or something, and that kind of sledgehammer would have all sorts of unintended consequences.

---

listen to that guy. thanks!

Antihrist Pripravnik
Scorpion Road Industry
Posted - 2011.01.16 02:35:00 - [67]
 

Edited by: Antihrist Pripravnik on 16/01/2011 02:49:41
There are many Shocked and ugh moments in this. I'm not sure are you trolling or not. Could our respected CSM representatives and CCP please explain how the hell are you going to "localize" production in alliance owned space while (at the same time) removing jump bridges and nerfing logistics? Can anyone draw me a picture how exactly are you going to force PvP oriented players in 0.0 to sit in a Hulk and mine the minerals until their eyes bleed?

Why is production done in highsec and goods then transported to 0.0? Because of the public manufacturing slots and the ability to anchor YOUR OWN POS to build stuff in it. As a simple member of a sov holding alliance you simply don't have access to either - public manufacturing slots would become overcrowded due to logistics nerf/JB removal and no, you can't have your own POS because the alliance holds the damn space. Not to mention how hard would become getting high volumes of low-end minerals like Tritanium or Pyerite. What... you really expect that someone will go to nullsec to mine Veldspar?

So let's sum the industrial part up from a perspective of a simple member of a 0.0 sov holding alliance:
- Very limited amount of public manufacturing slots in stations (that will be queued up right after the nerfs... or even "better" - retracted from public to corporate use only)
- Public blueprint copy/ME research slots even now queued up to insane amounts of time
- No ability to have your own POS to manufacture stuff whatsoever (you're a simple member with limited roles)
- You have to endure mind-numbingly boring, pointless and unprofitable mining of low-end ore in null security space to be able to produce stuff of even remotely acceptable cost.

So, please, pretty please... with the cherry on top... do not make this game boring and frustrating at the same time to a simple member of a 0.0 alliance. And always remember that this is a damn GAME that real people with real jobs, real life and really short amount of free time play. We don't live in EVE, EVE doesn't bring bread to our tables and when we log in, we want to have fun and we want it FAST. Ruining the game for a simple player is NOT the answer for dealing with coalitions and blobs.

Antihrist Pripravnik
Scorpion Road Industry
Posted - 2011.01.16 02:44:00 - [68]
 

Originally by: Meissa Anunthiel

Where is your post on the assembly hall section of the forum about it?


On a separate note, where is YOUR Assembly Hall suggestion for removing jump bridges? How many "supported" votes against "not supported" comments did it have?

Fred Freedom
The Scope
Posted - 2011.01.16 03:11:00 - [69]
 

Fine I'll come back here and make a fourth post because ugh this is terrible. But I'll use simple sentences this time!

1)There has never been an MMO in the history of the Internet where making players work harder to do things with other players has resulted in those players having more fun;

2)One of this game's biggest constraints on fun is that every system is a zone like in the original Everquest (literally dozen year old technology ITG), so that anyone going from point A to point Z has to endure 24 "loading, please wait" screens along the way;

3)Making the player endure more of those screens instead of less of those screens is not going to magically make PvP or anything else more fun. Quite the opposite, in fact;

4)Further, simply making it take *longer* for those players to get to a fight will not make those fights less important - but it *will* pack more people into a system sooner, because nobody wants to fly 40 jumps in that much lag when they can get the fleet into the system 24 hours in advance;

5)You're not going to magically get rid of powerblocs by making it harder to travel. This is a game where (some of us) literally refuse to recruit characters because they were in Alliance X 5 years ago. The game mechanics themselves are secondary to the drama (this, in fact, has been the saving grace of Eve Online even when the lag made it unplayable.) But these changes will, of course, mean that alliances will become more and more dependent on large numbers of titans. The incoming (and deserved) supercap nerf will only stress titans as the new/old I Win button. If you think the result of that kind of rebalancing coupled with the drama aspect of the game is *more* balkanization and a *higher* chance for a small force to get anywhere, you are literally CCP.

Knawt Ongrid
Posted - 2011.01.16 03:24:00 - [70]
 

Originally by: Antihrist Pripravnik
And always remember that this is a damn GAME that real people with real jobs, real life and really short amount of free time play. We don't live in EVE, EVE doesn't bring bread to our tables . .


