Skip to main content

CSMX - Post #14

On Thursday, the o7 show announced chances to fleet warp. Under those changes were a few other things. It's been a busy week for me and it looks to stay that way for a bit. Let's get into why.

Fleet Warp - I wrote a blog post about this change directly. That is the reason I picked the number scheme this year. Sometimes, I need to write outside of Sunday and the reactions to the potential changes were such that I gave it its own post. The conversation in the comments is lively and very, very productive.  The break down is that I like the idea of players having to handle their own warps more. I dislike the effects on wormhole space and to PvE content.

Corbexx and I are doing a soundboard with CCP Larrikin on Wendsay June 17th at 1800GMT.

I'm still gathering responses. You can write them here or on the forums. Please give feedback if you have it. CCP Larrikin has added a Q and A section to his post. I'm not even going to make you go and read it.
Q&As
Q: When is this being implemented?
A: Aegis (July)
Q: What if every member of the fleet has the bookmark?
A: Nope, sorry, no go.
Q: Can I still fleet warp to planets/moons/stations/cynos/anoms?
A: Yes!
Q: CCP, why you do this?
A: We want transfer more responsibility for the success of a fleet from its FC to its members.
Q: CCP, will there be more fleet warp changes in the future?
A: Probably, yes.
[UPDATE 2015-06-12]
Q: CCP, this unduly effects people who live in wormholes!
A: Yes, and we're not happy about that. We have some systems and ideas we're working on to mitigate these effects. However we're not ready to announce those yet.
Q: CCP, why are you nerfing fleet warp just to nerf bombers!?
A: This change is not solely aimed at bombers. we expect bomber fleets to require a lot more pilot involvement and skill. But a highly skilled bomber fleet can still be just as effective as they are now. This runs true for all fleets.
Q: CCP, this change doesn't create more pilot engagement / participation, the FC will just run another alt that he fleet warps too!
A: That would work sure. But fleets who have members assisting the FC by setting up warpin's, getting tackle, etc. are going to be a lot more effective. We can't force you to participate in the fleet, but we can give an advantage to those that do.
While Fleet warp has been a major thing this week, it is not the only thing. We're still hip deep in structure work. I've done some reach outs to people to discuss structure capture mechanics for the lands outside of null sec. It will be quite a change for all of us. There is also the internal discussion the CSM is having with the structure team. They have been great and fully engaged in the process.

The duality testing for the sov war stuff is happening. Your alliance would have signed up for it if they are going to participate. I know several members of the CSM are participating.

The o7 show is worth a listen for some of the other balance change tidbits listed. We have some missile love incoming. I've been able to slip a word in here and there thanks to all the great feedback about missiles yall have fed me over the past two sessions. There is also battlecruiser tweak in the works. No further information yet!

And icons... we're discussing icons.

I got to attend two of the three meetings this week. I'm working on writing up a summary about the storyline items that are coming out of some of the newer exploration sites. Not all of the items are showing up in the loot tables. This is something I was approached with a few months ago and I think I'm making some progress. And yes, I know relic and data sites are still suffering. That to has been discussed.

Its been busy and I expect it to stay that way while we work through some of these changes.

Comments

  1. I think that one of the reasons people don't like the change is that they don't like being told they're bad pilots. People don't want to *admit* that they're bad, and so this change, which will increase the skill level / preparation required to perform optimally, looks like a bad change.

    No-one wants to get yelled at for not aligning, and now there are so many more reasons to be yelled at! The possibilities are endless!

    Malcanis has the right of it when he says that "a 'highly skilled' fleet isn't perceptibly more effective than a badly skilled one at the moment."

    *steps up onto the soapbox for a moment*

    For too long has our FC carried the burdens of his pilots, not commanding them, but controlling them! Make this change, to bring back *true* skill, and let mastery show itself in deed and action!

