Skip to main content

CSMX - Post #19

Deployment hiccups anyone? The smoothness of Tuesday was good. To good it seems with the main hiccup being a confusion of sov bills as Concord was displaced by the Secure Commerce Commission. No more paying the cops. On Wednesday Eve went down for just under twelve hours while a bug was hunted down and exterminated. CCP decided to gift the players with skill points for the inconvenience. This surprised me. I'm torn on it. It goes into my pool of reimbursed skillpoints I've managed to gather. I don't think it was necessary. I do know some groups lost their complete play time that day and some players displayed a level of rage that I consider grossly disappointing. I think it was a good move on CCP's part as a company but I'd not have been writing angry posts it if had not happened. 

This is a wide, sweeping changes and brings with it bugs. Tower anchoring notifications in sovereign space vanishing is a bug. Sion pounced on it quickly and the bug was confirmed and we hope that it will be fixed shortly. There was an issue with vulnerability timers as well.

One thing that I have heard questioned is the value of public facing timers. Timerboard.net is up and active. Like the wormhole mapping programs, it brings information once gathered to the fingers of any interested. It is easy accessibility to what was accessible before with a bit more work.

Over in Tweetfleet Slack CCP Nullarbor mentioned the current plans to allow supers to dock in XL Citadels. 
CCP Nullarbor [9:53 AM] we've talked about this in blogs that we are considering it, and haven't heard any good arguments why we shouldn't do it
Last year before the power projection changes were announced, I knew we'd be discussing the future of capitals, supers, and titans quite often. One of the information gathering things I did was to see how people felt about supers and titans being able to dock. It is yet another split field. I've never been fond of the coffin in space and because of that I've never wanted a super. Even if I could dock it I'd not want one now. However, this isn't a potential future that is about me.

On the side of keeping things as they are some discuss the 'cost' of maintaining a super. Various aspects of this cost, from dedicated accounts to hoards of cyno alts, often come up. My personal concern is about supers in low sec. They are already a powerful tool and this gives them a bit more flexibility. Yes, I know capitals need to be rebalanced. Yes, I have heard people say that there is now absolutely 100% completely and utterly zero use for them in game. Those frustrations do not negate the fact that they are used and being able to dock them will change things. An organization that is housing supers will be able to anchor XL Citadels at pretty much any budget point.  I feel that this has a more impact then anchoring a Large POS and housing the super fleet. Other's disagree. I've presented all sides of the argument that I know. It is a big change with a lost of questions and I'd like to thoroughly examine it now. I have been addressing super usage in low sec and common points such as catching supers. At the end of the day for those against it, CCP Nullarbor wants a good argument and 'because it has always been' is not.

For those curious: Things I will not ever support for low sec. Bubbles. Bombs. Removing gateguns so that it can be just like null sec with sec hits.

How about this jump clone bug? What do you think about it? Like it? Feel devalued? I think its interesting and opens a door to see how players feel about something once hidden behind a barrier like standings being this, casually open. It has already been accessible with the switch of a corporation but a corporation switch even for a reasonable thing such as jump clones is not one made casually by many.

This week I did not make the weekly meeting. As always, I can only make it every other week. There was another marketing meeting thrown together at a moments notice which was quite nice but also on a work day. I'll have recordings to catch up with on my days off. As for talking to people. I aim for next weekend, probably Sunday to hang out on coms for chats. I tend to announce in game and on twitter.

Comments

  1. Re: Jump Clone Bug

    I’m inclined to say we declare the bug a feature and leave the new no standings requirement in place. For NPC space players the 8.0 standings requirement was crushing burden as you not only have to train up Informorph Psychology but also have to train up Connections & Social to facilitate efficient standings grind and even with that efficiency the grind is still onerous. When players furiously pursue mechanic workarounds (Estel Arador, Rorquals) we have powerful evidence that the mechanic in question is borked.