Not for some. Some alliances can alarm clock pvp continually, engage in boring and repetitive tasks continuously, and would not really care but just adjust, because it does put bread on the table.Laughing

Infinion
Caldari
Awesome Corp
Posted - 2011.01.16 04:13:00 - [71]
 

Originally by: CCP Sreegs
Originally by: Infinion

Regarding the future plans to improve account security, has CCP considered giving players a standalone password for account management?


I'm assuming you're referring to having a separate password for account management? I don't quite get the question and I don't want to try to answer it if I don't understand what you're asking.


Yes that is correct, to have a separate password just for account management. This could prevent many account takeover attempts and give the owner of the account the opportunity to remain in control, given that they do not share their password. All the information in account management retains the owner's identity, it seems fair to at least opt for a seperate password to protect this.

Balor Haliquin
Amarr
Posted - 2011.01.16 04:48:00 - [72]
 

Okay so a lot of the proposed changes and ballances seem to be either completely missing the mark or grossly missing the issue. Forgive me if I repeat anything.

That being said I'm all for a nerf being thrown and the Super Carreirs which are frankly way overpowered right now. Super Carriers are far to easy to get into, do far to much damage, are far to easy to make very very hard to kill, and are far to versitle. Im not saying they should become slightly niftier carriers like they used to be. But the current level they are at makes the "kings" of the battlefield (the titans) rather second rate.

The idea of making a timer for capitals to jump in would make it interesting. But it would do nothing in the grand scheme of things to reduce the speed at which power can be projected on a strategic level. It would still take less time for a capital fleet to move the same distance by jumps as a sub cap fleet can by gates. This is also discounting the effect that I titan jump bridge can have. That effectively allows sub capital fleets to move at the same speed as the titans. The argument that capitals will not be able to force project with an extended time is simply false. If a ship gets hot dropped then its going to take the responding capitals that much longer to counter. Logistics is also not going to be slowed by any apreciable amount. Unless you prevent ALL capitals from using the titan bridge then the extended timer will do nothing but add frustration as capitals on grid have enough time to prep for a drop.

I have no idea how the concept that the reduction in capital force projection will reduce the size and scale of conflicts. This concept is simple false. The biggest force behind the size and scale of regional conflicts is not the power or change in fleet concepts. Its the simple fact of numbers. Eve has gone from a game that saw 10,000 people on at prime time to a game that at its lowest barely crawls below 30,000. Its no longer one or two 200 man fleets, but 7 200 man fleets going at it. Coalitions are a natural responce to this escalation in power. One of the best thing done to reduce the power of the super capital curb stomp has been the Doomsday change. No longer are you looking at instant fleet wipes. Also note that the number of viable null sec alliances has nearly quadruppled since the sov changes. I think the issue that is facing null sec is actual physical space. Adding more regions that are, like to distance between cobalt edge and branch, farther then the jump range of a capital changes the strategy game completely. Whomever holds the space gets to use capitals, but it has been proven that massive formations of subcapitals can overwhelm capitals.

The removal of jump bridges as a logical way to reduce an alliance abaility to force project also illudes me. Why would a mechanic which can be only used an overtly defensive function be used as a force projection. If all it allows you to do is jump to one of your systems. It vasly aids in defensive opperations. But as it has been proven before, Jump bridges are as much a liability to movement as it is very easy and predictable to find and destroy targets on even the most well defended tower. Why removing this would make force projection any less viable is beyond me.

As for a mega interdiction bubble, If an alliance feals threatened and it has the systems to do it, i could shut down all movement over multiple regions. As the bubble in many places would reach well into low sec. I would consider this before enacting such a multi-system global effect.

Frankly the force projection ballancing fixes for the most part will never adress the main issues as they are not about the mechanics, but by the effects of a massive population increase in null sec. Adding regions that are not easily reachable by capitals and adding raider targets would change the dynamic. But in this game, the general rule is bigger is better.

Avernus
Gallente
Paragon Fury
Cascade Imminent
Posted - 2011.01.16 04:52:00 - [73]
 

Edited by: Avernus on 16/01/2011 04:59:19
Edited by: Avernus on 16/01/2011 04:56:02
Very much enjoyed the read.

What the heck do you guys have in mind for Incarna?

Really, seriously, no joke.

Quote:
There has never been an MMO in the history of the Internet where making players work harder to do things with other players has resulted in those players having more fun
Quoting this worthy goon who speaks good sense. Piggybacking to mention that needless complexity also does not add to gameplay (T3 production being an example).

