Friday, October 24, 2014

Let Them Choose a Way

Let's talk about options.

CCP Rise discussed an idea he has been kicking around in his spare time of permanent death. He pointed out that it is an idea as old as Eve it is just one that has never been achieved. He also said that how it would be implemented is still a series of ideas or guesses. It, like many things that have been said and will be said, is an idea.

I like the idea of permanent death and I say that as someone who will never, ever use the option. The thing is that I like options. I have also pushed for players that start to have more options in how they start the game. To move back and use another game as an example, I shall use Skyrim. I love Skyrim with all of my heart and soul and when I finally started to use mods for Skyrim I picked mods that did not give me special bonuses but instead gave me more options to live in the game world.

I picked a mod that gave me an alternate start. It threw me out somewhere to the west. I was immediately chased by wolves and dragons. Did I mention that I added a 'more' dragon mod? It made them appear everywhere and try to kill me constantly. Then, I ran through a bandit camp and they chased me to. Off into a snow storm I ran, heading roughly towards my icon with nothing but a stick, a pack of wolves chasing me, and bandits shooting me with arrows.

I loved it. I eventually worked my way to the start of the normal game but it took a while for that to happen. During that time I tripped over all sorts of things in the game environment, I died a few times, and in general I had refreshed a game that I had already put hundreds of hours into.

The idea of things like permanent death or alternate starts in Eve are very much for the people who want to pick them as options. No one has suggested that they will be the only way to play Eve. They would just be another way to play. With new ways to play will come new cultures. What spurred me to write this was a comment that permanent death would make people more risk adverse. I don't agree. In fact, I think that if we opened up more and different pathways for people to enter the game on their own terms we might shed some of unwritten rules that we have now.

Perhaps we have to many bottlenecks for new players. My theory is that if people had more options in how they started the game they'd therefore enter the game with a different mindset. If someone chose to enter with a permanent death mode, they'd behave in a different manner from someone who entered and followed a tutorial string. If another decided to take a 'just start' mode where they were randomly dropped into space and had to figure things out for themselves, they'd develop their knowledge of the game based off of the fact that they started knowing they'd need to go out and learn.

Our current tutorial simply funnels too many people into one mindset. If Eve were a game like many others where there were directions and pathways that a player went on until they reached endgame, that would be fine. But Eve is a game where we need people to decide on their personal destiny rather quickly. Even if they don't know what that is, the fact that they are looking for one is a good start.

While I think the new player start that they are working on will give people a less structured box to learn in, I still believe that including other random methods to start with no goal of assisting the player is good. If someone selects these options they have already made a series of personal decisions. They are also prepared to seek knowledge because they just told the game, "naw, I don't want your starter stuff."

I'm a great believer in options.

Ramblings: Clearing My Mind

I was writing some very boring words about moving items for my market. They made sense but bored me into not being able to complete them. I was just saying the same thing that I've said before. I'm worn out enough that just stocking the market is about the full extent of my energy right now. It turns out I was sick by the time I got back home. My husband brought it with him when he flew in. Nice of him.

Then my fan died today which left me without a machine for much of my time. However, a trip to the store and some searching and things are back to normal. I'm still in an odd state where I feel as if I have things to say but not much is coming out.

My normal method for that is to write through it anyway even if I have no point and make little sense along the way. With Eve Vegas past us and the release of the minutes coming up I think I am rather wound up. I should just start writing my halfway through my term post because I think that is what is clogging up the writing.

Then there is also negativity. Eve Vegas is a very positive place and stepping outside of it is much like walking wet and naked into a blizzard. It is a bit surprising and not the most pleasant thing one can do. When compared to the positive energy I had just left, it was a bit disappointing. But then, no reality is always fun and pleasant just as no reality is only negativity.