    That said, as we Capsuleers chip away at relying on buddying up with NPC factions for typical Capsuleer services like jump clones some serious thought needs to be directed towards what sort of game play faction standing grind should be about beyond mere access to higher level agents.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Well, I feel like Canute commanding the tide, but I'm totally opposed to the new Jump Clone 'feature'.

    First, I'd like to address the idea that because there is a workaround, the idea itself is flawed. This, it seems to me, is a great example of false logic. A great deal of workarounds exist in Eve, for example, mission pulling characters for level 5s and the use of industrials to minimise jump bridge fatigue. If we're to apply the logic of 'workarounds = bad mechanics', then we should 90% nerf jump fatigue, and allow free mission rejections every single time. This obviously makes little sense from a development standpoint.

    Now, I'm of the similarly unpopular belief that EACS is a example of CCP's lack of iteration on standings, and represents an exploit. I have used them myself and I would like to note the EACS is a one time only service, and thus doesn't majorly affect the utility of holding 8.0 standings, because you can regularly place and replace Jump Clones, whereas EACS requires significantly more involvement.

    Still, I believe that JC services should only be for those with personal 8.0 standings, and shouldn't apply for the whole corporation. (Either make standings apply immediately when you join a corp, or only allow JC creation after standings begin to apply).

    As for Rorquals, they have other uses. I feel that pretending the only reason to have a Rorqual is to get a clone bay is a little ridiculous. Similarly, skill training is a fact of life. If you'd like to pretend that skilling some 1x to 4x skills is an onerous requirement, I'd wonder how you ever got past the Cruiser stage, as it is a x5.

    Personally, I believe that the main reason Jump Clone Standings are unpopular is that they require 'hardened PvPers' to engage in the PvE system. If there was a way of gaining standings via PvP, I've no doubt that people would not have this personal anathema against the requirement.

    Finally, I'd ask what role CCP has for standings beyond the meaningless tax reduction. Having worked my way up to 8.0 standings with the Federation Navy, I find myself disappointed that CCP now considers investment, dilligence and hard work to be traits they want discouraged. You have taken away the tower anchoring requirements, you have taken away the clone standing requirements, what exactly is the point of standings?

    But, as I said, I cannot command the tide to stop, so no doubt CCP will come to their decision. I just hope that hard work will not be its own reward.

    Rob K.




    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rob,

      I suppose we could get into point by point arguments with each other but I think on the whole that would be a waste of time as the entire discussion would descend into a lose the forest for the trees struggle. What’s interesting to me is that at a deep level we both share similar concerns that standings should provide interesting game play in its own right. To my knowledge gaining good NPC Corp standings provide four benefits beyond the income you generate on the way there:
      1) Access to better agents
      2) Reduced reprocess taxes
      3) Reduced broker taxes
      4) Buggy jump clone access (though curiously not medical clone access)

      If I may make a general observation, better agent access is the only benefit directly tied to the grind process itself (that style of gameplay improving that gameplaying style). Meanwhile, the other 3 benefits are less directly connected meaning that comparatively speaking standings grind in those cases is little but hurdle to clear before moving on to the actual gameplay you are really after.

      I’m not a big fan of mere hurdle game design. While it’s true that hurdle game design can motivate one to do things one normally wouldn’t (I’ve ground up extraordinary standings with multiple NPC Corps) it feels a lot like punishment without sensible purpose. Suffer X before you Y. Suffer Y before you Z. Suffer Z before you A. Oy! That’s a whole lot of suffering. In addition, hurdle game design tends to diminish the value of hurdle activities. If mission running is mostly torture you endure to achieve something else valuable then you end up with a huge, debased style of game play. That really gets my goat. If I log in with the intent of running a few missions it shouldn’t be a debasing experience. Mission running should flourish in its own right, not be mere vehicle to something else.