Quote:
I think intentionally balkanizing this game would be a massive step backwards both for small stakes PvP (if you think small gang PvP is dead now, wait until you have to fly 30 jumps to get anywhere from anywhere else) and for fleet PvP (if you think it's bad now, wait until a 0.0 alliance is required to have a dozen titans to move people around - never fear, we'll get them...but I'd hate to be in an alliance with under a couple of thousand people). It is also a completely ******ed step backwards when it comes to industrial activity in 0.0

I don't know about the industrial side of things, though I suspect you are correct about increased problems there. For pvp though, it did work well in the past, but the transition back to that state would be a pain in the ass.

ivar R'dhak
Minmatar
Posted - 2011.01.16 05:20:00 - [74]
 

Big walls of text around here, so IŽll keep it short.

INCARNA will suck major balls if the only thing it introduces is:

- Dock
- laglaglaglag Incarna GFX engine loaded
- Walk to Captains quarters computer
- Sit
- Access all that we can do now with the normal buttons
- Stand up
- Walk back to pod bay
- laglaglaglag space GFX enginge loaded
- Undock

Oh and btw, you better fracking not make us leave the damn captain quarters to access them station options. Evil or Very Mad

Vincent Athena
Posted - 2011.01.16 06:13:00 - [75]
 

Originally by: PC l0adletter

And, to reiterate, the reason players want these numbers is because we don't believe meaningful action is being taken (for reasons that have been thoroughly discussed elsewhere).


This.

And in addition, those numbers should be audited by an independent party with no vested interest in CCP. Otherwise as far as we players can tell, CCP just made the numbers up.

At the moment the only ones who know the numbers are CCP and the bot users. Only us legitimate users are in the dark.

CCP: To us it looks like you are in bed with the bot users, that you want them, because they result in subscriptions. (I'm talking those who's only EULA violation is macro use, not RMT or hacking). But you cannot say so or change the macro rules in the EULA because then so many real players would quit it would destroy the game. So you continue to give anti-bot efforts lip service while secretly ignoring the issue.

Please, please please provide the numbers to prove this wrong.

Please.

Tres Farmer
Gallente Federation Intelligence Service
Posted - 2011.01.16 06:58:00 - [76]
 

6 months to balance something like an attribute of a ship?!

[WTB] faster toolset for balancing.

Balancing needs to become way faster.. a turn around time of less than 1 month should be strived for.

El'Niaga
Minmatar
Republic Military School
Posted - 2011.01.16 07:17:00 - [77]
 

Removing JBs will be counterproductive unlike many seem to think. Removing Freighters is idiocy, not to mention you couldn't move some of the system upgrades without them.....Creating more time to do logistics will not help EVE it will only create more problems, more frustration and greater loss of players. Removing them will also only assist larger factions and cause more blobbing not less.

Anything that increases down time (that is logistics) will cause a reduction in up time (anything else).

The only jb network that did not decrease with sov was the North. So the question shouldn't be should we remove all jbs? But why one group increased theirs when everyone else decreased. The reason would lie in the moons for the slow witted. Tech which the north has an almost total lock on is the reason. Balance that and you fix the problem.

Supercap blobs, I think folks predicted what has happened. Everyone saw the supercarrier becoming the next battleship, and slowly it is becoming that. In the real world the United States fields what are called Supercarriers, based on their size compared to other nations. The solution, China's solution, a carrier buster missile. Complaint that Dreadnoughts have lost their purpose. Perhaps its time to give them a weapon that is equal to the task of today. Given proper explosive velocity etc the carrier buster missiles/torpedoes would deal maximum damage to the supercarrier while almost negligible damage to everything else other than titans. I don't suggest 1 missile/torpedo kill the supercarrier, but maybe 4-5 could. It gives Dreadnoughts their role back (or well a new role). Requires less balancing or messing with folks operations and would result in more supercarrier deaths. (and probably more titan deaths too). The answer is not always nerfing, but just like in real life allow technology to grow to counter the new threat. (I'm aware that Amarr and Gallente dreads don't use missiles, but they could be retrofitted to use them, or a new dreadnought for each race built).

Hybrid turrets. Can't really argue that these don't need some help. I'm one of the people that puts projectiles on hybrid slots. One solution where you don't touch the hybrid turrets themselves would be hp buffs or resist buffs so that they can last long enough to get in range and fight.


