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 : ... 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 : last (12)

Author Topic

Autonomous Monster
Gallente
Paradox Interstellar
Posted - 2011.01.17 06:17:00 - [211]
 

Quote:
The CSM strongly encouraged CCP to put the issue of Hybrid Systems next on their list to balance.


Oh frabjous day! Callooh! Callay! Seeing this topic pushed at CCP gives me a happy.

...though the specifics leave me with some qualms. Let me see if I can articulate them.

Quote:
This question prompted the reaction from both CSM and CCP that going into specifics like percentage numbers or minute number theory would not serve any purpose and it would be better to try and identify what needed to be addressed rather than how to address it.


Yes. Good. You'll get no argument on that from me. Concrete numbers should result from careful in-depth analysis and iterative testing, not what some forum dilletante pulled out of thin air (or worse, EFT Wink).

I'm not really sure it's applicable to the question of

Quote:
whether the issue was perhaps more that you can’t efficiently get into range to use Blasters, rather than the Blasters themselves – a knockoff effect of the speednerf.


, though. This seems like it belongs more to the realm of

Quote:
what [needs] to be addressed


than

Quote:
specifics like percentage numbers or minute number theory


Relatedly, the "is it the guns or is it the ships" question has come up repeatedly in the dozens of hybrid rebalancing topics. From my reading of the minutes, this seems to have been lost in discussion of CSM practice in general/not communicated to CCP/not picked up by CSM. I realise it might simply have been omitted in the minutes: some expansion/clarification would be appreciated.

All of this plays on old fears that CSM is not particularly interested in this topic and might not familiarise themselves with the debate as they would with other topics, and thus not be as well prepared to advocate/dicuss it with CCP (though I can hardly blame you; the relevant threads are long, inconclusive and filled with empty rhetoric and EFT-warriors). References in the minutes to the buffer I won't ask you to defend yourselves on this point; I'm half certain I'm just paranoid and I doubt you'd admit to it even if it was true. Wink

I will attempt to summarise the debate here though (in a new post because character limit LAWL), on the off-chance that it might help CCP attack the problem.

Autonomous Monster
Gallente
Paradox Interstellar
Posted - 2011.01.17 06:20:00 - [212]
 

First off, there are a lot of these threads, both in AH and FaID, and nearly all of them have their own unique take on the cause of the problem and the solution. The only thing there seems to be a consensus on is that a problem exists. Perhaps the best thing to take away from this is that the problem is complex and multi-faceted, and will require skill and a delicate hand to fix.

Just like every other problem, then. Wink

  • Blaster DPS is great on paper. The problem is applying that DPS.
    • Not enough tracking to hit reliably at native range. Anything more than trivial transversal and your DPS drops off a ****ing cliff. The tracking bonus is what makes the Megathron a competitive PVP boat.
    • Hybrids shoot therm/kin exclusively. These are not resist holes. This further reduces their real DPS advantage over weapon systems that can adjust damage type.
  • As mentioned in the notes, a blasterboat has to survive long enough to get into range and apply that DPS.
    • That means speed or EHP or both. Gallente armour tank. Armour modules and rigs penalise speed. Speed rigs penalise armour. This does not dovetail nicely.
    • You know, you could work out a relationship for the value of a point of DPS in EHP, given assumptions about speed and battlefield behaviour. Might be interesting.
  • Capacitor consumption. Blasters are easier on the cap than lasers, true. But you do not fit guns in isolation.
    • Blaster ships have to get into range and do it quickly. This makes an MWD a necessity, and that nukes your cap even when it's off.
    • Gallente, when they get tanking bonuses, get active tanking bonuses. Laying aside the issue of the effectiveness of active tanking in PVP, armour reps are monstrously cap hungry as well.
  • Relatedly, the fitting requirements for guns + MWD + rep + cap booster are almost physically painful. Gallente ships can be quite roomy, but they're not that roomy! And now you might say, no ship is supposed to be able to do everything at once. Which is quite true and an applaudable design goal. But 100k EHP on a sniper ship is not the same thing as 100k EHP on a ship that has to burn half of that just to get into range. What constitutes a strong tank or gank varies depending on how the ship is flown.


Many of these flaws can be addressed by using lead instead of AM, fitting tracking enchancers or fitting mods, using ions and electrons instead of neutrons; but in doing so your advantage in up-close real DPS diminishes to negligible levels.

A lot of these problems are more pronounced on larger ship classes, and I vaguely remember reading speculation that this is merely the most visible prong of a larger problem with scaling weapons in general (lasers, AFAIK, are less competitive on small hulls than large).

This, of course, is looking purely at Gallente/blasters. Caldari/railguns are an entirely different kettle of fish, and one that I haven't seen nearly as much discussion on. I think that I did read played on the idea that railguns have no real role distinct from/advantages over arty (a) or beams (DPS), or that their supposed role/advantage (range?) is not as pronounced or as meaningful as might be hoped.

I do think that looking at rails/blasters as two sides of a single problem is a mistake; they're two different weapon systems used by two different races with two very different combat doctrines. They just happen to share an ammo type.

Lastly, the ongoing 0.0/JB argument is highly amusing if you read it as set in 13th century France, with PVPers as knights and miners as peasants. G'wan, try it. Very Happy

Vicious Cell
Amarr
Grim Determination
Nulli Secunda
Posted - 2011.01.17 08:48:00 - [213]
 

Edited by: Vicious Cell on 17/01/2011 08:51:47
So, I have a question:

Does it matter if the vast majority of casual players would absolutely hate the proposed nerfs and removal of convenient gameplay mechanics?

I pretty much disagreed with everything these "CSM guys" want (aside from the Supercap part). And it infuriates me that CCP actually has these private meetings with a small group of players who represent only a very small percentage group of Eve.

