Revision as of 14:27, 21 November 2010

This page contains the transcript of the CSM Roundtable that was held on November 21st, 19:00. The original announcement can be found here.

CSM members in attendance

Dierdra Vaal Elvenlord (Alt) Korvin Meissa Anunthiel Mynxee Sokratesz TeaDaze Trebor Daehdoow Vuk Lau

Questions

Hybrid guns

Okay, fine, I'll break the ice with a potentially misinformed question; Why isn't Blaster or Hybrid Balance on the 200-odd list of priorities?

[19:05:14] Dierdra Vaal > The list is created by issues CSM members bring up over the years and succesfull get a majority vote. If there are no blaster or hybrid issues that have passed it is because they were either not brought up, or did not get a majority vote.... [19:05:59] Dierdra Vaal > I do know that shortly after quantum rise (and the speed nerf), a few blaster issues were voted down because CSM members wanted to be sure it wasn't just the new, lower speed that was confusing people... [19:06:16] Dierdra Vaal > however, I do recall blasters and hybrids being mentioned by Korvin during our meetings in iceland. end

[19:06:51] Trebor Daehdoow > I just extracted the issues from the current in-process list. We haven't passed a blaster/hybrid balance proposal AFAIK, so it didn't make it. In other words, what DV said. We do have a planned session on game balance issues requested by players scheduled for December. [/end]

[19:07:41] Korvin > We had a discussion about blasters on CSM4 and 5 during the summits [19:08:00] Korvin > the real problem is - there is no clear answer how to fix them [19:08:20] Korvin > to keep them unique and dont ruin the balance of guns even more [19:08:42] Korvin > i keep an eye of discussions on an Assembly hall for that [19:08:50] Korvin > and brainstorming this issue [19:09:00] Korvin > and ccp is aware of the issue with hybrids [19:09:22] Korvin > so far i defined some points [19:09:36] Korvin > All Hybrids.
1. Tracking is fine, it should be in a line with a projectiles, lasers have a native tracking advantage.
2. Hybrids should use kinetic and termal, in this case termal dmg can be an extra advantage to the close ammo. [19:09:47] Korvin > 3. Cap useage of hybrids can be lowered, since most of a ships have an active tank bonus. [19:09:56] Korvin > Blasters.
1. Should stay the close range and have the most DPS, but limited alpha on a closerange ammo.
2. Should have their ROF between the projectiles and lasers. [19:10:06] Korvin > 3. Alpha can be limited by giving the ammo ROF modifyer.
4. Range can be extended by giving the ammo a faloff modifyer. [19:10:16] Korvin > 5. Faloff and optimal values should be at a close values, to make them usefull for ships both with faloff and optimal bonuses. [19:10:27] Korvin > Railguns.
1. Should have the alpha between the lasers and arty, closer to arty. [19:10:37] Korvin > 2. Can have alpha lower with a close range ammo, and higher with a snipe ammo to have the advantage, their alpha with an iridium-tungsten ammo can be higher than the arty on a same range, to give the advantage to the caldari sniper ships on an average f [19:10:53] Korvin > to the caldari sniper ships on an average fleet range. [19:11:04] Korvin > 3. Should have a 2nd version of a long range t2 ammo for the caldari ships. [19:11:15] Korvin > but the further discussion with ccp and csm needed [19:11:20] Korvin > and planed for december [19:11:23] Korvin > [end]

[19:12:11] Meissa Anunthiel > Also, most of the proposals related to those brought up by other members later on were so grossly misinformed/oversweeping that they got shot down. In the end Korvin brought it in a general balancing session, where it's going to be just fine. And as [19:12:21] Meissa Anunthiel > he said, it's not just a question of "blaster suck". More like a question. Do they, really? Under what circumstances? And are those circumstances not a fair tradeoff for their advantages. That is what balancing is about.

[19:13:05] TeaDaze > There are a few "fix hybrid" proposals floating around and there is one I'm going to submit for the next CSM meeting - however it wasn't raised in time for inclusion in the prioritisation list. [end]

CSM's input on Incarna

What is the CSM's read on how much input they/we will have on Incarna game play given how it's been revealed to be more or less a blank space?

