Skip to main content

CSM9 - Day 260

 Last week I managed to forget to add in two things.

One has been some tweets made by CCP Quant. He has made some graph porn to show the damage by ship and weapon groups in game. It is a very interesting bit of data. This type of information is utterly fascinating and engaging to Eve players and it is an area I would like CCP to continue to share with the community.

The second was that CCP Sharq started a discussion about improving the fitting window. I have a list of fitting questions that have accumulated over the last few months that I will bring to the summit. I suggest participation in this thread so that the developers who have asked for the information, hear it.

A few questions have popped up about the collectors edition with the new year and christmas presents being opened. To point at dev posts, there is one by CCP Falcon about the future of the mystery code from the collectors edition.
“Going forward, the Community Team will be dealing with the mystery code and stuff that's awarded through it. 
We'll be sitting down right after the holiday season at the start of January to talk about what we want to use to release, so if you have any suggestions on stuff you'd like to see, feel free to fire away in this thread.“
There was an episode of the o7 show on Thursday the 15th.

The most reactive piece was where CCP announced what they have decided to do about the corp on corp aggression mechanics during the o7 show. The basics are that a corporation will be able to toggle aggression on and off. Its aggression state will always be visable to the public. CCP Masterplan wrote a response on reddit explaining a bit more about the changes to clear up some confusion.
Let's talk about this a little, just so we're all on the same page :)
Last year at the summer CSM summit, we introduced a few changes to corp mechanics that we were interested in pursuing. These included changing the kick mechanics and adding a corp->char invite system (both of which came to TQ by the end of the year). The other change we discussed was removing the legal ability of (player-)corp members to attack each other in empire space. Since then we've looked at the initial feedback and kicked the idea around some more, and now we're moving on to make it happen which is where last night's o7 chat came from. So here's the current plan for this feature that we're working on. (Normal disclaimers apply, things change, expect more details in a dev blog soon, nothing is final until TQ etc etc!)
  • A character in a player corp may freely attack a corp member or assets owned by the corp without any criminal penalty.
With this change:
  • The penalty for these actions may now be turned on or off, according to how the corp wishes to run. Specifically, a CEO/director can configure Friendly Fire by having it enabled or disabled. FF-enabled works exactly as on TQ now. FF-disabled would work similar to how NPC corps work - member-on-member violence in high-sec will result in a Criminal flag (or a Suspect flag in low-sec). Normal safety and limited-engagement mechanics will apply as expected.
  • All existing corps will default to FF-enabled on patch day. So if you're in a player corp and your management takes no action, nothing will change for you.
  • When creating a new corp, a checkbox in the UI will let the founder decide to start the corp with FF-enabled or FF-disabled
  • A CEO/director can initiate a change his corp's FF rules. These changes will trigger a notification to all members. The change then will take 24 hours to come in to effect, after which the new rules will apply (at which point a second notification will probably be sent). From then on, the corp will observe the new rules until such time as the management change it again. If this sounds similar to the timings around war-decs, that is somewhat intentional. In effect the corp is choosing whether or not to be in a perma-war with itself, or not.
  • The FF state of a corp will always be publicly visible to all.
  • RvB and other groups should be able to continue their free-for-all events if they choose. (TBH the worry of losing events such as this was always part of what made me slightly less keen on the initial version of this change)
  • In null-sec nothing changes whatsoever. As you were. Carry on killing greens and blues, and let your diplos sort it all out.
As I mentioned there will be more details in a dev blog soon, but since there was a lot of confusion about what was going to change, we thought you'd like some more specifics.”

The plans for ship skins has been announced. They will be licensed so once you have it you can use it on that hull at anytime in the future. People love skins but not losing them. One thing that has not been fully hashed out is special edition ships vs skins. The database wishes us to clean it up.

The Minmatar T3 destroyer concept art has been released as a nice, charcoal sketch. We are promised stats on this very soon. The sooner the better as it is scheduled for the next release.

Also, if you like making ads for your corporation, events, and activities CCP is looking for them for the o7 show.

A dev blog was released in which the CSM was invited to participate in writing about the CSM. I wrote my entry six weeks ago when it was asked for as a ‘what the CSM is up to’ post. It transitioned into a year in review blog and my entry did not transition with it. I should have rewritten the entire thing now that I look back on it. It was optional to participate and the responses from the CSM members range from happy, productive, to angry.

It brings in a larger question, now that we have brought up the communication issues between the CSM and CCP what are we doing about it? The entire topic came up some weeks ago. As I said, I wrote my section at the start of December. We’ve now had a few meetings with CCP Leeloo where we’re making sure the CSM is updated on where CCP is. We should all be on the same page by the time the summit is over. This is not a mistake that needs to happen a second time.

I’ll be travelling this next week to the winter summit. On the 7th of February we’re looking to have a local meetup which clashes a bit with a local meetup the week before. We’re going to go forward and I am going to try to find some time get it up on


  1. This may get detailed in the future but I toss it out just the same . . .

    Will toggling off intracorp combat mean intracorp remote assistance (like Remote Repair) draws suspect status?

    Seems to me it should since that means the no safari risk advantage comes with a suspect generating RR disadvantage. I always prefer meaningful choices.


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