Not everyone who plays Eve is a hardcore Roleplayer, not everyone who plays Eve spends thousands of hours of their lives doing forum debates (in an RP style), not everyone has oodles of time to waste in the game simply to please the CSM guys way of wanting the "game to be".

I would really hate if CCP actually changed their game based solely on what these CSM guys feel is needed. I know for a fact that the majority of players would be strongly against some of the stuff written in these meetings. As the majority of players have real lives and cannot afford harsh game mechanics, it would break the game for them.

The CSM meeting seems really selfish to me in that they are merely considering what they want the game to be like in their opinions only. It seems to me they hardly take into consideration what the majority of Eve players would want.

It really sickens me the way the meeting was discussed and I can assure you that these CSM guys are not at all an accurate "representation of all Eve players". It seems to me so much time is wasted because CCP is by no means getting any sort of real opinion of the majority player base. They are just hearing the opinions of a handful of hardcore forum geeks who like to RP.

Cutting out all of these walls of texts and simply placing a new poll each week on the main website would garner way more accurate feed from all Eve players (this is just a random example, there are easily dozens of better methods). It is clear to me that if CCP simply takes the CSM reps opinions as an Eve general consensus, CCP will then have very inaccurate views of its majority playerbase's opinions.

Mecinia Lua
Galactic Express
Intrepid Crossing
Posted - 2011.01.17 08:55:00 - [214]
 

After reading Meissa Anunthiel replies in this thread as well as the minutes of the meetings I've decided that the vast majority of the CSM has no clue how 0.0 works and has no clue about the game in general. This seems to be shared by their liason to CCP as well.

Okay things mentioned....jump bridges? Removing these will not cause localized battles. You say they will Meissa you are very misinformed. Long before the existance of jump bridges folks still jumped 20 to 30 jumps to hit opponents on a regular basis. It would cut down on combat not lead to more as Goons and others have pointed out here. As for logistics folks would just do it with wormholes not move freighters through 0.0 which would be suicidal.

The dev mentioning they'd love to remove freighters. That would be one of the stupidest things you could do and if you wanted to kill industry in 0.0 completey go ahead and do it.

Why isn't there more 0.0 activity. Simple its not safe. You can't have the mining you do in hi sec in 0.0 because some roamer is going to blow up your mining operation. You know the folks that sit and look on the map to see which system has the most active folks and the least jumps in the last hour and then goes there to investigate....

The main bottleneck to 0.0 is the lack of infrastructure. If you want do do something that would be helpful, then lift the limit of outpost in a system. Allow as many to be built as their are planets in a system. This would also contain folks and obviously make some systems more valuable than others. Right now you could have a factory outpost, or a refining outpost but not both in the same system. So you have to refine then carry the refined materials to the factory (or even worse put up POSs that take even more logistics in term of fuel etc to keep going). Allowing both to be built in the same system reduces the logistics and increases the efficiency of the industrial characters so that they can meet the needs. Reducing the costs needed to build outposts would also increase their numbers causing greater infrastructure and thus more folks can be supported.

Defenders need more tools to safeguard their systems if you want folks to mine lower end ores regularly in 0.0. Long ago we had mines, but they were removed rather than fixed. Fix them. The simplest fix is to redo them to work like Warp Bubbles, except instead of stopping you from warping they deal x damage per second while you remain within the field. Make it so you can't overlap the warp bubble and the mine bubble and you'd have viable resource to increase safety and make more industry. Another option might be to allow a stargate to be turned off by the system owner.

Pretty much everything in 3/3 except the boost to hybrids I see mostly as negatives. Rather than nerfing supercarriers as another suggested earlier introduce a new weapon system tailored to killing them giving dreadnoughts their 'role' back.

Increasing downtime in the game by making logistics harder as much of 3/3 proposes will not help the game and ultimately will hurt it. It is already sufficiently long enough.


Kallehd
Norse'Storm Battle Group
Intrepid Crossing
Posted - 2011.01.17 09:12:00 - [215]
 

Originally by: Grady Eltoren
I really like your posts. My .02 isk - Make PVP MORE ENJOYABLE by MAKING SHIPS and GOOD (Keyword T2 being good) Modules maybe EASIER??? to replace or Jump clones/Implants easier to replace. Maybe INSURANCE for CLONES? Something!! People can then be reckless and maybe HAVE FUN in PVP because the risk of losing is less? All this can be fixed by making learning implants cheaper (not specialized implants) and making mining more worthwhile/interactive. FIX MINING IMHO. Your thoughts?


Please, pretty please, tell me you're trolling Fred! Shocked

I don't know if you noticed it, but you just described EVE as being Futile-Space-Ships-WOW! Instant gratification? Easier to replace ships/modules/implants? Easy stuff so people can be reckless because the risk is less? EVE has always been advertised as a harsh world and the MOTO for whiners has been for a long while "HARDEN THE **** UP"!

Just HTFU and adapt. If you're rage quiting, to quote another common EVE saying... can I have your stuff?

If you were trolling, my hat is off to you good sir! Laughing

Meissa Anunthiel
Redshift Industrial
Rooks and Kings
Posted - 2011.01.17 09:54:00 - [216]
 

Originally by: Mecinia Lua
Okay things mentioned....jump bridges? Removing these will not cause localized battles. You say they will Meissa you are very misinformed. Long before the existance of jump bridges folks still jumped 20 to 30 jumps to hit opponents on a regular basis. It would cut down on combat not lead to more as Goons and others have pointed out here. As for logistics folks would just do it with wormholes not move freighters through 0.0 which would be suicidal.


Indeed people did, the speed at which they did it was vastly slower, thereby making it less likely to have friends of the people you were fighting jumping into the fray at a moment's notice. As I said before, on its own it's not going to accomplish much anyway.

