I have a dozen half written blog posts and lots of half neglected projects in Game – but Real Life has been keeping me too busy lately. I am pleased I took the time to read pages 54 to 70 of the CSM minutes tonight though.
First a couple small notes on Data cores.
Two step asked about the future of RP and datacores. Soundwave indicated that he would like to remove research agents but there needed to be a way for Industrialists to get datacores through non-conflict gameplay, and they needed to figure out what to do with the skills.. he was unsure of how many accounts that would affect
I collected over 1,200 datacores on my main the other week, which were barely worth 100M on the market. The thought of losing that last bit of passive income is now less aggrieving. Having said that – the grind required was frankly the worst thing I have had to do in EVE – and having that effort thrown out irks me a bit. I also wonder at just how well faction warfare will continue to meet the market – but so far, they are doing a great job of it.
SoniClover mentioned there are a vocal minority of players who .. are angry they now get a “wanted” label on them and asked the CSM if this is an issue. .. Soundwave clarified that he doesn’t mind people being bothered by it, because no EVE player has the right to be shut off from the rest of the world. Ripley chimed in that .. so far the number of people that have petitioned that the bounty system is harassment has been 40. The general feeling from CCP is that if bounties are not causing people to leave the game then they aren’t likely to put resources on to a problem that doesn’t exist
I remarked before that I think the common practice of putting a 100K bounty on anyone who happens to chat in local is lame. I’d like bounties to be set at a minimum of 1M or the like. You might also want to change the protrait overlay to read bounty instead of wanted. Those two things might placate most people.
SoniClover .. said out that suicide gankers are already feeling pressure with the new <killright> changes .. went on to affirm that suicide ganking is needed to make sure highsec is not completely safe. Solomon relayed that prior to Retribution, only 1% of kill rights were ever used, and that if Retribution got that number to 5-10% he’d consider that successful.
What an interesting statistic. If only 1% of people who got a kill right were able to use them, that would suggest a very high percentage were weak targets that were incapable – or felt incapable, of seeking revenge. It would seem gankers and griefers were very risk averse in their targetting, almost always going for those who couldn’t retaliate.
Kelduum raised the issue of being able to place bounties anonymously at additional cost.
Interestingly I would drop bounties on other players if I could do it anonymously – but I am risk averse like that. I don’t agree with the suggestion however as I feel it basically removes the chance for the target to retaliate.
Solomon said CCP would have to keep an eye out for this in the future so that a situation doesn’t develop where the vast majority of the game has a small bounty on them and the feature loses its impact.
Overall there was a very common theme of wanting more control over who can claim bounties and kill rights, including by standings, or removing shuttles / rookie ships etc.
Masterplan then announced plans to decouple Security Status from CONCORD standing
That seems like a real gem of information, as it opens the possibility up for more interaction with Concord going forward.
Masterplan began to describe “Tags4Secs”, which would possibly be part of a May release. This feature would allow players to hunt rats in low-sec belts and exchange the looted tags for a security status gain.
This was generally well received – particularly as it encouraged people rat in low sec and opened up a new mini profession. CCP warned they needed to balance it so that it didn’t just allow the removal of all consequences of illegal behaviour. I think it is a good idea.
Two step inquired as to whether it would be possible to add wormhole polarity timers to the small circle timers that were added as part of the Crimewatch UI.
Another good suggestion.
Next was an interesting conversation on War Decs. Solomon noted that in 70 to 80% of War Dec’s between Corporations that there were no losses recorded. He asked if the mechanism was a failure were “The strong prey on the weak, but the weak aren’t responding, and nobody’s getting particularly fun or nourishing gameplay out of this”
As you can imagine there are people jumping up and down over this – crying that the game will be ruined if you make safe zones for players. First – that is not on the cards:
SoniClover: And it seems that some are clamoring a lot for the game system to protect them. And we’re trying to minimize that as much as possible. EVE is never going to give you complete game system security. And we’re never going to go that route
So I hope people can get over their rush of panicky short sightedness and really look at this question for what it is. What sort of options might there be which increases the amount of PVP generated by War Decs? Don’t just cry that risk adverse will never undock anyway.
Alek pointed out that the conversation should be about giving players more reasons to undock to begin with.
Hans did raise an interesting related comment
Hans: One of the values of high-sec warfare is that it’s one of the few places where you can engage in PvP and control the size of an engagement to a certain degree
You can’t with neutral alts, but I get what he is talking about.
Last of all a summary of some of Soundwave’s ideas:
* Turning High-sec Faction Navy responsibilities over to the players.
* Providing paths for players to progress from High-sec to Low-sec.
* Methods where faction success lead to High-sec effects.
* Connecting features together instead of making them standalone islands
. .. like to provide opportunities for action; he gave the example of .. <give> FW members the ability to scan for contraband and trigger flags if they were discovered. He would like to see 4 or 5 such activities available to FW players. He later noted that this kind of player enforcement activity didn’t have to be FW-only.
So overall I found a lot of interest.