CCP knows how to find drama

A summation of the Crucible 1.5 features (currently scheduled to be released on the 13th) are available here:

http://community.eveonline.com/en/crucible/features/

Good to see more DED complexes with new loot. I might have to do some more Exploration after it is released to check them out. The additional information in the Route Tab sounds interesting. I also love the concept of having color coding on market orders – to see if they are along your current route. Useful when you are on your way to Jita, but checking the regional markets for similar prices as you travel. The “Shift Drag” option for placing a Blueprint into the quick bar to get a neat list of ingredients is also very nice. It all seems to be a continuation of the Crucible theme and feel.

Next there was a very big Dev Blog on ship rebalancing:

http://community.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&nbid=9129

This one could be interesting. I can see the logic in racial Destroyer and Battlecruiser skills. I can also see the logic in removing the tier system, and replacing it with a role classification. Some of the skill requirement changes might also work ok – such as dropping the requirement for the Covertor to rank IV. I don’t really like the idea of reducing the racial Capital perquisite to Battleship IV – but having more badly fitted and flown Capitals on the kill boards is probably a good thing in the end.

I do hope though the process doesn’t hit some of the more unique hulls – such as my favourite hauler, the Exequror cruiser. I also hope CCP improves on its math’s – when it indicated a racial Battleship would take “a bit longer” to train, I was assuming 5 to 15% longer, not 88% more. (That is more than a “bit” CCP Ytterbium)

But then I had to face the issue that was worrying away at the back of my mind. I have rank V in all racial hulls from Frigates to Battleships, plus in Destroyers and Battlecruisers. This change, on initial view, would see me lose the ability to fly 75% of the Command ships and interdictors I can fly now. Finding myself having to train the next 4 to 5 months just to get back to the same position would be infuriating.

So it was off to the forums – where the feedback thread was 40 pages long and growing rapidly.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=898361&#post898361

What I did find was multiple comments from CCP that if people can fly the ship before any changes, that they will be able to fly them afterwards. Given the training costs for the extra racial hull skills are the same as the old generic skills; that would suggest the possibility of a whole heap of extra SP. Maybe if you don’t have them, queue up Destroyer and Battlecruiser V immediately.

So – assuming I don’t have to spend time training ships I already can fly, the general idea of these changes is good.

Last of all, Jester’s Trek Blog has a couple of interesting posts recently. The most recent is a continuation of his review of the EVE average log on counts, which is well worth a read:

http://jestertrek.blogspot.com.au/2012/03/snapcount.html

Previous to that was a less than positive review of the Eve – CSM match website.

http://jestertrek.blogspot.com.au/2012/03/garbage-in-garbage-out.html

Funny enough I had already tried that site out (having used it last year also), but while I am full of praise for the idea and effort, the results in practise were next to pointless.

Speaking of pointless – I am quickly heading towards the decision of not bothering to vote for this years CSM. I’ve read the starting post of about a third of the independent’s CSM threads, and come away disillusioned by the lack of platforms or an overview of goals. There were just too many iterations of “Hi, I’ve been playing EVE for x number of years, and am familiar with it – vote for me.”

To my mind a CSM member has no power to implement a game change – they just provide feedback on what CCP wants to do. At best they might be able to proffer up ideas, or warn off CCP from bad ideas. What I want is someone to vote for who I feel thinks similarly about the game as I do. An understanding of Carebears, a focus on the sandpit nature of the game, an appreciative love of the game, and the ability to communicate and be mature enough to interact positively with players, other CSM members, and CCP. Sell yourselves for goodness sake.

Blog Banter 33: “The Capsuleer Experience”

Like mana from Valhalla (yes I know I’m mixing my religious metaphors), the latest Dev Blog by CCP Legion asks questions which make for perfect Blog Bantering. To quote him “…we want to make the first days, weeks and months in EVE enjoyable and not just something ‘you have to plough through in order to get to the good stuff’” and the newly formed Player Experience team will focus on “…where and why people lose interest in EVE…”.

“We invite you to pour your heart (or guts) out and tell us what you think is good or bad with the current new player experience and what you think could be done about the problems.”

 

 

There is no real way for me to answer this properly. I’ve been playing EVE since 2006, and the last time I tried the new player experience was in 2009. Even if I gave it a run through again now, my perceptions would be tainted by the weight of my experience, and a preference towards how I play the game.

So instead I’ll throw out a couple of thoughts and ideas, some based around the various blogs I read, some from my own vague memories. Quite plausibly and embarrassingly – some of these might already be in place.

I think new player retention would be helped if they are given better tools to picture the size and scope of the New Eden environment, and their location within it, an easier way to focus on long term skill plans, and more education and some tweaked partial protection from the griefers and scammers.

Specifically..

. The in game star maps do not do a good enough job of conveying where you are in the universe, or where you can go. Even now I remember feeling somewhat lost when I first started the game. It wasn’t until I first laid eyes on Ombey’s excellent maps that I “got it”. The star maps could be improved, or new players pointed at resources like Dotlan or Ombey.