Comstr
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.01.16 07:22:00 - [78]
 

Edited by: Comstr on 16/01/2011 07:27:53
Edited by: Comstr on 16/01/2011 07:26:51
Originally by: CCP Sreegs

Just out of honest curiosity, what positive outcome do you think would come from detailing specific counter-hacking/botting methodologies? What would you gain from this knowledge personally? I understand that you WANT to know things, but I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around how some knowledge being public information would be to anyone's benefit and I'd like to hear an alternative viewpoint.



It would give an indication that CCP is actually doing something about it. Currently there is no indication anything IS being done about bots - a glance at Dotlan shows 1000's of NPC's destroyed in an hour in some systems.

The benefit is that we the players gain trust that you the devs, are actually doing something about it.

All we see right now is that the botters are winning, and anyone not using a bot is a fool for not joining in. the chance of getting caught is zero, and the bots programs are the only reason industry in 0.0 exists!

Tres Farmer
Gallente Federation Intelligence Service
Posted - 2011.01.16 07:55:00 - [79]
 

Edited by: Tres Farmer on 16/01/2011 07:55:10
If you reduce the range on Jumpdrives and remove Jumpbridges completely you really need to have a look at the Jumpgate mechanics.

Anything that hauls stuff around in Null/Low needs to use mechanics that have a 99% chance of survival, as nothing else makes sense if you don't want to cripple the population out there.

If you force players to fall back on gate travel you need to take the raised population numbers into account.
'04 to '10 the PCU raised from 12k to 55k (4.5 fold), the number of places of interaction raised from 4,500 systems to 7,500 (1.6 fold).
This means you effectively now have nearly 3 times as many people per place of interaction as in '04.
Gates are designed as bottlenecks and having more people using the same number of bottlenecks will cause that some if not most of those bottlenecks can be considered shut off.

If you're going to open up new ways into zero-zero you need to address the routes into low as well and in the far far future an overhaul of the gate mechanic might be in order.

Naga Tokiba
Posted - 2011.01.16 08:43:00 - [80]
 

Edited by: Naga Tokiba on 16/01/2011 08:48:03
CSM, I take by hat off to You (that is if I had one).
CCP, I allso applaud You for constructive dialog with the CSM.

CSM, I think You are doing a fantastic job, and all meeting minuts have been very interesting to read. Sometimes a bit ;tldr and I respect there has to be items covered by NDA, but still very interesting to read.

One thing I miss though is a more active role of the CSM to comment on every*) proposal in the Assembly Hall forum.

Please continue the good job. Very Happy


*) just a short "I've read you proposal" would suffice.

Venkul Mul
Gallente
Posted - 2011.01.16 09:34:00 - [81]
 

Edited by: Venkul Mul on 16/01/2011 11:18:08
Originally by: PC l0adletter

Originally by: Venkul

"What does this tell botters that they don't already know?"



I should add to the pertinent question "what does it tell them of value that they don't already know"

Originally by: Venkul

1) CCP has banned 200 courier bots - 70 where in my RMT organization, so almost 1/3 - on the other hand we still have 200 undetected courier bots - what is the difference?



So, to be clear, the botter already knows he has 70 bots that got banned and 200 that did not. He knows this without being told because they belong to him. The only new information is that 130 bots not belonging to him got banned. What's he gonna do with this info? I don't get your point.

Originally by: Venkul

2) 1.000 mining bots banned - none of ours this month - change XY worked - we can apply it to other bots?



Again, the botter already knows that none of his bots were banned this month, because you can't ban one of his accounts without him knowing it. So, he already knows that change xy worked...

Originally by: Venkul

3) 1.000 mining bots banned - ours are still undetected, time to activate another 3.000 mining accounts as the other producers are in trouble


Isn't this the same as #2? Some bots are being banned, but not mine, so i'm doing something right and should scale it up?

Originally by: Venkul

4) 0 mission bot banned - none of ours, none from other guys - they work very well, we should produce more


They already know if none of their bots are banned. This is not new information.

You should also realize that there are sites where botters discuss this sort of stuff, so the bad guys already have a vague sense of things like "nobody is being banned for this" or "lots of highsec miners were recently banned" or whatever.

And, to reiterate, the reason players want these numbers is because we don't believe meaningful action is being taken (for reasons that have been thoroughly discussed elsewhere).


1) it tell them that a they are a large percentage of the bot detected (1/3). If they know/suppose there are 2.000 bots running and they know that they are a largeg than normal percentage of those detected they get an useful information.

2) Same as above in reverse, they are informed that not only they are undetected but that the competition is detected.