    [I, for one, welcome our new PL overlords :P]

    Rob K.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rob, when I flew in null, we used fleet warp only sometimes; some FCs hated it (for the same reasons you put out), and some loved it. We got yelled at with or without fleet warp. Having fleet warp doesn't really lower the asshatery nor does not having it suddenly make people better. The special snowflakes will still be special :)

      This all seems to me like it's based on one dev's personal pet peeve and in true old-school CCP style is a change being made with no data to support it.

      Here's one thing that nerfing fleet warp will no longer allow. When I was in null, we were polluted with spies. There'd be an enemy fleet waiting for us at almost every warp-in. So our leadership decided to use fleet warp to confuse the spies; they'd call a warp-to, but we'd ignore it and the true warp-to would be done via fleet warp.

      It was surprisingly effective. Under the new rules, it won't be able to be used.

      Delete
    2. You can still do the surprise fleet warp trick as long as the spy isn't the one in the covops providing the warpin. If she is, you have bigger problems.

      My old null/WH FC just returned to the game, and his reaction to the changes was that they were good generally (he's still adjusting to the icons). So it's not so obvious to everyone that these are terrible changes.

      Delete
    3. Heretic, "It was surprisingly effective" because the spies in your alliance were very very bad :P...

      Well, perhaps I do them a disservice. But the "Warping to" notification is still there...

      More seriously, 'nerf-ing' fleet warp may not make people *better*, but it limits how much *worse* they can perform. Fleet warps are a crutch, allowing FCs to carry players from gate to gate, delivering them content.

      We moan about 'simplified' game-play, but we accept Fleet warps because it makes playing easier . It is the same with broadcasts. They're a way to allow more players to play on the same field, in the same fight.

      People arguing that Null-sec will somehow dissolve into paroxysms of inaction need to learn from the rest of EvE. Somehow, the rest of us manage to be interactive, engaged players. Why can't they?

      Rob K.

      Delete
    4. Bah, I mean that it delimits, not limits.

      Rob K,

      Delete
  2. Appreciate your work on the CSM for us Sugar!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you, Shawn. Especially today.

      Delete
    2. Same here Sugar. I cant tell you how much ALL of the EVE players appreciate your dedication and hard work. I can only imagine the gnashing of teeth you must be exposed to at the moment. So Hardeners on, overheat, reps on Sugar and remember they shout, piss and moan, and display general asshatery because they love this game.

      Sly

      Delete
  3. This is what gets me the most:

    """
    Q: CCP, this change doesn't create more pilot engagement / participation, the FC will just run another alt that he fleet warps too!
    A: That would work sure. But fleets who have members assisting the FC by setting up warpin's, getting tackle, etc. are going to be a lot more effective. We can't force you to participate in the fleet, but we can give an advantage to those that do.
    """

    Do CCP honestly believe that it's more effective to have a second person doing the recon over the FC doing it on their own? Information gets lost as it gets relayed. Things that change can't always be reported fast enough. There may be miscommunications that need to be resolved.

    There are so many little things that make using a second person being the scout over an alt of the FC a bad idea that it's insane. For CCP to honestly think that fleets with non-FC's being the scouts will have an advantage over the fleets with FC's using alts as scouts, they have to be so completely divorced from actually playing the game that it's gone from being hilarious to terrifying and wrapped right back around to being hilarious again.

    I understand that CCP aren't supposed to have high-level chars in groups, but they should at least do FC'ing still before they try to make a ludicrous claim like that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. [Comment deleted and reposted cause while I'm a decent scout, I still hate typing...]

      "There are so many little things that make using a second person being the scout over an alt of the FC a bad idea that it's insane."

      Yer bias and entitlement is showing a little there... That may be the way things are in null, but then that also says something about the capabilities of your FC and scouts now doesn't it?

      We use player scouts ALL the time in the hole... always have... plus this is exactly the type of multiplayer social gameplay CCP is trying to foster and support in EVE... not The One Man Fleet where 1 guy plays the game while 500 only login and only push F1 when told to.