. In the early days it was easy to lose focus when it came to planning for your character. While the certificate planner goes part of the way, EVE still lacks an EVEMon like skill planner. Once I started using EVEMon my goals in game stretched out much further into the future.

. When I pass through starter systems I am often appalled by the number of griefers hassling the new Players. In many respects there is no skill, challenge or profit to be made from what they are doing. How do you even describe them – without eliciting some bizarre smug smile upon their face? While I don’t really want some artificially protected environment just for new players, there are ways in which CCP might make life a little easier for them –

- Encourage or allow new players to move their tutorial training to quieter systems

- I am not sure if it is possible or not, but it would be nice to see EVE keep track of pilots who kill new players, and have a pop up warning “This character has killed x new players in the last month. Are you sure you want to interact with their can?”

- Much clearer and easier to understand aggression mechanics

- Very cheap discounted insurance in the first month

- I am not sure what warnings are given to new players about scams – but I would like to think they are given the sort of information provided in a post I linked to back in November – http://eveprincessbride.wordpress.com/2011/11/21/walkthroughs-of-some-common-local-channel-scams/

- In the first few weeks or so, give them an automated Price check when they are buying or selling something, a pop up warning such as “This price is 50% higher than the Jita market average, are you sure you want to proceed with the purchase?”

- Within the first month, allow them to do a single skill re-spec – where they can take a skill they trained but now realise wasn’t want they wanted or needed, and reverse it for the SP.

The idea of this hodgepodge of suggestions is for some better education, some automatic warnings for the more silly things they might do, and a slight safety net with cheap insurance and a skill reversal.

The only thing I would say about the idea of new player retention, and it was touched on in one of my recent posts, is that you do not actually want to retain all new players. It is ok to allow a level of natural culling for those who are simply unsuited to the game. It is not for everyone. You just want to try and keep those who could fit in long term, but who fail to get over that very hard initial hurdle of their new player experience.

 

A list of participants (that will be updated by the owner as time permits) can be found here:

http://freebooted.blogspot.com.au/2012/02/blog-banter-33-capsuleer-experience.html

Blog Banter 32: “Non-Consensual Combat Restrictions”

This month’s Blog Banter comes from Drackarn of Sand, Cider and Spaceships. He has foolishly chosen to poke the hornet’s nest that is the non-consensual PvP debate. Whilst you read his question, I’ll be finding a safe place to hide.

“A quick view of the Eve Online forums can always find someone complaining about being suicide ganked, whining about some scam they fell for or other such tears. With the Goons’ Ice Interdiction claiming a vast amount of mining ships, there were calls for an “opt out of PvP” option.

Should this happen? Should people be able to opt-out of PvP in Eve Online. Should CONCORD prevent crime rather than just handing out justice after the event? Or do the hi-sec population already have too much protection from the scum and villainy that inhabits the game?”

 

I recently answered this question in my “Is Hi-Sec Broken?” posts **, so will cheat and copy some of that here:

I regularly hear people in my corporation lamenting the fact you can be suicide ganked, or Can flipped, or have war declared on you.  You can imagine what the attitude towards Hulkageddon is!  For some they just don’t understand why people would want to, for others they want to be safe to do whatever they fancy. 

I love the fact Hi Sec is not 100% safe.  The three main reasons:

. It fits the EVE backstory.  Life for the vast majority of the populace in EVE is harsh and very unfair.  Read the EVE Chronicles, have a look at how many crew your ships require, and contemplate the number of them which have died over your career.  Did you give them a second thought?  An arbitrary safe zone where there is no risk at all just does not fit.

. It is part of what gives value and consequence to your actions in EVE.  When you undock a ship, you put it at risk.  If you lose it, you suffer a financial set back.  This is what puts value around your efforts to generate ISK.  The old saying “easy come, easy go” sort of explains my mindset here.  If your life in Hi Sec is 100% safe and easy, the value of your achievements (and the game itself) is diminished.

. It generates game content.  I adjust the way I play EVE to reflect its danger.  I always align to a station when mining; keep an eye on local; balance the value of what I haul etc.  Read a sample of the EVE blogs to see how many stories are generated by the danger that resides in Hi Sec.  Take that away from the game, and it will be far poorer for it.

As it is, if you take the time to educate yourself and are careful in how you play the game, you can avoid most non-consequential PVP. 

While I don’t think Hi Sec should be made safer, I also don’t think it needs to be made more dangerous.  There has to be room for people to try and limit the risks, and accept that margin of danger they cannot eliminate.  To help in that acceptance, I would like to see some of the more annoying aspects of Empire PVP be tweaked and finessed.  Idea’s as I have mentioned before, such as:

. I’d like it to be possible to sell, auction or transfer kill rights to someone else.  This is particularly useful for those with no practical way of exercising the right themselves, but still wanting the option of revenge.

. I would like it to be possible to have a limited War Dec on individual pilots in Non-Player Corporations.

. Docking games make Empire PVP too safe.  I would like to see something similar to the changes to the log off mechanism copied over to docking.  If someone is actively being aggressed – they shouldn’t be allowed to dock.