Originally by: Mecinia Lua

The dev mentioning they'd love to remove freighters. That would be one of the stupidest things you could do and if you wanted to kill industry in 0.0 completey go ahead and do it.


I'm not going to defend that position as I am against it.

Originally by: Mecinia Lua
The main bottleneck to 0.0 is the lack of infrastructure. If you want do do something that would be helpful, then lift the limit of outpost in a system. (snip)

The people you said have no clue (us) also asked for that limit to removed (during CSM 3 if memory serves). We also emphasised that improving the industrial capabilities of 0.0 would be needed with the mobility changes. So sure...

Venkul Mul
Gallente
Posted - 2011.01.17 10:07:00 - [217]
 

Originally by: Meissa Anunthiel

At this stage, no single measure fix the situation. When I suggested to get rid of JB, it's not the only thing that was suggested.
....

You say there are no miners who'd like to mine in 0.0. That's the case currently, give them incentive to do that and protection, and they'll come.
You say PvPers don't want to protect miners. That's your issue, if you can't arrange to assist industrialist to help you, that's your problems, other groups who do will be more successful.

Originally by: Fred

...


It will mean both. Prices of trit will go up in 0.0, and ships that can be easily jumped (caps) may be produced more in lowsec or the borders of 0.0. Sure. God forbid there be regions that have advantage (such as proximity to highsec) over others... Once again you also ignore the fact that reprocessing doesn't have to remain a 100% conversion operation.

Originally by: Venkul

So essentially you will import miners in a alliance to do grunt work, don't thrust them with anything, insult them because they aren't fighting the PvP battles (not that you want them doing that anyway), pretend them to sell minerals at lower than market cost and they will be happy because "they love mining"?


No, I said you could, not that I would. If you chose to treat miners like slaves, your call. There's no shortage of people who are willing to mine (yes, real people) for profit. Pay them, protect them, they'll come. See comment above.

I understand you have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, but the status quo sucks in my opinion. If you don't believe the status quo to be desirable, just post your ideas on how to fix things in the Assembly Halls and no matter how different they may seem from mine, if they're sensible, I'll support them. How does that sound?



From what I see in the minutes the "other suggestion" were on the same tune: nerf JB, nerf jump capable ships, even "we would like to remove freighters".

No "positive" changes to compensate.

About the mining in 0.0 I have been on the other side, the guy trying to mine, not the PvPer.

And the result was:

1) from the larger alliance in the zone, the one "renting" the territory: your alliance has x pilots but we see only 2/10 of them in our combat ops, we require a mandatory presence of at least 1/2 of the alliance members;

2) from the alliance/corp: we require your presence in our ops and the major alliance ops, you can min in the spare time;

3) from the PvPers: we will do a roaming op, we aren't interested in protecting miners

4) from the same PvPers: what are those guys doing in our 0.0? They pratically don't have victories on the killboard, only losses or no presence. They are living on our back, remove them from 0.0 and not forget to make them give us free, ships modules and ammunitions as we are defending 0.0 (even if we are requiring to see them removed).

For a time corp was capable of balancing things saying "Where you think the ships from the replacement program came from?" but after a time the mining part of the corp was evicted.

I can't speak for the other guys interested in the industrial part but I wasn't so lacking in participating into the corp/alliance ops even if I should admit that my killboard stats were on the 2 kill/10 loss ratio (mostly because I was the 1% damage in other alliances killmails that never were copied in our KB).

This kind of mentality has been ingrained in the PvPers for at least 5 years and will require at least as much time to be changed.

Before changing that mentality the PvPers will convert some of their alts to mining bot working in the systems where they already have station or POS, giving the finger to "real players" miners.

What kind of "cure" you see for the time when the "mining wing" of the 0.0 corps will be 100% mining bots?





Meissa Anunthiel
Redshift Industrial
Rooks and Kings
Posted - 2011.01.17 10:40:00 - [218]
 

Originally by: Venkul Mul

From what I see in the minutes the "other suggestion" were on the same tune: nerf JB, nerf jump capable ships, even "we would like to remove freighters".


People, including you, keep yelling about the "we would like to remove freighters" line Greyscale used. If you do that, please consider his reported words whole, including the part bolded below:

Originally by: "Greyscale in the minutes"

It would be much better for the game if we got rid of freighters, but we have to balance what is good for the game at a higher systemic level with making the player's lives a living hell. Forcing people to do convoys with lots of industrials would, from a higher level systemic view, be awesome. But for the individual players, it would “suck balls.”


This doesn't mean "we'll remove jump freighters", it's instead an exemple of Greyscale recognizing that what seems good on paper for eve as a whole may have the adverse effect of making things really bad for a significant number of people. If anything it's more encouraging than bad.


Originally by: Venkul Mul

About the mining in 0.0 I have been on the other side, the guy trying to mine, not the PvPer.


The experiences you've recounted I've had as well, but the thing is it's so easy to move things today that mining in 0.0 benefits the miner more than the alliance they're a part of (usually), and that's the reason PvPers don't like the miners all that much for ruining their beloved k/d efficiencies. Things could be very different if it makes more sense to produce locally.
Still, making mining profitable in 0.0 is not what this is all about, it's about fostering an environment that makes 0.0 life more interesting for a larger number of people, the mining bit is just a side effect and was just used as a counterexemple to "but people won't have ships if we can't get from Jita to Period Basis in an hour so people won't fight" nonsense.

Tres Farmer
Gallente Federation Intelligence Service
Posted - 2011.01.17 10:42:00 - [219]
 

Originally by: Vicious Cell
*snip*
I would really hate if CCP actually changed their game based solely on what these CSM guys feel is needed. I know for a fact that the majority of players would be strongly against some of the stuff written in these meetings. As the majority of players have real lives and cannot afford harsh game mechanics, it would break the game for them.
*snap*

What? I don't even... ?!