      "There may be miscommunications that need to be resolved." is part and parcel of the Fog-of-War bro...

      Change is the ONLY Constant...
      Shit happens...
      Adapt or die.

      Delete
    3. " "There may be miscommunications that need to be resolved." is part and parcel of the Fog-of-War bro... "

      Like I said, the benefits of the FC using an alt to scout mean that there isn't the miscommunication. The benefits of an FC's alt are so far above having a separate person doing the scouting that its laughable for CCP to even think that having an alt is better.

      " Adapt or die. "

      How about "quit" instead? I live in low not nul. My corp is 18 people. none of us like this change.

      Our fleets usually have 3-6 people. any of us can FC and do. FC usually has a gimped ship because they stick an expanded launcher on there so they can hunt. We already lose 1/4 of a ship for that due to DPS mods and fitting mods. You want us to tell one guy now to be a pure scout? So our fleet is 2-5 people.

      Oh wait, we have T3Ds! We dont fly T3Ds 100% of the time because we enjoy other ships. So we tell somebody to be a dedicated scout or we all fly T3Ds so we can all scan the target.

      "Use a tank as a scout to warp to" is a common response. Guess what? We are 3-6 in fleet. We try to hit others with +2 or +3 our numbers. We send in a ship, he's dead by the time we warp in or maybe in hull.

      Lots of fun. Suicide scout or dedicated cloaky scout or T3Ds all the time. So much fun. So much variety. Not.

      Some of us already are talking about not rewnewing if the fleet warp is removed. my account ends 27/6/2015. i will let my account lapse until I hear better from CCP then. If I do not hear better, I will go away. Being dedicated scout is boring. Being suicide scout is boring and expensive. Being always in T3Ds is repetitive.

      I am not the only one in corp to think that. Eve is not the only option any more. we are talking already about other games we can go to play because of how much no fleet warp will ruin for our Pvp.

      Delete
    4. I live in w-space and fly in 3-8 man gangs (so does Tur, as he will tell anyone and everyone who asks). None of us like the new changes. If anything, it'll hit us harder than it will other groups because everything we do involves bookmarks. None of us are talking quitting over it, though.

      The argument that the FC gets better info if he dual-boxes a scout is actually an argument in favour of the changes, not against. I agree that these changes are stupid; there's lots more to be worried about than fleet warp. But comments like these remind me of the gloom and doom surrounding the ice changes that saw so many people leave w-space because it'd be impossible to live there anymore. Guess what? Life still thrives in w-space after the ice changes.

      I doubt this will ruin your PVP as much as you think. It will force adaptations. But that's all. If you go into this convinced it will ruin your PVP, it will. Just like everyone thought moving ore sites fro sigs to anoms would kill mining in w-space, it didn't. Or, rather, it did, but only for those that chose to think that way.

      Give CCP constructive feedback as to why this is a batshit-crazy idea and they'll listen (well, they MIGHT listen), but arguing that they shouldn't do this because multi-boxing is better is not going to win them over.

      Delete
    5. Can I just step in and ask *what* the ice changes were?

      Rob K.

      Delete
    6. Anon 6:09...
      (1) "How about "quit" instead?" your choice bro... I prefer to roll with the punches and adapt and overcome rather than whine and bich when the feces impacts the rotary cooling unit... I find it much more fascinating to dig in and learn how to control the direction the fan is pointed in. =]

      And HC has the right of it...
      (2) "...the gloom and doom surrounding the ice changes..." and "...everyone thought moving ore sites from sigs to anoms would kill mining in w-space, it didn't. Or, rather, it did, but only for those that chose to think that way."

      "Only for those who chose to think that way." IE those who rail against change and run from adversity... IE (IMHO) quitters.