. Make aggression rules far more obvious and clear.

. Look at the faction police response times for pilots with very low sec status who board ships in space while in Empire. 

. Make Shield Dec’s illegal

. Allow the option for aggressors to put a ransom amount on a War Dec, which if paid to them invalidates the war.  (Have this be immediately effective if shooting has not begun, or within an hour or so if it has.) 

. Allow mercenaries or allies to join under the umbrella of an existing war – on the side of the defenders.  This will go active either when the original war does, or after a shorter period of time, such as 6 hours, if it is already active.  This shouldn’t count in the calculations of how expensive the War Dec is.   Make it easier for those being targeted to gather help, or conversely give the aggressors more targets.

This is a random mixed bag of ideas impacting both sides of the fence – but the basic concept is to try and move away from using game mechanics to manipulate Hi Sec PVP, and put the emphasis back on game play.

 

A list of participants (that will be updated by the owner as time permits) can be found here:

http://freebooted.blogspot.com/2012/01/blog-banter-32-non-consensual-combat.html

 

** The full posts can be found here: Is Hi-Sec Broken – Part 1 and Part 2  

Is Hi-Sec actually broken? Part 2

Part 1 TLDR

Hi Sec is the healthiest area of the game, don’t mess it up.

 

Unhealthy Attitudes

When it comes to Hi Sec, I think there are two especially unhealthy attitudes.

The first is that it is unfair for other players to be able to impact your gaming there.

I regularly hear people in my corporation lamenting the fact you can be suicide ganked, or Can flipped, or have war declared on you.  You can imagine what the attitude towards Hulkageddon is!  For some, they just don’t understand why people would want to, for others they want to be safe to do whatever they fancy.

I love the fact Hi Sec is not 100% safe.  The three main reasons, in no particular order:

. It fits the EVE backstory.  Life for the vast majority of the populace in EVE is harsh and very unfair.  Have a look at the crew guidelines in the EVE Wiki:

http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/New_Eden_crew_guidelines

In the first month of playing, I had lost a couple Frigates and a Destroyer.  While I simply warped off in my pod, over 90% of the crew would have died, approximately 8 to 24 in total.  When I messed up in a Low Sec Complex and lost my Drake, around 80% of the crew (somewhere between  40 and 80) died.  I can’t say I gave them a second thought.  The environment is defined as cruel and unforgiving.  An arbitrary safe zone where there is no risk at all just does not fit.

. It is part of what gives value and consequence to your actions in EVE.  I am going to struggle to describe this one well.  When you undock a ship in EVE, you put it at risk.  If you lose it, you suffer a financial set back.  This is part of what puts value around your efforts to generate ISK.  Take away that risk, and you devalue your efforts in game.  The old saying “easy come, easy go” sort of explains my mindset here.  If your life in Hi Sec is 100% safe and easy, the value of your achievements (and the game itself) is diminished.

. It generates game content.  I adjust the way I play EVE to reflect this danger.  I always align to a station when mining, keep an eye on local and DScan when in a mission, I try to balance the value of what I haul to make myself less of a target, I don’t auto pilot if I carry anything of worth, I’ve thought long and hard about what ship types to use for certain cargos, and the balance between tank and capacity on them.  Just read a sampling of the EVE blogs to see how many stories are generated by Hi Sec conflict.  Take that away from the game, and it will be far poorer for it.

 

The second unhealthy attitude when it comes to Hi Sec is the venomous hatred many players have towards its inhabitance.  From the CSM Chairman down, there are people who detest the notion of people never leaving Hi Sec – or of Hi Sec itself.

For some people, this is because they think EVE should be a hard game, and that people should be forced to play it in its hardest form.  I can accept and understand why some would think that way.  I just don’t think enough people would play EVE to keep it viable if that was the case.  I would stop playing – my real life situation just doesn’t allow for me to play EVE that way.

For others it seems more the old attitude that if people are not playing the game like they are, then they are worthless pieces of shit who are not doing it right.  I am less accepting of this small minded, narcissistic view.  In effect, they want to force people to play the game their way.  Not only does that destroy the sandpit nature of EVE, it would also see the Subscription count free fall as you are arbitrarily forced to change how you play.

For others it seems the attitude comes from wanting more targets to fall under their guns, and if you can just force people out of Hi Sec, it would be PVP nirvana.  But again, how many people would end up playing the game?

Funny enough, even though these attitudes are at the opposite ends of the spectrum, they are basically the same.  “I think everyone should play the game my way”.

 

Focus on being a Sandpit

EVE is usually described as a sandpit MMO.  Your character options are not just limited to a handful of templates that actually work.  There is no level cap.  You don’t have a pre-defined set of quests and adventure arcs that you have to follow.  The industry and economy is huge, rich and complex.  While the combat system does lean towards cookie cutter fits, the variety of vessels, configuration options, fleet composition, doctrines and counters is huge and ever changing.  There truly are a vast number of different things you can do within the game.  This is what I love about EVE.

When people talk about changing Hi Sec, the very first thing I ask myself is would the changes make EVE more of a Sandpit, or less?  I don’t mind the idea of new narrow focused content being added, but I don’t want narrow mindedness to result in less available options and play styles being available.