3) yes, same information, but used for another purpose. In that situation they know how the demand has increased.

4) Again, they will know if other people bots are banned. Information on how the competition is doing (still useful for the botters) and that, in that scenario, CCP is way back on the chase.

They aren't exceptionally useful informations, but they are still useful informations. I am thinking mostly about RMT as for the guy using bots for personal use they will make little difference. RMT are "commercial (and criminal) enterprises" so getting a 2-3% higher efficiency thanks to that kind of information will neatly increase their bottom line.

A simple way to avoid that could be to publish them with a 3 months delay, maybe in the QUEN (even if that often will mean way more than a 3 months delay).

As the war on bots is constantly evolving I doubt that 3 months old informations will be useful.

To cite myself from the Assembly Hall thread about bot (here):

"For CCP it is easier to detect RMT rings, 1 GM doing the investigation will close teens or hundred of accounts in one swoop and will help fighting hacking attempts.

While researching "simple" botters for personal use the same GM spending the same time would close very few accounts with noticeably lesser beneficial effects from the time spent."

You can see the thread for the whole argument.

The forums you cite are used by players that bot/cheat for personal use. They damage EVE but mostly only thanks to large numbers, per unit RMT bots are much more damaging.

Tres Farmer
Gallente Federation Intelligence Service
Posted - 2011.01.16 09:36:00 - [82]
 

@Fred Freeform

- Minerals.. if there is no local mining it needs addressing. Why is there only local mining of ABC and nothing else?

- Mineral logistics.. again, why is there no local mining of the basics going on? Why don't those high sec bears not come in droves and mine in your space?

- Refining and Production.. POS could help with that. But again, why aren't there more people in your space delivering this stuff?

- Manufacturing time and slot capacity.. again, why isn't there more local manufacturing going on?
Why don't the high sec bears come to your space and manufacture locally?

- Finished goods logistics.. again, lack of people. Why?


TL;DR.. the whole complaint falls flat on it's face cause you don't need more people where you are. You got the jumpbridges and the JFs and are perfectly capable to do all this stuff without the additional people and the headache they cause you.
They cause a security risk and most of them don't want to deal with politics, thus wouldn't come in the wake of a renter alliance in your space so they could become blue.

Venkul Mul
Gallente
Posted - 2011.01.16 09:45:00 - [83]
 

Originally by: Meissa Anunthiel
Edited by: Meissa Anunthiel on 16/01/2011 01:24:25
Originally by: Lili Lu
Where is there any discussion about how invention still is not profitable with the terrible ME that can't get anywhere near a researched BPO? Do you want all command ships etc to be only produced by the few BPO holders?

Where is your post on the assembly hall section of the forum about it?
Did you contact anyone to raise this?

We're your representatives. There's a process in place. Post on Assembly Hall, get a CSM member to raise it for discussion within the CSM (we actually do that on our own, but bringing it to our attention sometimes helps), CSM votes on the thing, if it gets 5 votes out of 9, we talk about it in Iceland for certain.

Not saying I would actually support such a proposal, but this is the reason it wasn't discussed.



You will find some comment about that (making invention more profitable) hidden within the "Remove T2 BPO immediately or we will ragequit en masse" threads in Assembly hall and the S&I section for the forum.

Generally they are posts by Akita T or other people that know both how invention and BPO production work.

As the call to destroy the T2 BPO draw much more attention and give warm and fuzzy thoughts tho those that love other people pain (real of imaginated) they never get the attention they deserve.

You can find an example in the Assembly Hall here with link to a larger post.

Sethose Olderon
Gryphon Chancellery
Gryphon League
Posted - 2011.01.16 10:22:00 - [84]
 

After reading all three parts of the meetings, and the vast majority of these posts, I think one think is evidently and plainly clear. CCP doesn't play this game. The changes they are suggesting are indicative of someone not being involved in the day to day operations of the game. The notions they seem to have about what goes in the game in any given situation and at any given time are way off.

I will say this, if you remove freighters from this game, you will have an exodus that makes the SWG fiasco look like an average afternoon picknick. Making the game harder will not make it more fun, try and you'll see how much of a bad idea it is.

"[CCP has] gone [too far] in the direction of making players lives easy..." Really? You obviously don't play your game do you?