      And yeah there are other very interesting looking SciFi MMO Spaceship games on the near horizon... and for the very first time in my MMO career I have even bought in and tried one and I will be buying and trying out the other soon. And they are great, for what they are... but they are not, and they never will be, EVE.

      Lastly I believe it is the One Man Fleet Meta... the multiboxing issues and the meta of an FC having almost unilateral control over a FLEET of ships that is driving this.

      I just feel CCP is going about it wrong... they are limiting what the mechanic allows us to DO instead of limiting WHO can take advantage of the mechanic... to which I have responded with my idea over on my blog.

      Delete
    7. Being a dedicated scout is the most fun in EVE. You get to make all the same cool calls FC's get to make but without any of the managing a fleet.

      Basically a good scout needs to be able to do 2 things.
      1. Seize up a hostile gang fast and answer the question can we reasonable expect to fight this with a 50/50 chance? (or whatever your gang is comfortable with for chances)
      2. Can I stay alive till my fleet gets here.

      And the the other thing that has to happen is that the FC needs to be able to trust your calls. If he doesn't or can't or there's miscommunication that's a *people issue* not a game design issue.

      Delete
    8. This is a game, not fight for survival. I'm not going to adapt to things that cripple my gameplay, spoil my fun, things that I strongly dislike just because or any other bullshit the devs think they can feed me with. Because it's stupid. I'll rather quit the game entirely.

      Delete
  4. The new icons are great. Let's give them a couple months before we change them, okay?

    I was a bit overwhelmed when I ran my first site, but by the time I'd run 3 or 4, I'd grown accustomed to them. I think a lot of the opposition to them is due to dislike of change and the fact that most players don't follow blogs or forums, so this was a bit of a shock.

    As a bit of a comparison, when I joined the military, I had three days to learn the rank insignia and names for all three services. It was a big shock to the system, but once I'd had time and experience with them, everything was fine.

    Give CCP 2 months before railing against icons. Make an honest effort to learn them and then real feedback can be given.

    There is room for improvement, like making NPC icons brighter, but it may not be technically possible (those new thinner lines make it harder to brighten the icons and still get the same info across).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The NPC ship icons should be 'filled in', to differentiate them. The pale shading we have now is basically useless when it interacts with the sky-box. Go to the Gallente region with the brightest nebula (I think it's Essence) and line up an NPC Empire BS and a player BS with the bright nebula. They looks very similar.

      Icons work when you can *easily and quickly* make a distinction between them. Atm, I think they fail that test.

      Rob K.

      Delete
    2. The icon discussion has been fascinating because it turns out that what a lot of people were using the icons for is to separate items on the overview into PC/NPC/everything else by square/cross/neither, and then looking at the type column for additional detail. It is a fair point that the new icons remove the ability to do that.

      However, I think that it's rooted in the classic assumption that rats are dull and ineffectual and ~elite~ players should be able to screen them out--and the overview can do that very effectively, I might add--but the fact that rats are getting similar icons might be a hint by CCP that the NPCs want the respect that player ships currently get, and they're out to earn it. If Drifters land on grid, pay attention.

      Delete
    3. Some of the icon problems are not just about change. We have some visual and color problems that need to be resolved. It is to easy to alienate our player base who have visual limitations and when it happens it needs to be corrected asap.

      Delete
    4. Rob, you should note I did say they need to be brighter. I.e. something to make them stand out. So I agree with you there.

      I disagree with your assertion that the icons fail the functionality test. Some may well do, not not all. A better test would be Domain; that's a hideously bright nebula. To be fair, though, I haven't seen the NPC vs Player icons in k-space. Not on my overview, anyway.

      I can see how that'd be an issue for FW types and/or criminals, but don't immediately see why Concord and Fac Navy would need to be on a k-space overview?

      Fevric, I don't see how the new icons remove the ability to sort by type? Red is rats, white is players.