Over the weekend I talked to a lot of people about a lot of different things. I talked about markets as much as I talked about low sec. There has been some follow up from that. Niden for instance asked me a bunch of questions about industry and trade. I often don't feel as if I'm the most qualified person to ask these things and I tend to say that. His questioning thou, about industry and markets and the coming of Phoebe fit neatly into what I was doing which was restocking Bosena and being frustrated at how life, the universe, and everything else can make something that seems simply so damn hard.

When I first started TCS, I did a lot of my own moving. I slowly started to split it due to the sheer number and value of items I was moving. Once I reached the CSM I turned it fully over to others. I was using Red Frog and spent a good bit of time venturing into private hauling. The reliability and speed of Red Frog kept me a stable customer. My use of independent hauling services has been very hit or miss. However, Red Frog has added a huge surcharge for shipping through Udema. I don't blame them but it has caused me yet another layer of difficulty when it comes to getting stuff moved.  CODE took over the haulers channel and they have since moved and are restarting under a new name.

Instead of one huge things it is a series of little things that causes me to struggle. It seems like such a simple thing, moving stuff around and selling things. Just press button and receive ISK. I just write a few contracts, buy a few items... but it never works quite that neatly.

I've tried PushX before and I am trying them again. For regular, vanilla contracts they tend to sit till they are close to expiration. This is still a bit better then public contracts which are hit or miss when not on regular routes. For regular routes public contracts are the best way to go.

But I'm not good at regular routes. I'm not good at sticking to the sure thing of selling at trade hubs and working the market there. Hell, I'm not even capable of doing the sensible thing when it comes to industry and instead follow my own fancy most of the time. That makes simple things in Eve absurdly frustrating at times.

But that frustration is what is so damn cool about the game. The fact that Phoebe is causing changes that are rippling in expected and unexpected ways amazes me. I absolutely love the life of the game. I hate being inconvenienced but at the same time the way changed slam into each other and make new and different pathways is amazing.

There has been a lot of change in this last six months for me. Some of it has been great and some of it exhausting. Phoebe will bring more then I think we assume and expect. It may just be my absolute lack of speculative ability kicking in. I think I'll work on my Sunday post and on my six month post and see if that clears things up for me. Life, in general is back to normal as well with no travel plans for a bit.

Tuesday, October 21, 2014

Eve Vegas 2014 - General Game Design

This was a bit boarder in topic but it was very much ask questions about Eve. This topic also had some longer discussion that I often did not include. One of those was in the realms of AFK cloaking. That had a long discussion attached to it and I wrote very little because it is the same arguments that have been going on for years.

There has been talk to censor these questions to 'good' questions. People ask what they want to ask. It is why they come. So enjoy both good and bad questions and know no one would censor you and tell you how to ask questions the right way.

Q: There have been a lot of changes to blueprints. Some people have invested what equals centuries of time into researching blueprints. There was no type of compensation when the blueprint research was changed and that time was lost where skills are at least reimbursed or something is given for other things that change.
A: We know that people have a lot of time invested into some things. But we are trying not to be afraid of changing things that need to be changed because of it. Industry was changed to improve things in a larger way in the game.

Q: How about giving us some free skill points to help when we lose things like research time that we've been heavily invested in?
A: Unallocated skill points are one of the most powerful things in the game. We have to be careful when we had them out.

Q: This was a longer question and commentary that wrapped up into the fact that there will be some major combat changes after Phoebe. What does CCP see in the future of this?
A: We have been trying things to create different types of combat situations. The ESS are an example of something we tried to experiment with that did not do as well as we hoped. We've had ideas for taking the asteroid belts and turning them into a super belt where people interacted across that belt and they'd be there doing many different things. We want more reasons for people to cross each other in space while just playing.

Q: How do you feel about the current T3 meta?
A: They are very strong. e will be passing over them. Some subsystems are used some are never used. We'd like there to be interesting choice with the usage.
A: I feel we have been trying to find a way to put a more mechanical pressure on logistics. Some idea will come to us that will achieve this.