      Delete
    2. I took Rob's reasoning a different way, as a good reason to remove standings from the game completely. No longer would players worry that working for A makes B shoot them... No longer would new players get out of Faction warfare completely locked to one empire (which is going to get more important if Faction Warfare goes four-ways) New players could get a jump clone right off the bat to preserve their implants and let them be a bit more daring in the first few weeks.

      Then there's the newly added 'Drifter standings.' The only reason I can see for it being there is so you can look at the female drifter ceo in the character viewer. Unless there is a reason further down the road (Drifter agents?) for it, this seems completely useless. Like the Interbus Agents that give LP but have no LP store to spend it at... Or Jovian standings.

      The system is there 'because other games have it.' and the things that have been attached to it are afterthoughts because they never really worked out what it should mean in terms of the Eve Universe/Lore/Gameplay beyond a gate system to keep players from content until they are supposedly ready for it.

      Delete
    3. Aren't public citadels going to remove the standings requirements for Jump Clones anyway around years end?

      Delete
    4. I guess it's a matter of perception.

      Some people see NPC interaction as something enjoyable and rewarding in itself. Others see it as a useless hurdle that stands in their way.

      But think of this. PvP is a hurdle in the way of PvE players. The (gratuitously diminishing) impact of NPC status is one of the few ways in which CCP rewards PvErs for playing their way, in a context where PvE players are punished if they as dare to dismiss or not account for PvP.

      IMHO, jump clones are one of the few ways in which PvPrs are forced to play PvE. That is a small tradeoff for how PvE players are forced to PvP, be it indirectly (the way they fit their ships) or directly (wardecs).

      Delete
    5. In its current implementation, I don't think that the NPC standing system actually rewards career PVE players. Rather, it rewards players for reaching certain standing milestones that are easily attainble and permanent unless you do something that costs you standing.

      In fact, it punishes career PVE players as they need to ensure that their derived standing modifications (and anti-Empire missions) don't take them below the magical -5 Faction standing and punishes them if they ever want to run missions in NPC null.

      Does the reputation grind for JCs make EVE a better game?

      Honestly Onions, I can't see this as being a 'tradeoff' between PVPers and PVEers but it sounds a lot like you want to keep this feature merely out of spite for 'PVPers'.

      To suggest that PVE players are forced to PVP, so PVP players should be forced to do PVE, seems like the wrong way of looking at things (and overly simplistic to split the playerbase into these two opposed groups). You are free to play the game the way that you want and other players are free to try to stop you. By all means propose more tools for player interaction but I don't see why PVPers should be 'punished' with PVE. Player interaction is the crux of EVE.

      Delete
    6. Well, if there's ever a time I regret not rushing to type a reply, it is probably this one. =/
      (Especially because I had a much more eloquent way of saying what I wanted to say)
      Gonna reply to Dire, because he deserves a proper reply.
      ------

      You've made some excellent points there, and I agree with most, if not all of them. You've made a solid analysis of the bonuses of the standings 'grind', and you're right that for a certain group of people, it could be construed as 'punishment' gameplay.

      Now, I do agree that gating content with 'suffering' is not the greatest example of game design, but I have to question: How do you gate power projection of the type offered by Jump Clones?

      (Giving free jump clones with all standings means that I can set up clones *everywhere*. If I wanted to, I could jump clone from The Citadel to Aridia without a problem. Tying JC to standings limited the power projection of the Player to the local NPC Corps, and their Alliance. In a post-Phoebe world, this seems like a obvious bug.

      It is easy to see gates as hurdles, but only because you don't want to put the work in. Use your skills and knowledge to open the gates, or try and hurdle it. I know which one is more painful.)

      Now, I also agree with you on the character of missions. They should be a profession of value and standing in their own right. (If there was a way of 'competing' for missions, I think that would be a good change. Sadly, we're not able to just magic up those kind of changes. So lets work with what we've got.)

      If you're right (and I think you are), that the 'hurdle' of standings is devaluing missioning as a profession, then the solution is to break that hurdle down into smaller parts. I don't, however, feel that JCs are not an appropriate award for missioning as a whole. More paths to Jump Clones is something I'd like, and possibly a decreased standing requirement.

