Skip to main content

CSM9 - Day 105

On Monday, CCP Seagull was kind enough to post a Coming Soon in Hyperion Dev Blog and release some of the changes coming. They also had a little live twitch feed to go over some of the features and discuss it with various developers.

FIrst is a change that was dropped as a teaser by another CSM member some weeks ago. It instantly caused fear in some members of the wormhole community that CCP was changing PI (Planetary interaction) on them. In fact, CCP is simply removing a restriction where you currently cannot drop PI Command Centers in Sov unless you belong to the alliance that owns the system. This was a request by the null sec CSM members. I did not even know there was that restriction on null sec PI when it comes to who dropped command centers. Now, it will be the same everywhere.

CCP MasterPlan let out the fact that he has been working on making signatures persistent after downtime on Twitter.  Most people were happy but I found one complaint that now new signatures will be harder to decipher from old. They are now up on SiSi along with the new bookmark copying.

The UI team is still working on the Industry window to make it a smoother and better experience. This is not an abandoned project. They have been pushing updates and fixes.

100MN (Battleship size) microwarpdrives are getting their cap usage cut in half. This is a very big deal. There is a lot of excitement. There are some murmurs that it will be over powered. I think that it is the type of change that needs to be fielded to see the effects. With the six week release cycle if it is truly broken and over powered and low sec becomes Machariels online, we can address the problem promptly.

The Scout Site changes for incursions are going in along with some changes to how many NCN sites spawn. This has been a major project for Mike and it is nice to see it implemented.

At the start of our Term CCP Fozzie told us that he was looking to add a new type of mission. It is one of those things where everyone said "yes please!" On Monday, CCP Seagull released the news and CCP Fozzie followed up with a dev blog about the missions.

Now, the reaction was not what I expected. I expected that i would sit here and respond to complaints that CCP was working on PvE content. All of the things about it, such as it being skippable, in the regular level fours but not decreasing access to the normal mission pool, and using frigates were supposed to be the defense for them. The idea of giving mission runners something new to try and a reason to try out frigates and fighting styles that are not optimal battleship blitzing seemed amazing.

I didn't expect people to stampede up to me and demand access to these missions. To demand mission agents. To tell me that they wanted this. That this would be something they could embrace and do. That tucking them away in level four missions was an awful, awful thing.

I talked to frigate pilots who do not own a battleship and pilots who do not have standings for level four missions and never enter high sec. They want these missions. They feel that it is a perfect content opportunity. But, they cannot access them because they are buried in the mission system. I was absolutely wrong about the reaction. But, I find it interesting. A few days ago all I heard was that PvE was terrible and they’d never want to do it. Instead, it appears that people are saying current PvE is terrible but they will look at new types and evaluate them. Know that I have heard these desires and will continue to express them to CCP to expand upon this type of content.

CCP Fozzie did respond about them being buried in the level IV system and I’m going to quote a part of his post.
"I completely understand why people would want to have these missions accessible from their own dedicated agents, and that is definitely something we'd like to do with similar missions in the future. However since these missions are going to be a bit more profitable than average level 4s and because there's only going to be five of them in this initial deployment, they aren't really suitable to stand on their own right now."
The Summer Summit post is up and topics are being taken. We are working on a schedule. It will be three eight-hour days of talking and note taking for us.

Corbexx had a wormhole Town Hall last night which CCP Fozzie attended. The channel had about 300 people in it along with the people at the New England Meetup listening in. I tagged along just in case I could be useful. I ran home from work, changed, and logged on. I stepped right into the mass-based jump change and wow, what a discussion. People laid their opinions and CCP Fozzie answered them. The consensus is that they do not agree with the changes (but for one guy) and there was a very general feeling that null sec pushed for this and CCP bowed to them. The topic keep going back to the mass changes. I was able to share what I’ve picked up from the wormhole pilots that have come to me.

CCP Fozzie did say that BlackOps are high on the list for rebalance. This, I’m sure, surprises no one. Get your engines thinking and ready to give feedback, hopes, and dreams.

We had our bi-weekly meeting as well. It was short and sweet. Mostly it was a touch up on what had already come out and any questions or problems. Again, the wormhole mass changes were the main topic.

Next Sunday is my Eve Uni talk. At 1500 and 2200 on Eve Uni mumble. I’m asking Corbexx to come along so that some of the wormhole people who missed him at the townhall can talk to him there.


  1. Sugar, CCP are really bad at taking feedback (they'll push this change through in some shape, read the last post from Fozzie) and troll posts from BlueSec residents don't help.

    Such a major change to the last interesting part of the game will not end well for anyone involved.

    1. Aye, the change is still going through. Corbexx has pushed and talked and explained. He has had some effect but none of us have been able to stop this change.

      Troll posts never help a thing. Nor do insults and name calling. However, there was not some null SRC push and that came up a lot.