Q: Ship Skins. A demo was shown that would give more options in the future?
A: Some of that is art and some of that is us deciding how extreme we want it to go. Do we just release faction skins? Do players submit skins? Do we just let you do whatever you want with everything
(Note: There were some general requests here for the ability to color ships to ones hearts content and promise/threats that they will make pink ships if CCP lets them.)

Q: In game EFT type tool
A: Tuxford wants to have a fitting tool in the game. We'd like to add them. We're not fully sure what we would do. If we'd try to fully replace a player built tool like EFT and Pfya or if we'd just try to give some of the stats and information. Things like importing from these player built projects is a good step and CCP Seagull is passionate about supporting that type of interfacing.

Q: You discussed using frigates to get to places. How we can just jump into an interceptor or assault frigate and go twenty jumps. How about reducing clone costs for vets if you expect us to get into these ships. And what content for veteran players have you looked at making and what type of progress goals do you have for those of us who don't have anything left to learn.
A: CCP Foxfour discussed his presentation.
A: The clone upgrade system is a weak system. Clones however are tightly tied to lore and the game itself. They are learning towards removal but its something they want to adjust down in general. The 30% reduction showed absolutely no change in clone costs. They don't know if that's just because of what clone usage is like or if it is just because 30% was not enough of a decrease to matter to people.
Q: If they remove clone costs would there be a SP loss mechanic still?
A: No. The entire mechanic would be scrapped for something better. People are still having loss on death and they don't want to discourage people from undocking. Ship loss is already a penalty that people get. Clone loss is another penalty on top of that.

Q: Suggesting of an implant insurance scheme to give implants an insurance level of some type.
A: Insurance is an ISK faucet not a sink. To make the insurance worth it they have to open another faucet. They are careful wit that.
A: It is easy to look at the bad medical clone system on its own. Then an implant system is another thing to look at on its own.

Q: Do you plant o release more genolution implants?
A; We always reserve the right to rerelease them when we want to.

A discussion on how logistics and ewar do not scale well.

Q: Now that we have multi sell can we have multi buy?
A: Hopefully

Q: How about clone fatigue for jumping? After so many deaths skill loss starts?
A by Fozzie: That's a very harsh penalty for undocking. Skill loss is very delicate and one of the harshest penalties in Eve.
A by Rise: Id prefer that if we have loss there was more reward or more choice. Not a pure penalty. That makes people not want to play.

Q: Instead of losing skill points you can't undock?
A: We always want players to undock

Q: Jump fatigue is going to severely hamper BlOps. Can we warp cloaked now to at least give us something to do while we wait?
A: We are wiling to consider it when we rebalance

Q: Cloaky AFK campers? My people log in, see the cloaky camper and log out. They can't play. This is botting!
A: No it is not botting. They are not killing you while they are afk. We do want interesting game play around cloaking and hunting cloakers. We know that there is a psychological thing going on with people more then anything else. Wormholers function fine with cloaky campers.
(Note: This thing went into a rather long back and forth over cloaky camping)
A: We'd like to replace local with a better set of intel tools for Sov holders.

Q: Can we drop out of local?
A: Its a bit to strong to just cut oneself out in the current method. But it is a possibility when we rebalance.

Q: Can Covert ops can turn their covert ops cloak on under gate cloak?
A: That's a bit strong

Q: Decloak bubbles?
A: That is a big strong. It creates a gate camping tool

Q: Clean up skills like advanced target management where there is no reason to learn it beyond a point because almost no ship can even use it in a reasonable way?
A: We are doing a touch up of skills as we cross them and cleaning up legacy things and old quirks

Q: Fitting ships of many types sucks. Mass fitting and mass price quites to buy a fit. Right now it all sucks.
A: Multisell is a first step in this direction

And that is it for the round table sessions I took notes for!