Tres Farmer
Gallente Federation Intelligence Service
Posted - 2011.01.17 10:55:00 - [220]
 

Originally by: Mecinia Lua
*snip*
As for logistics folks would just do it with wormholes not move freighters through 0.0 which would be suicidal.

The dev mentioning they'd love to remove freighters. That would be one of the stupidest things you could do and if you wanted to kill industry in 0.0 completey go ahead and do it.

Why isn't there more 0.0 activity. Simple its not safe. You can't have the mining you do in hi sec in 0.0 because some roamer is going to blow up your mining operation. You know the folks that sit and look on the map to see which system has the most active folks and the least jumps in the last hour and then goes there to investigate.
*snap*

Increase travel times, reduce travel restrictions.. get rid of stargates(*) and increase the number of places of interaction per system.

(*)introduce a short range jumpdrive for everyone and let us jump max 1 LY with it with a need to jump 1-3 times if we want to get from one system to another. Intercepting people should then be done at the jump-points (rework of scanning system).
I want to fly in any freaking direction and be taken out when I get near something/someone cause I appeared on his scanner 10 minutes ago.

Venkul Mul
Gallente
Posted - 2011.01.17 11:02:00 - [221]
 

Originally by: Meissa Anunthiel
Originally by: Venkul Mul

From what I see in the minutes the "other suggestion" were on the same tune: nerf JB, nerf jump capable ships, even "we would like to remove freighters".


People, including you, keep yelling about the "we would like to remove freighters" line Greyscale used. If you do that, please consider his reported words whole, including the part bolded below:

Originally by: "Greyscale in the minutes"

It would be much better for the game if we got rid of freighters, but we have to balance what is good for the game at a higher systemic level with making the player's lives a living hell. Forcing people to do convoys with lots of industrials would, from a higher level systemic view, be awesome. But for the individual players, it would “suck balls.”


This doesn't mean "we'll remove jump freighters", it's instead an exemple of Greyscale recognizing that what seems good on paper for eve as a whole may have the adverse effect of making things really bad for a significant number of people. If anything it's more encouraging than bad.


Originally by: Venkul Mul

About the mining in 0.0 I have been on the other side, the guy trying to mine, not the PvPer.


The experiences you've recounted I've had as well, but the thing is it's so easy to move things today that mining in 0.0 benefits the miner more than the alliance they're a part of (usually), and that's the reason PvPers don't like the miners all that much for ruining their beloved k/d efficiencies. Things could be very different if it makes more sense to produce locally.
Still, making mining profitable in 0.0 is not what this is all about, it's about fostering an environment that makes 0.0 life more interesting for a larger number of people, the mining bit is just a side effect and was just used as a counterexemple to "but people won't have ships if we can't get from Jita to Period Basis in an hour so people won't fight" nonsense.



Very good, Meissa. Switching the point to avoid the problem.

Re read that phrase: "From what I see in the minutes the "other suggestion" were on the same tune: nerf JB, nerf jump capable ships, even "we would like to remove freighters". "

I am not saying "Doom, doom, they are going to remove freighters", I was pointing to the simple fact that Greyscale "would like" to remove them even if probably CCP would never do that.

"Would like" to remove them mean that at a minimum they will not improve them and probably will try to nerf them.
Paired to the nerf JB, nerf jump capable ships, it sound like nerf logistics on a local and universal scale, not nerf stuff in a universal scale but boost it for local use.

About the miners, remember you own position:
Originally by: Meissa Anunthiel

That's because miners right now are not part of alliances, they don't contribute much and they're not generally wanted either. Why would you, you don't really need them...
The relationship would change if they were actually providing a service you need. But you wouldn't really need to trust them with stuff pertaining to PvP either.


You will "accept" them as third class citizens, no access to PvP stuff, so no access to information channels, no access to the forums with the planned ops and so on.

To me it seem that all you want is grunt work, do what I want a be a good slave. Nothing more.



Warpantrieb
Posted - 2011.01.17 11:08:00 - [222]
 

it all comes down to this.

Hey I'm a new player who want's to do stuff in 0.0
and if I'm lucky i can find a place to put a pos and even a moon

But after a few weeks, a big alliances notices me, and just drive me out.
If i'm lucky, I might be able to join them, IF I start doing some pvp.

This is the idea that all new players and even players who are in the game for like more than 3 years have.

So basicly small corps, normal corps and individuals are just scared from the big alliances. Change this and you'll get ppl in 0.0

ChromeStriker
Posted - 2011.01.17 11:15:00 - [223]
 

'Greyscale warns, however, that during the transition period “everything will go to ****.”'
my face did this ->Shockedthen this->Smile->Very Happy->Twisted Evil
this would be epicness as hasnt been seen!! just imagine all the alliancs fractureing, theyre own cap fleets fighting each other, individual corps decimated, sections cut off and never heard from again. A galexy wide, free for all royal rumble cage match, with a tied up referee. and whats left... who cares

Meissa Anunthiel
Redshift Industrial
Rooks and Kings
Posted - 2011.01.17 11:43:00 - [224]
 

Originally by: Venkul Mul

Very good, Meissa. Switching the point to avoid the problem.

Re read that phrase: "From what I see in the minutes the "other suggestion" were on the same tune: nerf JB, nerf jump capable ships, even "we would like to remove freighters". "

I am not saying "Doom, doom, they are going to remove freighters", I was pointing to the simple fact that Greyscale "would like" to remove them even if probably CCP would never do that.

"Would like" to remove them mean that at a minimum they will not improve them and probably will try to nerf them.
Paired to the nerf JB, nerf jump capable ships, it sound like nerf logistics on a local and universal scale, not nerf stuff in a universal scale but boost it for local use.


Well, I reread your phrase, your issue is that you see everything as a nerf. I see the suggestions (reread the minutes, they're not limited to the three stuff you conveniently picked) as a buff to small gangs, a buff to small alliance participation, a buff to localized conflict, a buff to 0.0 local markets, etc.