A healthy Hi Sec means a healthy base from which EVE can operate.  By all means work on enticing these people out into Low and Null Sec, but do not force them too.

 

Why do I write so much crap on the topic?

I get a lot of enjoyment and relaxation out of EVE.  It takes my mind off real life issues, gives me some down time, and is a great distraction.  It seems so cringe worthy to admit it – but I care about the game and it is important to me.

There are many aspects of the game however that I just cannot physically be involved in.  My play time is sporadic, often interrupted, and generally doesn’t last longer than an hour at a time.  I’ve been in a SOV based 0.0 alliance before, and I simply couldn’t attend the CTA’s required to support that type of game style.  Even if I did manage to get involved in a CTA fleet, and didn’t have to leave early, or drop out at short notice, I didn’t have enough game time left to grind large amounts of ISK required to cover heavy losses.

If SOV 0.0 was the only aspect of EVE available to me, I would have had to sadly give it away years ago.  My Corp is basically full of people with exactly the same issues and view.  They want to play EVE, and enjoy doing so, but they can’t do the 0.0 End Game or live the wormhole life.  It is in my self-interest then to want as many options available to casual players as possible.

As I remarked last time, I don’t think Hi Sec is broken.  I think the Goon’s Gallente Ice Interdiction campaign is evidence of that.  I absolutely love the fact it was possible to do that within the game.  The market manipulation and propaganda were brilliant, and it force players to adapt or die.  There were consequences for the participant however.  I expect many will have had their Hi Sec movements hampered by Security Status hits which will require painstaking grinding of NPC’s to reverse.

So the griefing of Hi Sec Bears is entirely acceptable to me – assuming the methods are relatively fair.

 

Part 2 TLDR?

When thinking about Hi Sec changes, ensure you focus on maintaining the sandpit nature of the game, including allowing for casual play styles.

Is Hi-Sec broken? Part 1

 

Serpentine’s recent blog post referenced another High Sec related EO Forum post:

http://serpentinelogic.wordpress.com/2011/12/15/good-post-in-jita-park-shocker/

The Original forum Post is here:

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=26049

It had some interesting points, and seems to have garnered some positive feedback.  To my mind however it was yet another Hi Sec conversation that misses the mark.  The author Malacanis said himself that he could not comprehend the mindset of a Carebear, or how you could integrate them into the way he thinks EVE should be played.  Therein lies the problem with the majority of these types of conversations – they focus on promoting a certain style of game play, without fair appreciation or understanding of how other’s play the game.

So here is my very humble opinion on Hi Sec:

Purpose

Malacanis’ post suggested the original purpose for Hi Sec was to act as a staging area for new players, who would then move into Low Sec, and finally into Null Sec.  Hi Sec is far bigger than that now.  It has a huge economy, with trade, transportation, manufacturing, and lower grade resource gathering that span from small solo endeavors to vast industrial efforts.  There are complex mixes of people living there, with a plethora of different types of interactions.  It is the partially tame city, where the frontier based players can come with their rarer resources for trade, rest, respite, escape, or a change of scenery.  I do not think Hi Sec can still be thought of as just a Newbie training area – and to do so when proffering up ideas on how to change it would be very dangerous.

Who lives there?

Just about every player in the game, at some point or another, lives in Hi Sec.  When people discuss it however they tend to be focusing on those who live there exclusively.  Malaconis covered some of the obvious groups, which I will repeat here:

. New Players

. Casual Players without the time to invest in living outside of Hi Sec

. Independent Players not inclined to the group play required outside of Hi Sec

. Commercial Players who can meet all their industrious goals in Hi Sec

. Carebears, in this case defined as risk adverse

 

That is not an uncommon sort of breakdown.  It does however miss a couple key categories of people who can also be focused only on Hi-Sec:

. Hunters and scavengers, who use game mechanics to kill and rob other Hi Sec players

. Scammers, who attempt to gain from immoral actions

. Griefers, focused on negatively impacting the game experience of others

 

There are also plenty of people who may leave Empire, but do spend extended periods there, such as:

. Refugees, regrouping after being forced out of their Low / Null Sec homes

. Holiday Makers, simply taking a break from the rigors of life outside of Empire

. Farmers, replenishing ISK and ship stocks because they haven’t been able to do so in their Low / Null Sec homes

 

In fact – there are hundreds of categories and styles of player in Empire, from the hard core PVPer, to Role-player, to the frightened.  It is a complicated mix which is far from just being a utopia safe haven for Carebears.

Critically important

One thing people seem to gloss over is that Hi Sec is critically important for EVE and CCP.  This is more than just from the mammoth economy it provides.  As far as you can tell from the statistics available, there are a sizeable number of active players who never leave Hi Sec.  Force game changes onto them that they really dislike, and you could easily and dramatically lower subscriptions.  (Far more I would suggest, than Incarna did.)

 

What’s wrong with it?