Monday, October 20, 2014

Ranting: Reviews and Behavior

My own time in Vegas has moved to vacation from Eve related events. I spent some time over the last two days writing my notes. I still have one more session to write up and one session that wound up not having many notes.

CCP Manifest created a feedback thread early on Sunday to get peoples feedback. This wrapped into the community team's request for feedback from the attendees.

Eve Vegas 2014 - Ship and Module Round Table

I am in a food coma from the buffet as I try to look over the scrawled lines of black that constitutes my fast note handwriting. This session was one of the longest and most crowded which will surprise no one. It also started first thing in the morning so it filled after it started leading to some possible rehashes of topics. A few times we go on about a topic for quite a while and have discussions.

In general, in feedback from the convention, we have asked for these to be recorded in some way. Until then, here is my rehash.

Q: Make the new T3 Minmatar Destroyer vertical.
A: I'd like that as well and will bring it up with the art team.

Q: New jump changes - Black ops don't have any long distance repping ships.
A: These limits are known. BlackOps are unique in what they do. I don't think we will make a mass produced Etena to go along with them. but we are not happy with the current state of T3 repping subsystems.

Q: Battle Cruiser and Battleship warp speeds. They are so slow that it feels as if we are giving up too much potential and possibility to use these ships.
A: We want there to be a large, noticeable difference in warp speeds between the classes.

Q: Specifics on the Tug?
A: Two and a half fitted battleships maybe.
Q: Slots and rigs?
A: It should have some slots.

Q: This was a question about improving the Nidhoggur's rep bonuses for structures for the most part and its lack of bonuses.
A: We could buff the reps. We can consider looking at the capital reps. We are reducing the hit points on these structures.

Q:  Last year there was discussion about links coming on grid as an important change.
A: It is still on the radar. We want warfare links to be in battle or in range. But doing it in a performance way is still behind the scenes.

Q: Systems with link jammers? (Sov upgrade I believe)
A: Maybe it is something we can consider. It would not be something you could just mass spam to every single system.

Q: How about if links lasted for a set time and then had to be reaplied?
A: We will probably go that way.
(Note: There was some discussion about buffs and debuffs and more flexability to what linking was and how it worked somewhere in this general area.)

Q: Will we get scram drones?
A: Scramming drones are not something I think we will do.
(Note: There was a brief discussion about some broken aspects of e-war drones at the moment and them saying they may give drones a break from being touched for right now.)

Q: Force Projection - How about tying down capital ships to a logistical base. That type of cost and anchoring does not seem to exist. Something like they are teetered to depending on a PI colony on a planet or something to support them. Countries can't just deploy all their carriers because of logistical limitations and I don't see that in Eve.
A: The idea has been bounced around a lot. The fuel cost is one anchoring cost that caps have. We raised that recently, remember? But doing it in a way that fights against playing the game is not fun. It would be hard to make this fun and interesting game play. Also, we don't have a date for a super rebalance but when we do we want to rebalance them from the ground up.

Q: 1000MN MWD?
A: We have thought about it. The problem is making it more then a fast align module and having interesting reasons to use it.

Q: Will we fix capital warping by Phobe?
A: We have changed how caps war to gates. For a while a Titan could never actually approach a gate and get there. The bump mechanics are the same. Yes, they will starburst if they don't jump fast enough or if they land in bubbles.

Q: Will you change how Titans Fleet Warp?
A: A lot of the bugs should be fixed on the current version of Sisi now.

Q: E-War like target painters. This was a question geared towards a new ship class that can use e-war against e-war resistant ships.
A: Maybe. We have no plans to commit to changes like this until we know how we are rebalancing capitals and super capitals. We don't want to make a totally new ship class that may be redundant with the rebalance.

Q: Clone vat bays rebalanced to be useful?
A: We certainly want them to be more useful and have interesting game play around them.

Q: The invention blog talks about capital invention. Are we about to see T2 capital?
A: That was in regards to freighter which are considered capital invention products.