Also, a change (that you call nerf) to something is a buff to something else. Removing freighters would buff local markets, local production and trading because of the lesser homogeneity. (the downsides would be very bad however in this one instance however, I'm merely using this as an exemple). That's why it's called balancing. You didn't merely point out Greyscale "would like" to remove freighters, you used that as part of your argumentation as to why what we're suggesting is a pile of horse dung and how stupid we are.

Originally by: Venkul Mul

About the miners, remember you own position:
Originally by: Meissa Anunthiel

That's because miners right now are not part of alliances, they don't contribute much and they're not generally wanted either. Why would you, you don't really need them...
The relationship would change if they were actually providing a service you need. But you wouldn't really need to trust them with stuff pertaining to PvP either.


You will "accept" them as third class citizens, no access to PvP stuff, so no access to information channels, no access to the forums with the planned ops and so on.

To me it seem that all you want is grunt work, do what I want a be a good slave. Nothing more.


No, I said you wouldn't need to. Obviously it may be more beneficial to do so, and I would give them access. I'm replying to your statement you wouldn't want to trust them with anything. I'm sure you could find people who would be content with not having to bother with any PvP if you provided them with security and money for their activities.

The more I read your replies, the more it looks like you think everything is just fine and dandy as it is.

Trebor Daehdoow
Gallente
Sane Industries Inc.
Posted - 2011.01.17 12:21:00 - [225]
 

Originally by: Mecinia Lua
The dev mentioning they'd love to remove freighters. That would be one of the stupidest things you could do and if you wanted to kill industry in 0.0 completey go ahead and do it.


In fairness to Greyscale, he specifically said that removing freighters was good only in the abstract, and that he fully realized that it would cause too much pain. He was trying to illustrate the tension between what might be best for the game vs. best for the players.

One thing that has come out of this thread discussion that I find useful is that several posters have noted the connection between a logistics nerf and a manufacturing/infrastructure buff. This illustrates something that was very clear to me in the nullsec meeting at the summit -- that Greyscale clearly understood that no single change could happen in isolation. So making logistics more challenging should only happen as part of a package of changes.

This is where, perhaps, many of the posters in the thread are missing part of the point. The argument being made was not "Nerfing jump bridges will fix nullsec". It was "Nerfing jump bridges is one of a suite of changes that might change nullsec for the better".

So it would perhaps be a good idea to wait to see what the whole package is before beginning the hardcore raging -- and I for one am going to push very hard for public discussion of that package at the earliest possible stage (player tiger-teaming of this kind of stuff is something I am very much in favor of, since players have to live with the consequences).

Some of the posts in this thread will, I think, be very useful to the game designers. But let's broaden the discussion a bit from "OMG WTF Kill Jump Bridges?!"

StuRyan
Posted - 2011.01.17 12:45:00 - [226]
 

Edited by: StuRyan on 17/01/2011 12:58:39
Originally by: Vicious Cell
Edited by: Vicious Cell on 17/01/2011 08:51:47
So, I have a question:

Does it matter if the vast majority of casual players would absolutely hate the proposed nerfs and removal of convenient gameplay mechanics?

I pretty much disagreed with everything these "CSM guys" want (aside from the Supercap part). And it infuriates me that CCP actually has these private meetings with a small group of players who represent only a very small percentage group of Eve.

Not everyone who plays Eve is a hardcore Roleplayer, not everyone who plays Eve spends thousands of hours of their lives doing forum debates (in an RP style), not everyone has oodles of time to waste in the game simply to please the CSM guys way of wanting the "game to be".

I would really hate if CCP actually changed their game based solely on what these CSM guys feel is needed. I know for a fact that the majority of players would be strongly against some of the stuff written in these meetings. As the majority of players have real lives and cannot afford harsh game mechanics, it would break the game for them.

The CSM meeting seems really selfish to me in that they are merely considering what they want the game to be like in their opinions only. It seems to me they hardly take into consideration what the majority of Eve players would want.

It really sickens me the way the meeting was discussed and I can assure you that these CSM guys are not at all an accurate "representation of all Eve players". It seems to me so much time is wasted because CCP is by no means getting any sort of real opinion of the majority player base. They are just hearing the opinions of a handful of hardcore forum geeks who like to RP.

Cutting out all of these walls of texts and simply placing a new poll each week on the main website would garner way more accurate feed from all Eve players (this is just a random example, there are easily dozens of better methods). It is clear to me that if CCP simply takes the CSM reps opinions as an Eve general consensus, CCP will then have very inaccurate views of its majority playerbase's opinions.


I have to agree with this comment. I went from playing eve at least 40 hours a week to playing it 10 now im back up at 40. You can only experience what the game offers as a complete game by playing more than 30 hours a week. Taking out things that speed up being able to move across the galaxy imo is stupid. Instead of removing jb’s make them only accessible to certain types of ships exclude those ships that make logistics easy. By making them accessible to certain types of ships would encourage “relay” gameplay a freighter sat on a jb and people working in teams unloading its cargo. Etc. Please take into account those players that love the game – can not commit to playing every day. I’d really like the idea of having a “hubs” that are a group of worm holes leading to different and far area’s of space (like the last episode of Star Trek: Voyager, to some it’s a bad idea but if PVP is what drivers the economy we should be looking at ways to encourage PVP, not ways of making things harder.

May i add allowing caps and JF's to jump to cyno gens and then jump to another system via a JB - THATS EASIER LOGISTCS Kill that - Not the mechanic that allows fleets to move around THIER space easily to kill ****.