If I was to summarise the most common complaints about Hi Sec, I think they come down to five categories:

. There is not enough content available

A brand new player can find literally years of content in Hi Sec that they can research, skill up for, experience and master.  I would like to see more content –dynamic missions, improvements to mining, new industry options and so on – but to my mind the content itself isn’t a critical issue.

 

. It is too dangerous

There were some aggression exploits that I did not like, which Crucible now provides fair warning against, and insurance is no longer paid out if you are killed by Concord.  Those changes make Hi Sec somewhat safer (or importantly, fairer).  I do not however think it needs to be made entirely safe.  I think it is good that you can be suicide ganked, or have war declared on you, or fall for a market or contract scam.  It adds an element of risk to the game which helps define EVE as different.

 

. It is not dangerous enough

On the opposite side of the spectrum – should it be even more dangerous?  I am not a fan of shield Dec’s, so in that one particular area I wouldn’t mind seeing things changed.  However generally I think the balance is ok.  You are never fully safe, and it is still possible to have far reaching impacts from events like the Goonswam Gallente Ice Interdiction or Hulkageddon.

 

. You can earn too much ISK

At the moment I would assume the best ISK to be earnt in Hi Sec would be from Trading and Incursions.  Your average Hi Sec miner, manufacturer, PI, explorer and mission runner would probably be earning 20M ISK or less per hour of effort.  I know people would quickly exclaim that if you are only earning that much ISK, that you “are not doing it right”.  However after playing this game for many years, the income people claim is possible rarely ever matches the reality.  Of course you can earn more ISK if you have 80M SP in PVE and a 20 Bil mission ship – and you would hope so.  But the average player can’t.  Yes you can earn 50M an hour mining in Empire – but when you divide that income across your max boosted Orca and fleet of Hulks, it is less than 20M per active account.  You can certainly zerg certain missions, or really profit from supplying certain niche items, but the average player doesn’t.  So that 20 odd Mil an hour equates to 10 hours to buy and fit a HAC, or 20 hours to do the same for a  T3 cruiser, or 60 hours to undock in a fitted carrier.  Should it take even longer?  I don’t think so.

 

. Not enough Hi Sec Pilots are making the move to Low and Null Sec

My first thought when I hear this is why do you want people to move out of Hi Sec?  The most common reason seems to be because they think that is the way the game should be played, or they have the hope that a higher population outside of Hi Sec equates to more PVP.  The reality is there is often no compelling reason to make the move.  Low and Null Sec simply do not cater for all EVE play styles.

 

What needs to be done?

In my view nothing in particular needs to be done to Hi Sec.  It is a dynamic, vibrant, well-populated area which keeps large numbers of people happily in the game.  Sure it can be improved – but I don’t think there is anything critically wrong with it.

It often seems to me that “solutions” for Hi Sec lean towards nerfing it, and forcing players to change their play style.  Not only do I think that approach is doomed to fail, I think it runs the very real risk of damaging EVE.

Instead I lean towards options which increase the diversity and freedom within the game.  Hi Sec is relatively healthy.  If you want people to move out of it, give them compelling options and play styles which suit them – all carrot, no stick.

Part 2 later

Blog Banter 30: “The Melting Pot”

“With the Winter expansion being named ‘Crucible’, it certainly is a melting pot of refinements and tweaks aimed at making the EVE experience smoother and more wholesome. If the developers suddenly found themselves some spare resources and approached you for an additional feature to include before release, what single concept would you pitch them and how would you implement it?

For bonus points, the one thing lacking from this “patchwork” of iterations is a cohesive storyline to package “The Crucible” together. How could this expansion be marketed to potential new customers?”

My pet area of interest revolves around ways of encouraging solo and small groups of players out into Low and Null Sec.  But instead of regurgitating one of these, I think I will throw up something unrelated.

I would like to see a new ORE (or Pirate Faction) Decloaker ship.

It should be around the size of an Industrial, with similar hits and base speed, but without the carrying capacity.  It’s one trick however is that it can generate an electromagnetic pulse that disrupts the cloak on nearby ships.

There would be two modes it operates in.  The first is a full grid pulse, where the ship has to be stationary; the module then has a short spool up time, and then a subsequent cool down.  The second would be a constant radius effect, with an optimal range, and a subsequent fall off which reduces the chance of it being effective.

The most obvious fault with this idea is that it would simply be used to make gate camps impossible to get through.  To offset that, the effect would only work on ships that were not accelerating to, or moving at speeds greater than 100m/s while cloaked.

In short – ships designed to move while cloaked, and being actively piloted, will still escape the effect of this de-cloaking ship.

Why?  This would make it dangerous to AFK cloak off any celestial object, and gives attackers and defenders the chance to find such pilots.  It also provides extra tactical awareness for the fleet commanders on grid.  While the cloaking ships can escape the effect of this ship, they have to be constantly moving.  That means they are either piloted, or will soon float off grid. It adds a further dynamic in how fleets can be operated.  A small, fast roaming gang will have to both wait for it to catch up, and provide protection so that it manages to stay on grid long enough to be useful.

To really throw the cat in amongst the pigeons, so to speak, allow it to be used in Empire without aggression.  That probably goes too far, but the possibilities amuse.