Q: The reduced need for cyno alts means fewer subscriptions. Is CCP worried about this?
A: We absolutely expect there to be a reduction due to cyno accounts. We think that the balance this change is bringing will be good and bring other people to the game or back that will compensate.

Q: In regards to cyno alts, why not add something to the skill tree for them to get those accounts back?
A: Maybe.

Q: Stealth bombers? Could defender missiles be used as an anti bomb weapon?
A: That is an idea seen with a lot of potentual. One problem is that it requires a rebuild of all the code behind defenders. We also have to be careful bcause that scalres in a very powerful way.

Q: Was the bomber change focused around nerfing ISBoxer?
A: No.
Q: Why was decloaking changed?
A: Idea was to make people orginize and work together and with each other.
Q: Yes but ISBoxers are already saying that they can beat this and just set their accounts to warp to different ranges. It is harder for individuals to coordinate then it is for an ISBoxer to set his accounts.
A: Yes. People bombed successfully before the delcoaking change and I believe that they will continue to do so. If we see that people cannot be successful with the changes are are willing to irradiate on them.

Q: It hits a lot of other types of cloaky game play.
A: Yes it does. We know. And we will watch. If people cannot cope we will make changes.

Q: Can we at least see our cloaked fleet mates?
A: Potentially.

Q: Battleship and battlecruiser quality of life issues with the current warp speeds. (Note: This asker was not in the room for the earlier question.)
A: We want them to be different and we want them to be notably different but we may reiterate on it later.

Q:T2 Reactive armor hardeners?
A: Maybe. We have not done T2 for any of those items that have been released.

Q: Rorqual changes?
A: We are not read to announce them yet. We'd like to give the ship a reason or bring it to a point where you want to take it outside of your POS shields. The form of this we don't know. Maybe some sort of invulnerability field so that there is a fight over this ship.
Q: Will it still be focused on industry?
A: Yes.

Q: Changes to acceleration gates to allow supers to use them?
A: This will be a case by case basis. If there are good places to let supers use acceleration gates we will look. We don't want them winding up in ridiculous places.

Q: When will POS defenses become better?
A: We are giving a buff to POS weapons in Phoebe.

Q: Blops Battleships and jump fatigue. The addition of jump fatigue kills blops usage because you can only do one and you are fatigued for an hour.
A: We are looking into Blops now. They also have 1/2 of the fatigue gain. We are open to tweaking that. The fatigue is currently short enough for multiple blops runs. The thread has been updated.

Q: Outposts - Can we have defenses on them?
A: Maybe in the future when stations can be destroyed.

Q: Ishtar Online is not good game play.
A: I would not be surprised if we keep chipping away at the Ishtar until it is in a better place.

Q: What do they have a warp speed increase for T2 ships over their T1?
A: We decided that was a definitive difference between T1 and T2 ships. That T2 tend to get a faste warp speed and we adjust from there. In Phoebe for instance a T2 hull will be slower ten its T1 counter parts. We are still experimenting and tweaking thing.

Q: Rorqual: Could we have it so that the ore hold can carry PI stuff? Minerals?
A: It is doable and something to consider. We are not happy with the current state of ore bays in the game in general.

Q: Why can't we destroy outpost upgrades?
A: The outpost system is a mess. It would not be trivial to let you destroy upgrades. The current process is terrible.

Q: How about destroying IHUB or JB upgrades?
A: That is a more reasonable bit of code so maybe.

Q: Drastically increase the size of null to null wormholes so that we can still drop each other with a sizable capital fleet.
A: That is interesting. It can be done now. But probably not enough mass to get a decently sized cap fleet through.

Q: Your stance on jump clones in station? Can we switch between clones in the same station and not receive the timer penalty?
A: There is some movement to have change to the implant and clone system to make them more, separate systems instead of the current work around. There will be some big changes in that realm.