Mecinia Lua
Galactic Express
Intrepid Crossing
Posted - 2011.01.17 12:49:00 - [227]
 

Originally by: Meissa Anunthiel
Originally by: Mecinia Lua
Okay things mentioned....jump bridges? Removing these will not cause localized battles. You say they will Meissa you are very misinformed. Long before the existance of jump bridges folks still jumped 20 to 30 jumps to hit opponents on a regular basis. It would cut down on combat not lead to more as Goons and others have pointed out here. As for logistics folks would just do it with wormholes not move freighters through 0.0 which would be suicidal.


Indeed people did, the speed at which they did it was vastly slower, thereby making it less likely to have friends of the people you were fighting jumping into the fray at a moment's notice. As I said before, on its own it's not going to accomplish much anyway.

Originally by: Mecinia Lua

The dev mentioning they'd love to remove freighters. That would be one of the stupidest things you could do and if you wanted to kill industry in 0.0 completey go ahead and do it.


I'm not going to defend that position as I am against it.

Originally by: Mecinia Lua
The main bottleneck to 0.0 is the lack of infrastructure. If you want do do something that would be helpful, then lift the limit of outpost in a system. (snip)

The people you said have no clue (us) also asked for that limit to removed (during CSM 3 if memory serves). We also emphasised that improving the industrial capabilities of 0.0 would be needed with the mobility changes. So sure...



It's not implemented yet so bring it up again.

Removing the Outpost limit and lowering the cost of building outposts is the best path towards creating the infrastructure needed in 0.0 to support larger numbers of folks. Without infrastructure you can't support large groups of miners, who need to be able to relatively mine in peace ( I mean they'll tolerate a couple raids a week but if someone raids every day at the time they can play they'll move on). Mining ships hold pitiful little and thus they need hauler support (whether it is rorqs, orcas, industrials or transports). While POS Corp Hangar can hold decent amount, if you have just a few active miners they fill up fast. Thus ready access to outposts and their infinite storage capacity is an absolute must if you want to see more miners in 0.0 rather than shipping it in.

If you knew removing jump bridges was a bad idea in itself, why didn't you speak up when Greyscale asked about it? The minutes point out no one opposed the idea yet it is seen by many friends and foes as a stupid idea that would not accomplish the stated goal and would only hurt the game more.



Venkul Mul
Gallente
Posted - 2011.01.17 13:19:00 - [228]
 

Originally by: Trebor Daehdoow

So it would perhaps be a good idea to wait to see what the whole package is before beginning the hardcore raging -- and I for one am going to push very hard for public discussion of that package at the earliest possible stage (player tiger-teaming of this kind of stuff is something I am very much in favor of, since players have to live with the consequences).



speaking from past experiences:

If you want till the "whole package" is presented at least 70% of it is already set in stone with very small tweak possible.

When it is at the current stage "we are considering it" the players can try to discuss and even shout about the pro or cons whit a good chance to make CCP reconsider.

When it is at the stage "we are publishing a devblog with what we have decided to do in the next expansion in six months" CCP has already assigned the resources (time and manpower) to the different development groups and prepared a roadmap of how the work should progress.

A that point the room for changes will be very reduced.

What we read in the minutes is a hypothesis for a set of nerfs that maybe, if all go well and the players react as we wish (fat chance), will give the buff to small gangs and so on that Meissa want.

As already said to me some of them seem more prone to increase the numbers of bots mining in 0.0, as Fred said at least the multi alliances holding the Technetium moons will continue to exist and so on.

It is a gamble with high stakes and uncertain results.


Bhattran
Posted - 2011.01.17 14:27:00 - [229]
 

Originally by: Warpantrieb
it all comes down to this.

Hey I'm a new player who want's to do stuff in 0.0
and if I'm lucky i can find a place to put a pos and even a moon

But after a few weeks, a big alliances notices me, and just drive me out.
If i'm lucky, I might be able to join them, IF I start doing some pvp.

This is the idea that all new players and even players who are in the game for like more than 3 years have.

So basicly small corps, normal corps and individuals are just scared from the big alliances. Change this and you'll get ppl in 0.0




Yes new, solo, small groups of players are deterred from being in 00 by the larger corps/alliances but there is a minimum entry to get into 00 and survive if you want to 'own' and upgrade stuff. The problems against this are numerous from the simple size of the alliances to their supercapitals/hotdrops etc and the space they claim but don't need/use.

00 is often presented as a 'frontier' but in reality it is just a lawless area with many larger groups of 'gangs' and their hideout/bases. The 'frontier' doesn't exist only Wormholes hold any real potential as a 'frontier' anymore. A frontier is supposed to be an empty far away place where you can be 'free' from others but the 'natives', that USED to be 00 when the natives were just the rats in the systems, now the 'natives' are the alliances.

StuRyan
Posted - 2011.01.17 14:38:00 - [230]
 

Why are you concentrating on making things harder for us? You take away passive income with the whole "these upgraded systems will present "more opportunities for hit and run" when infact all that i have found is the same situation as before "ratters and miners warp to safes and cosmics create more unclear d-scanning. its a viscous circle and it all boils down to finding a system that allows people to blow **** up without the need to spend time fleeting up and getting organised which may i add can take up to an hour to sort out. I want to sign in and go shoot **** so give us the ability to do that, don't make it even harder for us to survive in 0.0.

Indeterminacy
THORN Syndicate
BricK sQuAD.
Posted - 2011.01.17 14:53:00 - [231]
 

Edited by: Indeterminacy on 17/01/2011 14:55:40
CCP wants more people in 0.0. CCP wants to impair mobility of players in 0.0.

Let's think about this guys. Let's say a player knows about a coming operation (a POS take down or final ref timer of a sov structure). Player logs in a bit prior to "the op time" to prep ship, ammo, get on comms in fleet. This is what? An hour? Fleet then travels to destination on the periphery of his coalitions controlled space to defend x. This involves 4-5 jump bridges (one of which is out of fuel) and 8 gates. Another hour.