      To sum up, JC are too powerful a tool, not to be gated by some kind of requirement. Standings are a solid, if irritating to PvPers, solution to this. If CCP feels this requirement *too* onerous, then they can create more accessibility to Jump Clones, perhaps a free JC placement, like a free neural remap?

      Rob K.

      Delete
    7. Insightful response Rob. I think you’ve further cracked open some of the design issues I was struggling with. A clarification and a comment.

      Clarification:
      High NPC standings requirements for jump clones doesn’t limit where you can place jump clones but rather only affects where you can create them. Once you are cleared to create jump clones somewhere you are free to place them anywhere you see fit. You just have to fly the jump clone to the preferred location and then jump away thereby leaving that jump clone behind exactly where you wanted it. Once you generate standings someplace, all locations open up. It’s a onetime task. Medical clones are a different beast altogether as you can shuffle those around from afar without the bother of actually flying to the location and it’s my understanding the unrestrained power projection issues that creates are precisely why medical clone placement is severely limited.

      Comment:
      You are correct to put a number of my terms in ‘scare’ quotes since the terms I used carried a lot of weight with them. It is very much the case that how one sets up a question does a lot of the groundwork towards how one is going to answer that question. Setting up in a particular manner also allows one to get at things quickly since it (often unfairly) allows one to short cut around very possibly contentious claims. With such observations in mind I would suggest that the statement I made in most need of scare quotes actually resides in my first comment when I called jump clones ‘typical Capsuleer services’. I wasn’t around when jump clones were first introduced (I presume they weren’t around from the get go) so I can’t speak to whether they were originally conceived as mundane Capsuleer activity but I can say that whatever the original conception, these days jump clone are treated by us Capsuleers as commonplace stuff. If we accept that jump cloning is a mostly mundane activity it strikes me rather unreasonable to expect pilots who chose to interact with NPCs for their jump cloning services undergo such long toil only to arrive at a commonplace destination. If we don’t accept that jump cloning is mundane activity then we really need to tighten up the current rules since once you complete the required standings work the entire jump cloning Eve universe cracks open. One moment you can’t place a jump clone anywhere and the next moment (having completed that last necessary mission) you can place them everywhere. Such play feels really ‘hurdle like’ to me. You complete the task never to return.

      Special Note:
      Anonymous above calls these hurdles ‘standings milestones’ and thereby gets at some of the dissatisfaction I feel around the entire endeavor. While there’s nothing wrong with milestones, they only motivate you once and in the current implementation make other possible milestones very difficult which really piles on the one and done problem.

      Delete
    8. @ Anonymous:

      Bear in mind that jump clones are available by corporation status, not just by faction status. This means it is doable to be above 8.0 with corporations from all 4 Empires while keeping a positive standing with all Empires. That's one of the tricks of the trade for dedicated PvErs.

      As for PvP vs PvE, the fact that exist "wardecs" to grief PvErs out of their playstyle but no "peacedecs" to grief PvPrs out of their playstyle is one of the single wrongest things in EVE... you may blame Mike Azariah for pointing this:

      https://mikeazariah.wordpress.com/2012/02/29/peace-dec/

      Delete
    9. So... Compromise.

      Keep Jump Clones available to all regardless of standings, though still limited by skill as now. But put a cost on the *use* of them, say 100m per jump, modified by destination Corp standings. So jump cloning to a Corp with which you have 0.5 standings costs 50 mill, at 0.8 it is 12.5 mill. No Faction discounts...

      If people want to cross the whole of New Eden in the blink of an eye and at absolutely no risk -- it should cost. If people want to minimise loss while maximising rate of skill learning by jumping in and out of "clean" PvP clones -- it should cost. Clone facilities don't run on good will alone ;-)

      Note that this is different to the recently (correctly, IMO) removed "death tax" on medical clones. That was an unavoidable penalty, this is an optional benefit.