Q: Any thoughts for jump fatigue skills?
A: Adding a skill is always a maybe. We think that adding skills right now will make the introduction too complicated. But this is only the first pass.

Q: Jump Fatgigue is capped out at a month. Will it go down when we are unsubbed?
A: I'll have to double check with CCP Nullabor.

Q: Glass cannons? Details?
A: These modules will use current skills used for T2 weapons. First iteration is in short range for small, medium and large. The idea is that they will be better at damage then T2 but worse in range but better in tracking. We are still working on the balance.
Q: How will that balance with freighter ganking?
A: Cost right now. But we are looking at the balance of using them when it comes to ganks.
Q: Will the resists reduce when they are fitted?
A: Yes
Q: Where do you think people will use them?
A: Faction frigates and things with current low resits. The goal is to see what people will make of this vs having an exact plan for them to use it.
Q: People will use these for siege fleets
A: Yes and we are watching this
Q: So sniping?
A: That is why we are starting with close range weapons first
Q: BPO's?
A: Nope. BPCs from a rare exploration site.
Q: Can we use invuls and such to raise resists?
A: Nope. They set resists to zero and there is no way to improve them.

Q: Are there still ghost sites? I have never seen one.
A: Yes. They are spawning and being run regularly.

Q: Some form of orbital strike to disrupt PI?
A: It would be an interesting idea when we go back to PI and update it.

Q: Glass Cannon capital sized weapons?
A: Not in this go around

Q: Module tiericide? Recons?
A: They are coming.
Q: Philosophy for rebalancing recons?
A: It is still early for that. All of them have to have a use including the Pilgrim. No date yet. It is on a high priority list. And yes there are a few T2 groups left to touch.

Q: Rebalancing logi?
A: They are on the list to be rabalanced.

Q: Ring mining?
A: It never moved past a cool phase. Maybe in the future but it is not in any current design plan.

Q: Will you ever allow us to put a ship with ozone into a carrier?
A: Maybe we can look at that in the future rebalance

Q: Will glass cannons have new skills?
A: No they will use the current skills that you need for T2 weapons.

Q: Will we finally see T2 cap modules?
A: There are no direct plans but it is possible. There is room to expand the meta types for capital modules.

Q: Glass Cannons - Are they a module or a slot?
A: They are a gun that you use.

Q: Skills for T3 destroyers?
A: They will be a reasonable train like T2 frigates are. They will require destroyer V and have a racial skill that trains like a T2 frigate skill.

Eve Vegas 2014 - CCP Seagull's Round Table

CCP Seagull sat down with CCP Manifest sitting beside her. I will say at that CCP Manifest controlled himself and CCP Seagull did all the talking. I don't think he stabbed her with a cattle prod of STFU even once. As always my notes are somewhat short hand and may occasionally break proper use of my native language.

Q: Are you looking at making changes to make mining more interesting?

At this point CCP Seagull explained that she does not make that type of design decision and that is not what she does in her position. Knowing that the argument would derail into people asking her about ship balancing and everything under the sun I interjected and suggested that she start the session explaining to people what she does and how she interacts with her teams so that they could give her questions she could answer beyond vague empty statements. My decision to do this absolutely came from discussions at the Summit and the knowledge the CSM has of what CCP Seagull does. I hoped that it would lead to a better, more in depth discussion and I think that it did.

Q: The six week cycle is faster. Is it harder for marketing and PR?
A: Yes. The locked cycles were easier because we only announced things that had been locked in. It has been a challange.

Q: High level design goals - Corp changes
A: I want it to be something that does not have to have a full time staff dedicated to making it work. I want to make tools for those who want to work for and with others. We should be able to do better. And to change it into something easier to use would be better.

Q: What does sandbox mean to CCP Seagull?
A: I mean a world with many systems of doing things and the point is that you are out playing others. You have to figure out how the game works to use that to out play other players. It is fine that people don't want to go to that second system. That they want to just learn how the game works and stop there. But for those that take that next step it should be about out playing players. But to avoid people will still be something you have to use the game to do. The game industry does not have a good vocabulary to explain what we do in Eve and how you play Eve. It can be hard to explain what Eve means and what we want out of it.