Then (I'm skipping a lot here, right) The fight at the destination begins: Everything grids to halt, some people drop and must reform / get back into fight / which is pointless because at the moment it's more of a power point show than a internet spaceship game. Some supercaps (which all had a gazillion FBs out) die and so they all leave for both sides. Lag clears, it's playable, there's finally a fight which lasts 30 minutes. All totaled: 2.5 hours in laggy, disconnecting, 1200 man system.

Let's say I get podded back home for the sake of brevity and don't have to make the 4-5 jbs and 8 gates home (another hour).

I've now spent 4.5 hours for a fight that was barely playable.

And you want to make this harder? Also, how is faction warfare these days?


Trebor Daehdoow
Gallente
Sane Industries Inc.
Posted - 2011.01.17 14:56:00 - [232]
 

Originally by: Venkul Mul
If you want till the "whole package" is presented at least 70% of it is already set in stone with very small tweak possible.

When it is at the current stage "we are considering it" the players can try to discuss and even shout about the pro or cons whit a good chance to make CCP reconsider.


I understand and appreciate your point of view, but allow me to clarify: what I am talking about by "whole package" is basically "the first draft".

What happened in December was a very general discussion, and CSM acting as a focus group. The real takeaway from it is that CCP wants to take another stab at improving nullsec. That's good.

The next step is to encourage the game designers to engage with the players (not just the CSM) as early as possible in the process of developing their nefarious plans™. The good things that happened in the last 6 months when other groups inside CCP started doing that (in particular, the UI team) will hopefully encourage them to do that.

No doubt there will be resistance to this by those who believe that "players don't do game design". But "players do shoot holes in game design", and for that reason, they should be encourage to debate big potential changes before the fact. It's both useful feedback and a useful metric.

It also makes development more cost-effective, since time isn't wasted implementing questionable mechanics, or partially implementing/deploying something when it is clear that success requires a complete package.

Also, the designers should be required define exactly what their goals are, and what their success metrics are, and these should also be made public for discussion. I have no doubt that all of them are confident enough in their abilities that they will have no problem with this.

Erik Finnegan
Gallente
Polytechnique Gallenteenne
Posted - 2011.01.17 15:00:00 - [233]
 

This thread took a turn I am not going to follow. Let me comment the actual OP that I fully appreciate the work of the CSM. I find it awesome how solid the grounds and communication between CSM and CCP have become. And, yes, I do feel that it is our own interests as players which are being represented there at the table, between CSM and CCP.

Sure, I would wish to peek further into the NDA cover. But I believe that we can trust you in influencing CCP the best possible into shaping any new development to our liking; or as much as possible. Of course, there is debate in detail. And having this debate is shaping the CSM's opinion. And everyone has all the tools available to bring his personal issue to you.

Fifth CSM - best CSM

Tres Farmer
Gallente Federation Intelligence Service
Posted - 2011.01.17 15:00:00 - [234]
 

Edited by: Tres Farmer on 17/01/2011 15:16:12
Originally by: Venkul Mul
Originally by: Trebor Daehdoow

So it would perhaps be a good idea to wait to see what the whole package is before beginning the hardcore raging -- and I for one am going to push very hard for public discussion of that package at the earliest possible stage (player tiger-teaming of this kind of stuff is something I am very much in favor of, since players have to live with the consequences).



speaking from past experiences:

If you want till the "whole package" is presented at least 70% of it is already set in stone with very small tweak possible.

When it is at the current stage "we are considering it" the players can try to discuss and even shout about the pro or cons whit a good chance to make CCP reconsider.

When it is at the stage "we are publishing a devblog with what we have decided to do in the next expansion in six months" CCP has already assigned the resources (time and manpower) to the different development groups and prepared a roadmap of how the work should progress.

A that point the room for changes will be very reduced.

What we read in the minutes is a hypothesis for a set of nerfs that maybe, if all go well and the players react as we wish (fat chance), will give the buff to small gangs and so on that Meissa want.

As already said to me some of them seem more prone to increase the numbers of bots mining in 0.0, as Fred said at least the multi alliances holding the Technetium moons will continue to exist and so on.

It is a gamble with high stakes and uncertain results.

Wouldn't it be good then for the people affected to start discussing this topic and put out some papers/comments/recommendations/proposals that are well formulated and behaved?
If the Devs have no clue about zero-zero and you're the guys with knowledge you should take the professional lane and get heard.

Obviously you can either be incorporated in the process or just stand aside, put the head in the sand or rabble about it.
The Process itself started and will deliver an outcome.
The best chance to get your points across would be to deliver facts and discussion material.

The time to act positively and successfully is now.
Get this stuff ready before fanfest.
Send it with every null sec peep you got to iceland and let them demand an extra session on the matter via CSM. If this takes 1 full day of roundtables/paneldiscussion and Dust or WoD won't be showcased so be it, you got my full support for that.
You guys have to live with this for the next years.. it's your endgame and the engine that drives this game.

And as CCP ****ed up the last time they might be more inclined to listen to what you guys worked out.

Tres Farmer
Gallente Federation Intelligence Service
Posted - 2011.01.17 15:08:00 - [235]
 

Edited by: Tres Farmer on 17/01/2011 15:18:51
And one more thing.. play devils advocate in your OWN proposals.

Do look at those solutions from the perspective of whatever comes to your mind that might want/need/should go out there and how this will affect them.
This includes miners, missionrunners, pirates and whatever else runs around and has a name and is wished for to be out there.

Marlona Sky
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2011.01.17 15:23:00 - [236]
 

Sure is a lot of lazy people in 0.0 these days. So funny hearing all these people pitching about traveling 30+ jumps to find some non-blues to fight. Honestly, you all did it to yourselves. Don't blue everything for three regions and you won't have to travel 30+ jumps to get a fight.