      Delete
    5. Ah, I've stumbled a little there. I was trying to say that the NPC icons were failing the functionality test, because they look too similar to the Player icons. I also wasn't trying to disagree with you. :)

      As for Concord and Fac Navy, as a guy with one pirate alt and one pirate main, it works better if you know that the Rozzers have found you, especially if you're zoomed out :P

      I've lost Interceptors because I can't see the Fac Police :|

      Rob K.

      Delete
  5. Q: CCP, why you do this?
    A: We want transfer more responsibility for the success of a fleet from its FC to its members.


    But limiting WHAT can be warped to does not do that, that simply imits where a fleet can go, not whether or not they can or will be successful or fail once landed. Limiting WHO can take advantage of moving WITH a fleet far more effectively hands off the desired 'responsibility for success or failure' of a fleet from the FC to the line members.

    Again, we need to look at requiring members to be ACTIVE, limiting their available actions does not do this. Stopping us from ALL warping to a BM we ALL have just because we are in a fleet is counter to 13 YEARS of EVE gameplay.

    CCP is looking at this from the wrong direction... it is not about a ‘mechanic’, it is about players ‘actions’... change those, IE make each fleet member responsible for his active participation... not limit the possible actions that could be taken.

    50 ships want to land on BM X. FC send an Align command NOT A Warp-To command... if each line member doesn't hit Warp-To then they don't go to warp period, but those who DO actively warp on command land roughly together and get to work together as a social unit same as before.

    Fleet is a Social Activity... nerfing what it CAN do is counter to EVE... instead change it so those who can take part have to DO so themselves or they cannot take part.

    That will require increased active player involvement which, in the end, is what this is all about.

    PS Sugar, once again may i extend my heartfelt gratitude and thanx to you for all you do for us. You are an amazing lady, and an amazing person..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, thanks for staying on top of all of this and for everything you've done. Thanks for listening to *everyone*.

      Delete
  6. While you have the idea of certain items not dropping... Heavy Assault Missiles? :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Its one I've poked at and will again :)

      Delete
  7. Whilst the fleet warp change is interesting. (being squad cmdr for a group of cruisers zipping into missions will now mean that lead ship has to have a brick tank). I did find the explanation from the CCP dev on the o7 show weak in the extreme.

    On the subject of drops - any chance to just remove the scrap metal from the loot table?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It just junks up the looting post mission. The wrecks have an indicator that they have cargo. Which can be modules, munitions, mission goal item, tags or scrap metal. The last one is just a place-holder from when the meta zero modules were removed from loot tables. It is personal preference that drops be useful or actually have a purpose instead of just being a refineable into trit.

      Delete
    2. Leave the scrap metal, please. I like the tritanium compression it affords :)

      Delete
    3. Sugar, do you remember why scraps were originally reduced in m3 so much? Because gun mining. IE Scraps used to be 'almost' worth working with due to the m3 of minerals one could process out of them. I wonder if anyone has every though that the total m3 of scraps should be reflective of the total mass of a given shipwreck. Frigates, small amounts of scrap metals, BSes siginificanlty larger amounts of scrap metals... like it would actually be if it were IRL.

      I'm not arguing to being back gun mining per se, but if CCP is gonna give us some kinda drop, make it at least worth 'something'... which effectively scraps really really aren't right now trit compression rates not withstanding...

      Delete
    4. @ Easy Esky (& Tur too I suppose)

      As I recall (being a bitter vet and all) scrap metal existed as a drop long before meta zero module loot was removed. It may be the case that scrap metal drops increased when meta zero was removed but it's not the case that scrap metal exists only as place-holder.

      Pedantic history aside, I read underneath your request that mission looting should be easier (less need to discern between good and bad loot) and or pay better (less junk loot). The thing is both of those requests end up intersecting with a market that is out of CCP’s hands. If loot is even easier to collect more people will partake and the corresponding value will plummet. If loot is too valuable miners will shift back to ‘gun mining’ and the corresponding value will plummet. In this sense, your argument isn’t with CCP but rather those who are willing to gather Trit producing items (scraps *and* ores) for such paltry return.