Q: To continue about the sandbox. Some changes seem made to stop emergent game play which seems against the sandbox. If a group oppressively dominates the sandbox should allow that but you are making changes to stop that.
A: When we add things into Eve it is a form of behavior shaping. Our responsibility is to make a rule set and a landscape that makes it as good a game as it can be for many people. If the environment is unbalanced it is our responsibility to try to correct the flaws or change them and not be afraid because they have always been broken. It is not a simple system. We have avoided changes for fear that changes are bad. But we want an interesting and viability world for as many people as possible so we have to make things change even if some things won't be liked.

Q: With changes coming to sov are you looking to mirror those changes to Faction Warfare?
A: We may have many different systems in the game for a while. We are fine with that. However, some things are always going to be used across all types of space and when that happens we have to look at the over all image and the usage of these things. But Sov and FW don't have to be the same.

Q: how does CCP feel about media events like B-R?
A: We get excited about them. We know that these changes will decrease the probability of such fights. It is more sustainable for people who have fun to create places for others to have fun. Then they bring their friends in. B-R brings in subs and they immediately drop off because they can't join in. We want to set up systems that are more sustainable.
Manifest: Yes there are are lost opportunities PR wise. but it opens up the longer term struggles in politics and such things that are also interesting stories. The media has heard of big huge battles and they are looking for other things and we can give that to them.

Q: Balance: What are CCP's priorities?
A: We look at behaviors that are disproportionate or toxic to the game itself. Some things are hard to touch because they have always been that way and people fear change. I hope people will see our development path and see that we are not just changing and ignoring things but changing it again and again as it needs.

Q: Getting friends into the game. Live events are cool. Do you want more?
A: Yes. But we don't want live events to be the game play for people.

Q: Are the directions of development heading towards more dynamic systems or more static systems? An example is using gates to get a fight vs going to a timer to defend or attack.
A: We have been working on various ways for people to meet in space. We are trying to get more people out in space meeting each other.

Q: How do you approach what you decide to take into account when it comes to player feedback?
A: We use internal goals plus the feedback from the players and filter them to see what keeps coming up. The game is a huge, complex system and there are usage cases we miss and try to find. We can't always predict what will happen. We can and do gauge the signal to noise ratio as well. Sometimes we know the future and that is why it seems we don't listen. It is easier for you to give us a use case over  only a solution so that we don't have to reverse engineer your solution into your use case.

Q: Long term design goal? More capitals? T2 caps?
A: That is in the hands of the design team.

Q: How does the lore and landscape interact with your goals?
A: The lore is there to help us layout the landscape. We should use it to bring immersion. We have a living, breathing sci-fi world but the real stories should be from the player stories. And they should be things that you do. We are not going to use live events to entertain players as if they are the game.

Q: I forget to write this question
A: Not every problem has to be seen as a player. Such as the skill queue bringing more negitives then anything else. Things like balancing however I leave to the design team.

Q: Is it a plan to update how people talk to each other?
A: We want to modernize all of Eve and make all of those areas better.

Q: The single universe - Integrating Dust/Legion/Valkery. Is that still a plan?
A: Yes. We are moving slower. We want to have each game stand alone before we marry them.

Q: Have you thought of applying FW mechanics to Sov to revamp sov? It is there and it seems a natural progression.
A: We are not trying to make one system that captures all usage cases. It has been discussed but we are not trying to do just a single thing to solve all problems. Sov will get its own mechanics that fit its needs.

Q: The single shard universe? Will Serenity ever be integrated?
A: There are no plans to have multiple copies of Eve. Serenity is there because of legal reason

And that is it for this one. I'm going to bed and I'll try to get the rest done tomorrow.