Holy ****ing **** is it too hard of a concept to understand for you people?

Indeterminacy
THORN Syndicate
BricK sQuAD.
Posted - 2011.01.17 15:29:00 - [237]
 

Edited by: Indeterminacy on 17/01/2011 15:34:23
Originally by: Marlona Sky
Sure is a lot of lazy people in 0.0 these days. So funny hearing all these people pitching about traveling 30+ jumps to find some non-blues to fight. Honestly, you all did it to yourselves. Don't blue everything for three regions and you won't have to travel 30+ jumps to get a fight.

Holy ****ing **** is it too hard of a concept to understand for you people?



Engineer a game that doesn't lag for hours. Engineer a game that doesn't require 5+ minutes every gate jump. Stop whining because you've failed, repeatedly, to make inroads on people you think you should be beating.

The fact is, I and many people like me don't have 12 god damned hours a day to play. Is EVE going to be a place where only jobless, spouse-less, neckbeard wearing wannabe space***s can play or, is EVE going to be designed to accommodate a variety of real people.

EDIT: nobody has to go 30 jumps to get a fight. But if these changes are made they will. Also, I think this has as much to do with supporting life in 0.0 as getting to a fight. From that perspective - it's already burdensome enough for people who aren't bittervets (read don't fly caps) to deploy to a new area and get supplies moved. It requires planning and coordination (which is fine)...but currently it's not actually difficult to execute.

This is the way it should be. I don't want to spend 1/2 my game time moving **** around. And I won't.

Meissa Anunthiel
Redshift Industrial
Rooks and Kings
Posted - 2011.01.17 15:42:00 - [238]
 

Originally by: Tres Farmer
Edited by: Tres Farmer on 17/01/2011 15:18:51
And one more thing.. play devils advocate in your OWN proposals.

Do look at those solutions from the perspective of whatever comes to your mind that might want/need/should go out there and how this will affect them.
This includes miners, missionrunners, pirates and whatever else runs around and has a name and is wished for to be out there.


We do, a lot... I know I personally will defend whatever opinion is contrary to the current one just to provide perspective and nuance. Obviously I don't need to do it on this forum, there's no shortage of people bashing the proposal ;-)

After that's done, however, one should draw a conclusion about which alternative is best while keeping an eye on the downsides. Playing devil's advocate doesn't mean one should be forever undecided because of the existence of points both for and against a given proposal.

Ntrails
Posted - 2011.01.17 15:51:00 - [239]
 

Originally by: Evelgrivion

Why not build supercarriers when a few freighters can import the materials to where they're needed and Titan portals and Jump Bridges can make 45 jumps of 0.0 space involve a mere 15 minutes of travel time?




How many freighter convoys have you organised? I am being serious now, because you are talking firmly out of your backside.

First you have to get a ton of isk, and get the materials through highsec in loads not exceeding ~2b because of the risk of suicide ganks. Assuming you think that moving a freighter manually is fun - this is probably a mere 2-3 minutes per jump, 20+ jumps in a round trip.

MOST likely you give it to redfrog or someone because it is easier and the costs are relatively small. So once you have all your **** to be moved on a lowsec/highsec border system you need a large gang to hold the gate, and carrier support.

You need a staging POS, in every midpoint. Have you set up a lot of deathstars? So this is another bunch of time, and requires security compromising roles. You need to get a titan pilot online logged in and there ready to bridge your fleet to the system. Now we need to move the fleet to the goods. This is dull. I mean really really dull. Sit on titan. Wait for titan to cap up. Jump. Wait for the rest of these idiots to jump. Bear in mind you gotta lie to this escort fleet for security reasons - they thought they were doing something fun.

So we get there, and the freighters jump into lowsec and get to the titan, and we repeat the last 30 minutes going the other way. 15 minutes my arse. You're an idiot who has obviously no concept of what is actually involved in making this stuff happen.

This is a drawn out planning process taking many, many hours of players time. It is one of a hundred things these guys have to do to make even a small empire work. You think this would be a better game if we had to take the freighters through gates? You'd have more bored people doing a ****ty task that has to be done.


Mr Nardsworth
Posted - 2011.01.17 16:06:00 - [240]
 

Edited by: Mr Nardsworth on 17/01/2011 16:12:44
you do realize that its like 10 guys that do all the logistics for a giant empire. all this would do is make them have even less fun. this game is borderline fun most of the time anyways but to make it even less so is completely stupid.

have you ever played world of tanks?
it is full of people who used to play eve but have left because the game isn't actually fun.

why not try to fix mining so people might actually want to do it for fun instead of botting it.

why not fix ratting for the same purposes.


making people do tedious stuff in a video game is always a bad idea. most people view video games as a way to relax and enjoy their downtime. going against this grain just for some unrealistic fantasy that people will actually mine in 0.0 is going to make the game pretty nonviable. the only outcome i see from this going live are world of tanks subs going up.

as for the vision that this will make neighbors actually fight each other, that's a fantasy. the alliances that exist in game now are the ones you will be seeing no matter how much you break the game. if you want new players coming into 0.0 then the solution painfully obvious, nerf level 4 missions. if you can make almost as much money in empire doing level 4 missions, then why would you ever go to 0.0 where you have hostile gangs roaming and serious disruptions to your income. the people who live in 0.0 are mostly there for the pvp, and this is because there is no real point to the existence of 0.0 other than pvp.

another factor in all of this, is that ccp has a terrible track record for changing things. almost every new mechanic introduced by ccp is broken in some way. what makes anybody think that they could do this correctly.


edit: i would like to add in a little something about the people who have been referred to as having fun with logistics, empire haulers. in case you haven't figured it or know, there is a lot of botting going on, and empire hauling is just another instance where it happens. in reality logistics isn't fun for anybody except a few neckbeards.


Pages: first : previous : ... 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 : 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