Louis deGuerre
Gallente
Malevolence.
Posted - 2011.01.16 10:51:00 - [85]
 

Originally by: Meissa Anunthiel
The point is not to kill logistics, but to make them significantly less easy, particularly for larger entities. It all ties into the question of mobility.
As a small alliance, you also have to worry about some bored large bloc 3 regions away taking 30 minutes to travel to your region, wiping the floor with your face and going back in the same amount of time. Wouldn't you rather have to worry about your neighbours only?


Your problem is that anything you will do to make the game harder for big alliances will make it twice as hard for small alliances. I don't see how you'll get around that but I look forward to your ideas.

If you make travel much more difficult and I had friendly neighbours before, that would not last long Razz as we'd start shooting each other out of boredom. Sadly, by then most people would have left as they got tired of waiting for their ships to arrive or their product to be moved.



Aineko Macx
Posted - 2011.01.16 11:05:00 - [86]
 

Edited by: Aineko Macx on 16/01/2011 11:10:58
Imagine the removal of JBs, freigthers and add in Sansha incursions on gates in 0.0. Thats a big fat nerf to any industry in 0.0. The only good thing about that is the nerfing of supercap production.

I wonder if a moderate improvement on the force projection issue can be achieved with less balkanization by simply nerfing some of the jumpX attributes (range, number per region, fuel consumption, number of jumps over time)...

Originally by: ivar R'dhak
INCARNA will suck major balls if the only thing it introduces is:

- Dock
- laglaglaglag Incarna GFX engine loaded
- Walk to Captains quarters computer
- Sit
- Access all that we can do now with the normal buttons
- Stand up
- Walk back to pod bay
- laglaglaglag space GFX enginge loaded
- Undock

Your forgot the session change after every step.

Many excellent posts in this thread, I can only echo the concerns raised by my fellow players.
I'd also like to thank the CSM for their efforts, and CCP for being open (except for the excessive "because of NDA") even when it shows that you have serious problems.

Venkul Mul
Gallente
Posted - 2011.01.16 11:16:00 - [87]
 

Originally by: Tres Farmer
6 months to balance something like an attribute of a ship?!

[WTB] faster toolset for balancing.

Balancing needs to become way faster.. a turn around time of less than 1 month should be strived for.


Rolling Eyes 3 minutes to change the stat of a ship. 1 month on Sisi to get basic replies. Another 3 minutes to change the stats again. Another month of testing on Sisi. scrap the change as the tests show it is will make the ship overpowered/underpovered thanks to interaction with change X to modules or the use of module Y, something that the Dev hadn't considered.

Repeat for a few times till CCP reach something resembling the balance they want.

Do that for several ships as people will cry if only one is changed. Test the changes against each other. See if one of the ships become uber.

Yes, 6 months for a patch with the rebalancing of several ships is a reasonable timeframe.


Venkul Mul
Gallente
Posted - 2011.01.16 11:23:00 - [88]
 

Originally by: Tres Farmer
@Fred Freeform

- Minerals.. if there is no local mining it needs addressing. Why is there only local mining of ABC and nothing else?

- Mineral logistics.. again, why is there no local mining of the basics going on? Why don't those high sec bears not come in droves and mine in your space?

- Refining and Production.. POS could help with that. But again, why aren't there more people in your space delivering this stuff?

- Manufacturing time and slot capacity.. again, why isn't there more local manufacturing going on?
Why don't the high sec bears come to your space and manufacture locally?

- Finished goods logistics.. again, lack of people. Why?


TL;DR.. the whole complaint falls flat on it's face cause you don't need more people where you are. You got the jumpbridges and the JFs and are perfectly capable to do all this stuff without the additional people and the headache they cause you.
They cause a security risk and most of them don't want to deal with politics, thus wouldn't come in the wake of a renter alliance in your space so they could become blue.



The whole complaint is centered about "Carebears are a nuisance at best in 0.0, an exploitable weakness at worst, we don't want them."

So most alliances don't want miners, industrial or trader characters.


Drazi1
Minmatar
The Knights Templar
Cascade Imminent
Posted - 2011.01.16 12:08:00 - [89]
 

yet another round of possible nerfs, jesus ccp sort out the under lying problems instead of tweaking things here and there

Drazi1
Minmatar
The Knights Templar
Cascade Imminent
Posted - 2011.01.16 12:13:00 - [90]
 

JBs are crucial to movement, for defence and industrialists. They can be a liablity cos if they are taken out, it will seriouslu hurt the defenders ability to react to threats. Also have a few cloakies at a jb, can effectivly shut it down, expecially with bombers


Pages: first : previous : 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... : last (12)

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