Sunday, October 19, 2014

Eve Vegas 2014 - Social Media Round Table

As always with round tables I take notes in a rapid scrawled shorthand that I then have to decipher later. I also condense down the questions and the answers because I'm writing at full speed. The side effect is that my hand hurts a lot. I never write this much anymore. Ow.

I try to break it down into Devs and such when multiple ones answer but I'm not perfect.

CCP Manifests Round Table about Social Media and PR stuff from October 18th. CCP Guard was there too.

To Start:

CCP Manifest is the SR PR guy and in charge of Social Media. He reads over the dev blogs before they are released. He sorts out interviews when people wish to interview the developers. His main focus is on Eve Online.

Q: A request for an approved set of graphics or video that players can use to promote Eve.
A: A pack of approved for use graphics could be good. However he notes that they do not hunt people down for use stuff unless they are making a large amount of profit off of the Eve IP.

CCP Guard: We are working on setting up an IP for things like a preset t-shirt format so that people can make Eve swag for Events and that type of thing without tripping over legal.

Q: Social app for corp chat outside of the game
A from Fuzzy Steve: Foxfour is working on that
A from Manifest: We have talked to people about this. We have been disusing it. We want to keep what people have done in mind to get around this currently. We'd not stop a player from developing it if they did. However, we should do it as a company and not rely on the players.

Q: Some of us have websites that don't fit into the Fansite format. But we want to promote Eve.
A: I'm willing to support anything that points towards Eve. Fansites have pros and cons and you have to decide if you want those. Many times people do not ask us. It is like interviews. We do them with who we do because people ask. It is not favoritism you have to talk to us.
Guard: The fansite modle does not fit everything and we are open to things out of the box.
Sard Caid notes that his twitch channel is listed as a Fansite and its about streaming.
Manifest: We are not proactive about messing to fansites. We talked with the podcasters here and they said that they want to help us get the message out. We don't see the fansites as a PR Tool. There are pluses and minuses to that.
Guard: We sometimes send messages out to fansites in advance when things are happening. Maybe we should send it out sooner then we have been.

(Note from me: CCP Manifest spoke of using the CSM as PR tools. Now, he did not mean tool as a derogatory thing. He spoke of it as an actual thing to use. However, I was very offended at the suggestion that the CSM is something to be used as public relations in such a way that may bring question to the independent nature of the CSM members. While we are public relations in the fact that CCP works with a player elected group, I am an independent player and individual not a member of CCP's staff. For those that followed the little twitter explosion that followed that statement.)

Q: On the trial account page can we have something that points people to looking for a 21 day trial recommendation? Also can we look into setting it up so that you can update from a 14 day trial to a 21 day trial?
A: We will bother people about these things.

Q: Let us automatically tweet screen shots when we take them.
A: The tweeting ahs been looked at.

Discussion moved onto how an event calender and more public calender would be nice where players can see what is going on in the game. This has been talked about before and is still desired by both players and CCP.

CCP Manifest: We are going to work on in game mail as a way to communicate. The launcher was born out of a battle to get messaging to the players because the old log in screen had no place for that and people had no idea that other things happened. Also send things that are cool to Even if they are not reshared on public media we tend to share tehm in house a lot.

Q: Next Eve TV Episode?
A: Week after next is the plan. Guard has been travelling.

Q: Trailers
A: The trailer team is still there and making things.

Q: Will we continue to get music with expansions?
A: Yes. We have been releasing new music and will continue to.

Q: Have you thought of having player hosted segments for things like Eve TV and events?
A: Yes: We have a lot of stuff in the pipe. We want premade segments.
Guard: Would you all like player made commercials like AT?
Players: Yes
Manifest: We will be more open to content made by players.

Q: More video dev blogs?
A: Yes. We feel that there should be more and more types.
This was followed by discussion that the jump changes and other large future changes of that magnitude should get their own personal video dev blogs as well as written dev blogs.