      Delete
    10. To Dire,

      You're right, of course, that by achieving one JC standings, you've technically achieved all of them, due to Jump Clone placing. However, technically right is not the same as functionally right. The difference is one of time investment. Let's create a theoretical task: Place one Jump Clone in each 'corner' of Empire space. (High and Low)

      Previously, this would've been a herculean 8 or so day task, counting down the timer, to complete. Now, it becomes a matter for one evening, using an interceptor. For the ability to rapidly deploy to each corner of Empire, it doesn't seem too much work, no?

      For 8.0 Federation Navy Standings, I have the ability to base out of almost anywhere in Gallente Space. There are other 'power corps' around too.

      Now, before I launch into the tricky subject of 'typical capsuleer services', I'll address the 'milestones' issue. First things first: Standings are only an approximation of real relationships. CCP can't afford to have a couple of hundred people to represent NPCs, so uses the 'milestone' ability to represent them. This, unfortunately, leads to the 'gotta get to 8.0' behaviour, as you rightly noted.

      Now, I can see why the milestone would frustrate you, (it frustrates me also), but remember, it means something more than just those two digits. Obviously Jump Clones mean something significant to the NPC corps!

      Which leads me into my final thoughts. 'Typical capsuleer services'.

      You've raised, I think, the heart of the problem. The Jump Clones have become general knowledge, if not general practise. The people without jump clones now feel left behind, because they cannot simply buy standings, because they're a major time sink. (Though you can buy some standings, it isn't enough).

      So they whine that they're left out, even though they've not put the requisite work in. This unfortunate bug has only rewarded those who haven't cared to put the work in themselves.

      In all seriousness, CCP needs to consider what place (if any [though I hope they never go that far]) Standings have as a concept in this game.

      I honestly hope that they tighten up Jump clones standings and requirements, and make them the elite tool that they are idealised to be in the lore, and in the concept. Missioning should have rewards for the players who assist their faction.

      It doesn't change the fact that the place we are in now is neither sustainable, nor enjoyable.

      (Though this has been a very interesting discussion!)

      Rob K.

      Delete
  3. I'd like to see the Jump Clone bug fixed... I don't have 8.0 standing with any factions, so I can't make jump clones personally but I still wouldn't want it to change.

    A lot of people comments that there are workarounds and that it's easy just to remove the trade off... but it's not that simple.

    There are a few ways to get jump clones with standing:
    1) Venture into null sec where you can dock (there's at least some risk associated with this and possibly a requirement of blue status depending on where you go).

    2) Make jump clones in a Rorqual or a Titan... both of these are expensive options with long training times.

    3) Switch to a corp designed for the purpose like EASC. Some people want a pristine corp history and wont just randomly switch corporations plus limitations (alliance tournament status, active war decs) can make this even more difficult.

    Allowing everyone to simply make jump clones is removing a goal of the game, it's giving something for free and that's not what EVE should be. Every action should have a consequence or risk and right now that just doesn't exist with the jump clone bug.

    That said, I would ultimately be fine with reducing the standing requirement. For example, lowering it to a 5.0 standing along with opening it up so that faction standing applies, not just corporation standing. I think that would be an acceptable change that opens the door but still requires effort.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thinking of jumpclones without standings as giving away a privilege "for free" is the wrong way to think about it. Lots of things in EVE are free. You can undock a ship "for free" without having to go through a docking sequence minigame. You can get an accurate read on your wallet history "for free" without needing to chase down some accounting agent. You can log off your ship in space "for free" without risking it getting randomly exploded during some lore imposed engine shutdown limitation. All those benefits come at no cost from you, and all of them staying as no cost benefits is good for the game.

      Mechanics changes should come down to whether they make playing the game better or worse, not whether they are free or not. Does forcing someone to go through a one time but highly tedious process of grinding missions before he can put down highsec jumpclones make the game better or worse? The very fact that workarounds such as EACS exists and is highly popular tells me forcing people to do this for themselves would make their game worse.

