I logged into EVE last night to investigate the closest options to my home for Gallente and Minmatar missions. That soon got me looking at what ships I should be using at my L4 Mission Bases. I originally started out using Ravens, then the Navy Issue Raven, then Nighthawk, and now Tengu. I’ve also been playing with the Rattlesnake at one of my bases.
I’ve recently had fun with my Beam Retribution, so I thought I would check if there was a Beam Legion fit I liked, but they (still) come up short on the Tengu. I then checked out other fittings for the Abaddon, Paladin, and some of the Navy Issue variations, finding nothing that quite stacked up. In the end I made no decisions and achieved nothing concrete for my evening in EVE.
The minutes from the May CSM summit have been released. (Note this was from before the Incarna Dramas). It can be a bit of a slog, but they are worth reading:
Various things which stood out for me (some have been raised before):
. Coming updates will be less on content, more on iterations of current features. New content will generally relate to current features. (This is kind of disappointing, but does match what many players are demanding.)
. The main theme of this winter expansion would be null-sec sovereignty related features, super-carriers, smuggling contraband and establishments in station.
. The contraband and booster area was interesting – the idea is changing the enforcement of their transport from NPC customs to the players, and allowing the sale of such items directly between players in establishments. I wouldn’t mind that being introduced.
. Fairly commonly (as during past summits, and on the rarely updated Q&A thread) there were references to not having the resources to address many of the more complex requests. It is good that their planning and development methodology can highlight these sorts of things, but I am getting a little tired of the excuse to be honest. They risk having worthwhile changes never get off the back burner. They need to be braver with some of these.
. CCP doesn’t seem to like the idea of Treaties – in case it makes it harder for smaller entities to move into 0.0. I am not sure I like that argument, but I can see treaties being useful for the large alliances that rent out their space, which I am not sure I want supported or made easier.
. One of the bottlenecks in development is actually the art team, so anything that requires visual changes is going to the back of the queue. POS work is one of these affected areas.
. The notion of bringing more POS modules outside of the shields was raised to allow smaller gangs to further harass established empires.
. Wreckable stations was raised again by the CSM.
. Titans are thought of as being ok. Focus is meant to be on the Supercarriers – with a fighter or bomber only drone bay being a suggested change.
. The Cyno effect was politely skirted around by CCP with a vague “yea we’ll work on that, too” statement.
. Local has to be updated because of changes to EVE’s infrastructure – however it would be replaced by a new (not yet designed) intelligence gathering tool. It will not simply be turned off or put into delayed mode such as in wormholes. CCP does not want people to be left feeling alone in space.
. Unified Service Layer (USL) is being constructed upon the API, will would be capable of allowing end users to buy items from the Eve market without logging in, and the like. Not sure on that one.
. Some of the nice to have one day / abstract concepts raised were new asteroid fields that encircle planets, a complete revamp of the map to be more of a planning tool, comets (and comet mining), utilizing the sun as an energy source and alliance assets such as death stars
. EVE players will not be able to get out of their pods and turn on a console to play DUST – they will need to create new DUST characters.
Since this is getting a little long, I’ll post part two tomorrow.