A subsequent T2 version might have a much greater range – I’m thinking 1AU or more for its pulse.

So – useful for both attackers and defenders, provides an extra dynamic to fleet composition, and adds a level of danger to AFK cloaking.

…

I’m afraid I won’t be getting an extra point – I think the crucible name is very apt, a melting pot of so many updates and mini features that it would take an age to explore and full utilise every single one of them.  The sandpit just got bigger.

A list of participants (that will be updated by the owner as time permits) can be found here:  

http://freebooted.blogspot.com/2011/11/blog-banter-30-melting-pot.html

More teasers

There was another Dev Blog, this time on changes to shadows in EVE.

http://www.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&nbid=3028

Mildly interesting I guess.  Every so often you catch a jagged or illogical shadow being cast across your ship, so reducing those might help a little with immersion.

The second of the insider videos is already out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J42F4WkeFQ4&hd=1

This is another useful teaser, which helps build the excitement around the coming winter expansion.  Amongst the new things we are expecting, the art department is also working on updating, improving, or even re-adding objects and effects to the game.  There really do seem to be a flood of changes coming.

They also referenced a V3 project, which is updating all ships and objects in the game to allow easier skinning – to change colours, add logos etc to assets.  I had kind of thought this was a bit of a pipe dream, but it seems they are making efforts towards allowing that.  I am not entirely sure about it to be honest.  EVE generally looks visually attractive – have it awash with pink and rainbow ship hulls undocking from Jita kind of detracts from the immersion.  I hope they limit what players can do.

The hulls of the 4 new Battlecruisers are based on these competition entries:

http://polarlex.deviantart.com/art/Mentor-191486761

http://dlamont.deviantart.com/art/Ascog-Primary-Arrangement-182202423

http://lobaud.deviantart.com/art/ORE-Seraphim-182514908

http://dreamwa1ker.deviantart.com/gallery/#/d30g6np

I do think the Caldari hull is very apt – although I don’t like it from all angles.  They all look like they would fit into the game, and I look forward to owning all.

(I must remember to be more careful logging in my 0.0 toons.  As a matter of habit, I tend to log off in space.  This means you are less likely to be trapped in station.  The side effect of that is when you log in, you need to either immediately cloak up or make to a safe POS etc.  I keep getting distracted just as I click on the avatar, walking away, and coming back to see my Toon floating (thankfully unmolested) in space.  One day I wont’ be so lucky.)

Player owned Custom Offices!

Another day, another Dev Blog from CCP:

http://www.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&nbid=2899

My immediate thought – got a few concerns, but the underlying idea is excellent.  It adds to the industry within the game, and provides new dynamics.  I won’t repeat the contents of the blog, aside to say that Customs Offices will be removed from Low and Null Sec, and will need to be replaced by Player owned Offices.  Hi Sec Custom Offices will remain, but will be nurfed a bit by the doubling of the tax.

You can view the feedback thread here – which for the first 20 plus pages had a lot of clarifications from CCP Omen:

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=22964

A summary of those responses:

. Customs Office Gantry HP:

Shield: 10,000,000
Armor: 500,000
Structure: 300,000

. Customs Office HP:

Shield: 10,000,000
Armor: 2,500,000
Structure: 2,000,000

. The shield regen is extremely slow!

. The Customs Office is still operational while in reinforcement, so unless the aggressor sticks around for the entire time you’ll just rep the office back up when they are gone. If this becomes a big problem, CCP have solutions to mitigate it.

. Currently no defenses will be able to be anchored on them

. They acknowledge the fear that all customs offices will be griefed – they will monitor that.

. The CSM helped in significantly lowering the costs from what they had initially planned.  (CCP really doesn’t seem to get what the average player thinks is an acceptable price for things in game!)

. There is no current upkeep cost.  They are very relevant in their future plans, so increased capability and cost will probably be added in future

. The tax is quite complex – but basically CCP sets a default value on every PI item that can go through a customs office

. The Customs Office can be anchored a certain distance from a planet.  It doesn’t perform any more checks than that.   So it might be possible to have it close to an Outpost

. Customs Offices are always visible on the Overview – no matter who owns them

. When destroyed, the stuff that you have in the CO’s will be teleported to a station hangar. He forgot the exact details

. And giving the reason for that – CCP don’t want to incentivise taking Customs Offices down, other than if you want the spot or want to refuse the current owner access.  They want it to be a political feature more than a mechanical one.   They will monitor the kill ratio of the offices themselves to see if they have to make changes.

. You will not be able to name them

. CCP are operating under the assumption that most PCO owners will allow “neutral” access at least for the extra ISK.  (That is a very, very big assumption.  I expect that aside some low sec areas, the only access you will have to CO infrastructure is if you are in the local alliance etc.)  If that assumption turns out to be wrong, they might intervene with a future update.  They hope however people will set them up and allow others to use them to get income from the taxes.

. If there turns out to be too much of an upset to PI price and supply, they will take action.  (I got the impression they do expect price increases though)

. It’s ready to go now, but is waiting on adjustments from feedback.  No indication of when it will go in though.