      People are doing everything in their power to skip something they view as tedious so that they can move onto more rewarding gameplay. If jump clone standings weren't an issue then the overwhelming majority of players would be doing this for themselves rather than getting other people to skip the grind for them. To force everyone to grind their own standings with no workarounds would make most people's gaming experience that much worse by forcing them to do something they don't want to do and don't like doing.

      Delete
    2. The difference is that those things are essentials. Everyone uses those services, right from the start of the game. Making it a challenge to do any of those things is neither sensible nor good gameplay.

      Pretending that Jump Clones are somehow an essential and immediate usage for all players is rather farcical. New players do not need to Jump Clone. The people pretending that New Players are somehow inhibited by their lack of Jump Clone rights were suspiciously silent, until this bug was introduced.

      The people taking advantage of this bug are not new players. Though I think it cliché, this is a prime example of Malcanis' Law. Only CCP has the numbers, but I'm sure a comparison of New Players vs Alts for membership of EACS is going to be far skewed towards Alts.

      --------

      Now, I'm going to make my own farcical statement.

      "I don't like roaming for content, so I want to be able to directly teleport to the nearest ship of my class that I can fight".

      Sound absurd? It is meant to. Roaming, like missioning, can be somewhat tedious. You won't find any winnable fights, you might find no people at all! It becomes undeniably unenjoyable if you don't get find your 'reward'.

      But, my solution is even worse. Sure, it improves the amount of 'rewarding gameplay' I get, but it makes the game shallower and less enjoyable for other people. (Sound familiar, it's the Phoebe changes all over again!)

      A quick march to simplicity isn't good for this game, that prides itself of complexity and challenge.
      ----

      Now, Dire and I talked about the 'typical capsuleer services' above, which is what your second and third paragraphs are about. At the risk of restating myself, JC are not for everyone, nor should they be. There should be more paths to jump cloning, but they should be as equally hard as 'the mission grind' (though it isn't a grind for everyone).

      My questions for you are, why should people deserve Jump Clones? What have they done to 'earn' it? What other routes to Jump Clones should there be?

      Rob K.

      Delete
    3. Well let's take some pure convenience activities as examples instead.

      Does it make sense to ask players to complete an epic arc like mission chain in order to up the number of ship fits they can save?

      Does it make sense to ask players to do a certain number of pirate missions before they can equip that faction's deadspace modules?

      Does it make sense to ask players to manufacture a certain amount of items before they can sell multiple items at once?

      Does it make sense to tie a player's skill queue time to the number of data sites they've hack? People made do with single skill queues for years. Why does everyone deserve an unlimited or even a 24 hour queue?

      That kind of arbitrary labor gate, even for nice to have but non essential functionality, is still forcing players to trade tedium for functionality. A little bit of forced tedium may heighten the sense of accomplishment for players who finally reach their desired content, but when players already need to pay for ships and wait on fleets and outfit multiple implant loadouts and locate an advantageous place to put down their jump clones in the first place, asking them to do hours of missions on top of that is just busywork for the sake of busywork. Instead of heightening the sense of accomplishment, it ends up being a straight up inhibitor to content for the vast majority of players. Hence why EACS is such a popular service in the first place.

      So, yes, being always able to discover and teleport onto any fight at a moment's notice without effort may cheapen the PVP experience (even thought people sat on titans aplenty). But throwing down a hard rule that says you flat out cannot fire at or be fired upon by anyone who was docked in a station within 10 jumps of you in the last hour would be pants on head retarded. We would be compounding that stupidity further by insisting a tedious activity that lets players eventually whittle down that arbitrary limit to 5 systems distance after a week of grinding PVE is a viable solution to limiting content in this way. People don't NEED to be able to fight their neighbors. It's a luxury. But people want to, and letting them do it without shackling them to an absurd forced roaming timesink is healthy for the game.