      An alternate read of your gripe (and you do quickly mention this) is to state that scrap just isn’t very interesting as it’s little but an alternate form of Trit. Making it some sort of construction component in its own right as well as retaining its reprocessable properties seems much more intriguing approach to me compared with just eliminating it.

      Delete
    5. possibly with the ongoing meta-cide my preference will be redundant.

      I just like an actual item which has function. Munitions I can shoot, modules I can equip or sell. And getting meta4 was a nice bonus, there was time when they were worth something. (bitter-vet moment) I do not need an increase in loot. I would be just as happy if the alternative was an empty wreck. Its the "coal in the stocking" of Eve. (does that translate the context I am aiming for? I can never tell)

      Mission looting for me, is a "if time permits". Whilst I can use tech2 salvagers. It is familiar to anchor and bookmark a mobile tractor, claim mission, a switch to a drone boat with navi's in the mids. (salv drones on amphetamines). Fuss over PI or market orders or industry jobs. From time to time - I also do rigs. I will use the trit from the re-processing.

      Then there are days when I just random loot. Oh its you again little scrap. Bad Penny. *sigh*

      Delete
  8. Meanwhile, Kcolor, an Imperium FC has posted nice article about upcoming changes from the point of view of nullsec FC. Not a single good word about the change has been written: https://www.themittani.com/columns/fleet-warp-changes-miss-mark

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Sugar’s Non-Technical Guide to Making Boosters

Welcome to my non-technical and outdated but probably still useful guide to boosters.  There have been changes to how things are built in Eve. This was the old POS code before the introduction of new structures in 2016.   This is just a walk through on my wobbling path of booster production.  It took me half a dozen different documents to figure out what I needed to do to make these mythical things.  It is what I do.  It may not be perfect but it works.

This is pirate focused industry.
This guide brought to you by Lain asking me to write it after I tried to explain it in chat.

Why make boosters? Because drugs are good.  Really they are performance enhancers and performance enhancers can give someone that extra edge in PvP.  It was also because my boys used them and when they ran low they often ran out, I could be their supplier.  They would no longer hoard their drugs due to the length of time it takes to get fresh product.. The thought of being a drug kingpin was also very appealing. …

Have you done your Eve Vegas Survey?

I did attend Eve Vegas to the shock of many. I'd already paid for it and allotted the time. It seemed that I should go.


I went to the Grand Canyon and Hoover as well. This is not the space to discuss those amazing places or my new Camera.

Eve Vegas was a bit harder for me to go to then I expected. I've detached from Eve for the most part these past months. It is very easy to be angry, frustrated, and bitter about the past that I lived on. The game, its development, and the players move on while I find myself emotionally stuck. That emotional stickiness does not need to be given to everyone else. Part of experiencing it was shielding people from it. But, as I accepted my items and stared down the poor gentleman that tried to put a wristband around my wrist, I realized that I wasn't in as good of a place as I had hoped to be.

That is where the Survey comes in. There are a few things that I could say and did say. A few of the questions made me want to say a bit more.

One was …

Your ideal roadmap

To try to be a bit more interesting then blogging yet another daily list of summit meetings, how about a question?

In the producer session, as we try to figure out how to fix and improve our communication with teams and how we figure out who should be gone to for features and changes, we discussed the road map.

We discussed what 'our' ideal roadmap would be. This breaks down into the individual roadmaps for each member of the CSM. After all, we are individiuals and we have different dreams for Eve. We have different goals and features that we want to move forward or go back to.

How close are we to what CCP is looking at and planning? We discussed their safety mesures to weigh the value of features. What will this feature do for Eve? It is not enough to have an ideal road map of things you want. Those things have to have value and that value needs to be enough to dedicate the time to the feature.

Do you have an ideal roadmap? A path for Eve to head in the next year or two once …