. High Sec apparently produces 50% of all current PI goods!

. A player suggested the current costs would be 30mil for the first stage module, and another 30M in parts to add the CO.  The BPC cost 6k LP and 20mil from CONCORD LP store (incursion) or 3k LP and 10mil from factional warfare LP.  He  guessed the first mods would be around 200Mil, drop to around 100M after a month, and probably won’t see bottom dollar (~75M) for at least 3-6 months.  No one argued too much on those figures.

. There was a bit of attitude in one CCP response which irritated me – indicating it is cheap for a solo person to create their own Corp to allow them to Anchor these (true), but the advice is for the “little” guy to just use the CONCORD customs Offices in High-Sec.  (Grumble)

. They will have to put in a method to transfer the ownership of a CO

There were a couple great little player suggestions that bare comment – in particular that there should be some way to allow ninja-PI to continue.  The suggestion was the idea of a Smugglers office. (I like this – a much cheaper but easily destroyable structure.)

Another player was curious as to how much the current ‘small operators’ contribute to the supply of PI materials, who then might give up on them with these changes.  (I assume if 50% of supply comes from high sec, CCP are not so concerned about the supply all disappearing)

Another player was afraid the bigger corporations and alliances that already have much power will have another way for having more income and gaining more power.  (This is a concern I also have.)

Personally – I think PI has encouraged more empire dwellers into Low sec.  I don’t think the removal of CO’s from low sec is a good idea.  They should be left.  I also noticed no one seems to be talking about the obvious implications that this is a two stage setup – a gantry and a office module.  What else will you be able to add to the gantry going forward!

Last of all, props to the DEV for answering so many questions, and giving a clearer indication of what is happening.  So it has faults, is too expensive for the smaller operator, and is likely to be griefed more than CCP expect.  BUT.. the approach is a good one.  I like it a lot.

Crowdsourcing results are in

The results are in from the CSM crowdsourcing -

http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/July_2011_Prioritization_Crowdsourcing#Notes_on_Results

I doubt very much it reflects the desires of the majority of EVE players.  Instead it is more a reflection on the type of people who bother to provide feedback.  Lots of the stuff in the top 10 related to empire wars and the aggression and docking games people play, which obviously annoy.  That wasn’t a surprise.

I did not however expect to see “more control wanted over medals” at number 10.  Reading further, that turned out to be a campaign from EVE University which had a block of over 500 votes put towards 7 items, including the medal option.  That was enough to influence the overall results.

I liked some of Ripard Teg’s remarks in his EVE News article here:

http://www.evenews24.com/2011/08/01/jesters-trek-mob-rule/

In amongst the top items were plenty of calls for Corp and Alliance tool updates, which in reality very few EVE players actually end up using.  I assume there were more than just the EVE University Alliance voting as a block.  Still, a number of my preferences were up near the top, and for the most part most of the changes would be a good thing for the game.

The new Corp has had a War Dec within the first week of me joining.  There were quite a few new recruits, so while the intel suggests another source of this nuisance, there must be a little underlying suspicion that one of us could be a spy.  I’m not fussed by the War Dec as it makes the game a little more interesting.

I was using the contacts tool to watchlist members of the offending corporation when I stopped to look at the labels options.

 

Rather useful.  I had noticed people requesting folders for contacts, but the labels work even better than that, since you can put contacts under multiple labels, and clicking on each label in effect acts as a folder.

I was distracted a bit last week, so my PI profits were only 24M.  I expect another lower return this week too.

The week that was

I made 32M in PI for the last week, which was pleasing.  I think I will still be short on Chiral Structures, so once the current stockpile clears I expect the weekly profits to be a bit lower.

Operation Noah’s Ark continues.  This (just named) goal is basically the setting up of pairs of cheap PVP ships to use and lose.  So far I have a pair of armor tanked autocannon Hurricanes, the two Anti Frig Celestis, and now a pair of armor tanked autocannon Thrashers.  I’m having fun reviewing large numbers of fitting options (collected over time, from killboards, or rated well on Battleclinic), and testing them out on my poor old Alt.  I have several possibilities on the go to ensure I actually have a use for them.

I’m having quite a bizarre issue with one of my alt accounts.  It keeps disconnecting, particularly if AFK or in a very busy system.  As I’ve mentioned, I have two client installs on my main PC.  I use one for my main Account (configured to run at higher resolution and quality settings), and the second is shared by my two Alt accounts.  The weird thing is the issue only happens with one of the alt accounts and not the other.

There is an odd behaviour that suggests something is not quite right.  All my characters have each other in their watch lists.  When someone on your watch list is online, there is a green dot on their avatar image in local and in the contacts list.  When they log off, this green dot turns red, and a short time later they usually disappear from local.  In my case, the Alt user on that particular account can often show up with a red dot as if they are offline, even though they stay in local and I am busy using them.  (I’ll try to remember to grab a screen capture next time I see it.)  The only thing that comes to mind is that the other two accounts have had their cache cleared recently.  I might have to do that for this account too.