      People keep asking where were the CSM are on topics. Corbexx is against. I am against from the response of others. I can't speak from personal opinion, sadly, but I did carry the words of others.

  2. I'd like the Burner missions to be given out with a long cool down, and have agents spread out across a region. Finish one mission then either wait, or travel to the next one. I think this would create a good feel of hunting down criminals as opposed to mission farmer.

    But I'm well aware that's the preference of a pilot who's never really settled in one place!

  3. "Now, the reaction was not what I expected. I expected that i would sit here and respond to complaints that CCP was working on PvE content.(...)A few days ago all I heard was that PvE was terrible and they’d never want to do it. Instead, it appears that people are saying current PvE is terrible but they will look at new types and evaluate them. "

    Then you've been listening to the wrong crowd. You've never listened to a single PvEr, just for starters, if you thought that "nobody" would want *new* PvE.

    I am amazed that this time CCP got it "right" (well, they still can spoil either the frequency or the payout...). The Burner missions fall right where they should, into the lap of dedicated mission runners. They don't try to shove anything on them, don't try to lure them out of hisec, they just take at face value that they've been using the same content for 11 years and would bloody need something new.

    Compare that to CCP Affinity and CCP Reddawn adding new PvE to lowsec alone (effin lowsec of all effin places, jesuschrist!!) and the contrast is the difference between unsubbing and resubbing.

    1. I may not have made it clear that I was specifically speaking about non PvE focused parties who.came and complained because they wanted this content which was st contrast with the history of scorning PvE.

      I did not think PvE focused people would be unhappy with a new choice and the ability to not engage in the new choice was built in.

      And yes fucking low sec deserves PvE content as much as any part of the game.

      Hopefully these points are now more clear.

    2. "Compare that to CCP Affinity and CCP Reddawn adding new PvE to lowsec alone (effin lowsec of all effin places, jesuschrist!!) and the contrast is the difference between unsubbing and resubbing."

      For every 100 quiet, competent high sec'ers who can read and understand the context of a low sec CSM rep's blog post, there's one like this who is doing his best to reinforce the stereotype of high sec crybabies. At least you had the sense to hide behind the anonymous comment feature.

      Also, if you've been doing the same thing in Eve for eleven years, you have nobody to blame but yourself.

  4. I like the idea of Burner missions but I think that CCP could have done better than simply incorporate them into the level 4 mission pool.

    I understand that they are desgined to introduce PVP-style fitting puzzles to players levelling up their Ravens, in order to tempt them into trying out the real thing. That's great.

    If they had also provided dedicated Burner agents in low-sec (offering one mission every x hours to prevent farming) then this would have offered something to the frigate PVPer in their natural habitat. It would have helped to encourage the flow of traffic through low-sec and I could have incorporated this new content into my frigate roams.

    1. Erm.... are there no lvl4 agents in low sec? Me thinks you want it too easy...?

    2. Visiting every agent in an area on the off-chance that they might offer me a Burner mission isn't 'harder' than having a dedicated agent on a prohibitive CD timer, merely more tedious.

      At the moment, you can roam in a PVP-fit cruiser looking for fights and come across Besieged sites, combat signatures or even check the belts for tags, Legion and faction spawns. Someone might even feel encouraged to engage you because they see you doing PVE. This content allows you to do a bit of PVE whilst actively searching for PVP. Burner agents would fit this gameplay style perfectly and provide a bit more of an incentive to roam in a frigate.

      On the other hand, you cannot run level 4 missions and roam at the same time. The agent will send you a couple of jumps at most and then bring you back. It is a gameplay style where you choose to do PVE instead of PVP, whereas I want to incorporate the possibility of running Burner missions into PVP roams.

  5. It's never been that we're anti PVE. It's that we're anti the same boring PVE. Two of the most successful expansions were new types of PVE content. Incursions and Wormholes... you can quibble over wormholes being PVP, but that came after the initial rush into them. The uptick in exploration after Odyssey also fleshes that out.

    But because they've been around for so long, most of us mean the horrible mission system and belt rats when we say we don't like PVE.

    1. I have listened to and defended PvE. I have been told CCP should not waste their time on it. The push for 'Eve is a PvP game and that should be its focus' has been very loud. Thusly, was I ever so joyful over new missions and did I expect to have to defend them. ONly, the defense was not the one that i expected.

      Which makes it an interesting look into what people say and what they mean.

    2. >> Which makes it an interesting look into what people say and what they mean.

      Amen, Sugar.

    3. Since missions are all filled out, I don't think there are any holes anymore, I'd really like CCP to start working on a new modular framework to add more and different types of missions outside of the mission system itself. Epic Arcs don't really fit in the mission system, COSMOS never did, and neither do these. I don't care if it's just new a gussied up UI that just makes it apparent you aren't just doing more of the same. Something, anything, to where CCP can say "And on the PVE 2.0 initiative we're adding BLAH." So there is a strong delineation between the old missions and whatever they are adding.