      I hope I've demonstrated that just because something is a luxury doesn't mean it necessarily should require work to obtain. So, my question to you is why shouldn't people have jump clones in the same way that they have access to unlimited skill queues, or multisell, or saved probe formations, or grouped guns, or compare tools, or all the other little improvements that boost quality of life but were never absolute necessities? Why assume jump clone access has to be something that requires labor to 'earn' in the first place?

      Delete
  4. POS Archoring and now Jump Clones? So yet another erosion to the value of faction standing. How long before Refining, Sales tax and Mission Agents are added this bonfire of simplification? I would like to think that there is some purpose or reward remaining for the effort to earn +8 standing.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Just delete NPC standings entirely. They are awful and lead to even more awful gameplay. I have zero interest in grinding missions and yet am forced to for some content. I greatly dislike this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And obviously you represent all of EvE, and thus CCP should develop entirely for you only. No-one else could ever derive enjoyment from missioning, standings, or anything else.

      Sounds like a game that develops with all the subtlety of a brick through a window. Not this game that we all share .

      ------

      Thanks for providing a great example of Dire's point about devalued professions and gameplay. If you read up, you'll see that Dire and I have already raised the prospect of alternative routes to Jump Clones. Do you have any suggestions?

      Rob K.

      Delete
    2. I want single skill training queues back please. I had to put up with the toil of repeatedly alarm clocking for ungodly hours in the morning to optimize my training times. I earned my high sp/hr through hard work. Why shouldn't you share the same burden?

      Delete
    3. Not sure if you two anonymii at 4:26 and 4:18 are the same, so I'll presume not.

      First of all, you're wrong that you earned your high SP/Hr. What you earned was Skill points for logging in at those hours and not sleeping until morning. SP/Hr is independent of time played. It depends only on re-maps, implants and boosters.

      (You've obviously been playing a long time, and thus could make a somewhat outdated argument about learning skills. Arguably, SP/Hr is also dependent on experience, so you could make a very convoluted argument for playing more leading to earning more SP/Hr).

      Now, for the 'share' comments. I may have communicated un-clearly. What I was saying was, CCP has to develop for more than one playstlye, through and by their own choice. Hence, a 'shared' game.

      Now, this may be unfortunate for you, because your playstyle is not 100% developed for by CCP, and I sympathise. However, CCP has made its own bed. It can lose a large tranche of customers by solely developing to one playstyle, or it can continue down the path it has taken. One of these paths is likely more sustainable than the other.

      So yeah, you've got your reward for getting up early in the past. Now, unless you want to advocate for a removal of SP as a whole: "He has an advantage for starting earlier/past IRL work", then you might not want to consider this line of argument any further...

      Rob K.

      Delete
  6. Jump clone bug? Where did I miss this?

    The main issue I see with supers and titans is their vulnerability when traveling solo (you know, solo, just you and 5 cyno/scouting alts because you just can't trust anyone). Sure they are meant to travel in the protection of a fleet but that only happens with real move ops.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I for one think supers being unable to dock is a big part of what makes them special, just like their inability to use gates was before.

    A lot of people in eve still look at that ISIS page from time to time and stare at titans in wonder and awe. They aren't just super huge and unreasonably expensive - they are unusual, different from all other vessels. I'm sure a lot of people don't even understand what "immunity to all forms of electronic warfare" means, but it looks cool anyway.
    Taking away more of that magic to give a bit of extra convinience for the super pilots sounds just... mean.

    In fact, those super pilots probably won't care that much. Most won't biomass their titan sitters, I'm guessing they'll just *maybe* get a jumpclone to another titan location, or something along those lines; the people who are likely to notice the most are the people who shouldn't be affected.

    Of course, if docking a super also provides more protection than logging off in a pos currently does, that's another topic entirely.
    I just wanted to bring up the Buffing Supers Makes Them Less Amazing aspect of the question.

    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 …