Another little thing I’ve noticed is the return of the ship re-name bug.  This is where you rename a ship, undock or move it into a corporate hanger, and have its name change back to the original one.  I hadn’t noticed it happening for a while, but it occurred twice for me today.

The CSM is again asking for player input into ordering the wish list they take to CCP.  The blog can be found here:

http://www.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&bid=942

The Forum thread here:

http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1555249

And the list (on the EVE wiki) is here.

http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/July_2011_Prioritization_Crowdsourcing

It was a bit of a hard slog to get through them all, but I did so and voted.  It was a touch depressing noticing how many of the suggestions have been raised with CCP for years now.  I picked a couple small but useful impact items, like AFK / Busy statuses and switching characters without having to re-log.  I actually liked the concept of allowing covert cyno’s in empire space, there were some very interesting ideas about changes for drones, upgraded POS, and several versions of managing settings differently.

Certificate Planner

I watched the EVE related Clear Skies 3 movie the other day.  Given this is basically from a fan who is not from within the media / film industry; it really is an impressive effort.

http://www.clearskiesthemovie.com/

I’ve been using the in-game Certificate Planner to check what skills I might be missing on Alt 2.  Normally I only open it to clear the messages you get when you log in (to claim all certificates) – so it was interesting to use it for purpose.

I like the fact you can add skills directly to your training queue, and it gives you one measure of progress for your characters.  It fails to be really useful however as you can’t (in game) create a list of skills you want to train beyond what starts within the 24 hour training queue.  As such it is easy to forget what you wanted to do next, or to get sidetracked.  I’m not talking about a longer queue time – I think 24 hours is reasonable and forces people to log in.  I’m just talking about a list you can add to, sort, move around etc within the game client, and right click on to add to the training queue when there is room.  (So somewhat like the excellent EVEMon application.)  I also don’t fully agree on some of the skill ranks it recommends, especially at the lower levels.

I made a handful of minor adjustments to my PI installations over the weekend.  Managing them once a week is working out well.  I still haven’t sold anything I have generated, but I will look to do that now as I have decided against re-anchoring the Empire POS any time soon.

Game Change Ideas 001 – Making Local less Reliable

One of the ideas bantered around since I started EVE has been the removal of Local.  I hated the idea as basically it is designed to make it easier for people to Gank others.  If I want to avoid PVP, I shouldn’t have to spam the scan button every 5 seconds I am out of Empire.

I have and will regularly comment here that if you want more small scale player interaction in Null Sec, then you need to encourage a large population of solo and small groups to live there.  Losing Local will not do that.

I have been thinking of an alternative to this – making Local less reliable in 0.0, and boosting the value and concept of Black Ops and Wormhole travel.

The idea is that the Local list is maintained by the Infrastructure within the Null Sec system – and is only updated when the Infrastructure knows you are there.  So when you:

. Are docked, dock or undock at a Station
. You enter or leave a system via a gate
. You enter or leave a system via a normal Cyno
. You spend any time uncloaked within – let’s say 1 AU of a Gate, Station or Customs office
. You speak in local
. You log in or out

This leaves two important times when you are not automatically added to the Local list:

. When you enter a system via a Wormhole
. When you enter a system via a Covert Cyno

To my mind it makes logical sense, and adds another interesting dynamic to the game.  You can no longer trust local.

To expand on this, you could look at new ship modules, ship class, or System Infrastructure updates:

. A Ship module (should reduce the utility of the ship, so maybe requires the use of a high slot) that gives you a chance to scramble or hack or confuse the System Infrastructure into not registering when you Jump through a gate.  That means you have a chance not to be flagged in Local when moving around via Gates.  The base chance might be 5 to 15%, based on the module quality, with an extra 4% chance per rank in a relating skill.  (So a T2 module with rank V would give you a 35% chance of not being registered each time you jump into Local.)

. A new ship class designed to move through gates without being registered – with a Ship bonus of (example) 4% per rank to this chance.  (So at Rank V in both the ship and module skill, with a T2 module, you might have a 55% chance of jumping into a system without being registered in Local.  Obviously the balance of that would need to be played around with.

. Alliances can spend to upgrade the Gates in a system to make it more difficult for this Stealth jumping to work, and separately to increase the range it works to register uncloaked pilots.

There are some obvious questions:

. Do you register when you leave a system via a Cyno Jump Bridge or Wormhole?  By the logic used to come up with this idea, the answer would be no.  That might leave you flagged in Local even though you have gone, until you are picked up by the infrastructure in some other system / log off etc.  I don’t mind that concept.

. Do Alliance Jump bridges also automatically register people’s coming and goings?  For ease of implementation I would say yes.

. Is there a chance this adds too much complexity or a source of possible lag?

. Will this be loved by Macro/Bot Hunters?

While this does make life a little more difficult in 0.0, it increases the career path options for those who like to move around in small groups, and in recons and black ops.  It can be used by both attackers and defenders to mask their numbers and presence, and while I suspect might be a little complicated to implement, seems to add to the sandpit dynamic of the game and have a “cool” factor about it.