  6. The bit about a Black Ops rebalance worries me. Why do they feel Black Ops need rebalancing?

    I sure hope they don't go and nerf Black Ops now that I've got 2 pilots just about ready to fly them.

    1. Everything is on the list. People have been wondering what is next from the list of what has not been done yet.

    2. Speaking of, CCP released the first bit of news on Oceanus, the first part of the module re-balancing!! Wohoo! I hope they allow them [meta modules 1-4] to be player-made.
      Source: 23:20

  7. I'm rather in favor of removing the standings requirements for missions (and jumpclones but that's a separate issue).

    Why should someone have to grind their way through lvl 1-2 missions just to get to the level they want?

    Also agree- burner missions should get their own agents.

    1. That would be helpful, especially with corporations that don't have many Security agents to grind standings with (say the R&D corps).

      One of the better ideas I've heard for the burner missions is to make them more like storyline. Maybe complete 5 missions and get an optional invite to a burner mission.

  8. While the burner missions are cool sounding, I think the announcement that excites me the most is the cut to cap usage of the 100MNmwd. I love Battleships, and I especially love fast (as much as they can be) battleships, and armor boats have been cursed to always fitting a cap booster to keep firing and moving.

    An annoying thing when the ship you're in happens to have only four mid-slots.While that may still be the case after this change, anything that can change that and encourage more battleships being flown is appreciated. Whoever suggested that and if you advocated it directly from the CSM, thank you thank you, thank you.

  9. I appreciated seeing you at the WH town hall, Sugar, even if it was just to pass along what you've heard from people!

  10. Burying the new content in the deluge of level 4s...meh, I am not going back to mission grinding to find something potentially interesting.

    Nevermind that once it hits Sisi, the hard counters for these ships are going to be quickly found, the information disseminated and they turn into another "check the block, got to use a special ship for it just like that recon set of missions".

    A couple solutions:
    1). Have alternative fits for each ship type with expected differing engagement profiles (ie, the worm can be the LML fuck off kiter, or rocket launcher brawler). The only information given to players is the ship type.

    2). Seed agents in lowsec, have the mission be like FW with a spawned public beacon.

    Of course, regardless of how good (or bad) either suggestion is, this is the first new batch of level 4 content in what, 3+ years? It won't stop :effort:.


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Maybe one day!

 [15:32:10] Trig Vaulter > Sugar Kyle Nice bio - so carebear sweet - oh you have a 50m ISK bounty - so someday more grizzly  [15:32:38 ] Sugar Kyle > /emote raises an eyebrow to Trig  [15:32:40 ] Sugar Kyle > okay :)  [15:32:52 ] Sugar Kyle > maybe one day I will try PvP out When I logged in one of the first things I did was answer a question in Eve Uni Public Help. It was a random question that I knew the answer of. I have 'Sugar' as a keyword so it highlights green and catches my attention. This made me chuckle. Maybe I'll have to go and see what it is like to shoot a ship one day? I could not help but smile. Basi suggested that I put my Titan killmail in my bio and assert my badassery. I figure, naw. It was a roll of the dice that landed me that kill mail. It doesn't define me as a person. Bios are interesting. The idea of a biography is a way to personalize your account. You can learn a lot about a person by what they choose to put in their bio

Taboo Questions

Let us talk contentious things. What about high sec? When will CCP pay attention to high sec and those that cannot spend their time in dangerous space?  This is somewhat how the day started, sparked by a question from an anonymous poster. Speaking about high sec, in general, is one of the hardest things to do. The amount of emotion wrapped around the topic is staggering. There are people who want to stay in high sec and nothing will make them leave. There are people who want no one to stay in high sec and wish to cripple everything about it. There are people in between, but the two extremes are large and emotional in discussion. My belief is simple. If a player wishes to live in high sec, I do not believe that anything will make them leave that is not their own curiosity. I do not believe that we can beat people out of high sec or destroy it until they go to other areas of space. Sometimes, I think we forget that every player has the option to not log back in. We want them to log


Halycon said it quite well in a comment he left about the skill point trading proposal for skill point changes. He is conflicted in many different ways. So am I. Somedays, I don't want to be open minded. I do not want to see other points of view. I want to not like things and not feel good about them and it be okay. That is something that is denied me for now. I've stated my opinion about the first round of proposals to trade skills. I don't like them. That isn't good enough. I have to answer why. Others do not like it as well. I cannot escape over to their side and be unhappy with them. I am dragged away and challenged about my distaste.  Some of the people I like most think the change is good. Other's think it has little meaning. They want to know why I don't like it. When this was proposed at the CSM summit, I swiveled my chair and asked if they realized that they were undoing the basic structure that characters and game progression worked under. They said th