[19:15:32] Meissa Anunthiel > As much as we want to, so far CCP has been receptive to the ideas we've thrown at them, and I'm sure they'll be quizzing us again this december meeting. And given that it's a "blank space", now's the time to contact your favourite councilmembers to [19:15:43] Meissa Anunthiel > give them suggestions you may have... [/end]

[19:17:04] Mynxee > Agree with meissa, and we are already having discussions about Incarna with CCP. [19:17:52] Mynxee > People should chime in, in related threads in assembly hall and other forusm; that info will be gathered and used to help convey the players' preferences to CCP regarding Incarna. end.

[19:18:30] TeaDaze > I don't believe the CSM will have much input into the first interation of incarna due to the people calling the shots on that feature (who subscribe to the "players can't game design" point of view) and the short amount of time before the first release. [19:18:55] TeaDaze > I would love to be proved wrong and will be involved in the discussions in December [end]

[19:19:59] Mynxee > In addition to telling CCP what you DO want, it is equally valuable to be very clear about what you DON'T want related to Incarna. I'm looking for a link right now to share and will post it here soon as I find it. end

[19:21:11] Dierdra Vaal > While we obviously cant make any promises at this point about what will be in Incarna, I can tell you we've been talking with CCP since june about this [19:21:38] Dierdra Vaal > and as a council we're heavily pushing for 'make sure there is lots of fun and meaningful stuff in it' instead of just walking around and going to the hairdresser.

CSM's effect on the game

Are there any examples that the CSM has had a positive effect on the game thus far? If so what are they?

[19:23:10] CCP Xhagen > The War on Lag might be the easiest example to point at at this moment. [19:23:18] CCP Xhagen > Other things that the CSM has influenced so far are the Skill Queue, the one (or is it two?) revisits the Black Ops have had and more. [19:23:26] CCP Xhagen > Then there are the things that are coming out as a part of Incursion. [19:24:56] CCP Xhagen > But perhaps the biggest influence could be said to have happened after the June 2010 summit where the CSM asked us several difficult questions. [19:25:42] CCP Xhagen > So while the CSM might not have had numerous tangible effects so far, that is changing

[19:27:05] Mynxee > Just want to say that the level of communication between CSM and CCP has increased a couple orders of magnitude since the June Summit. When we took office, there were 4 pages of threads on our internal forums. There are now 8, and in those threads... [19:27:27] Mynxee > numerous CCP devs and others have engaged in really productive discussions, brainstorming, idea-gathering, etc. [19:28:06] Mynxee > so while it might not immediately end up as a thing on a list to be checked off as "Done" that communication is shaping the game and attitudes at CCP to benefit the players and the game.

[19:28:36] Korvin > I can add that some changes was also brought by CSM during the brainstorming sessions in CCP HQ. [19:28:45] Korvin > For example the change of insurance and mineral drop in Tyranis was the result of this brainstorming sessin in February. [19:29:25] Korvin > And we sometimes push the bugfixing to be made faster. [19:29:41] Korvin > When they have a big public impact :D

[19:31:04] Meissa Anunthiel > As time goes, we should stop looking at the CSM as "the CSM is responsible for this feature or that one", as while our bringing suggestions to the table in the form of issues is indeed something we do. A lot of what we also do is collaborating with CCP, [19:31:16] Meissa Anunthiel > both on ideas originating from us and ideas originating from them. At the end of the day, it'll be more a case of the CSM having had a hand in nearly everything that comes to the game, in the form of feedback given during development. [/end]

[19:31:47] CCP Xhagen > Also I'd just like to point out that having the CSM available as the 'first to go to' when we have to communicate about volatile in-game matters is invaluable. The moon goo epxloit two (?) years ago being a prominent example.

[19:33:24] Dierdra Vaal > once incarna is released we will make sure all CSM issues on the wiki are updated to reflect whether they're implemented or not [19:33:49] Dierdra Vaal > this should give you a clear overview of all issues that are 'done' - just keep in mind that the CSM does more than just put feature requests to CCP :)

PI feature in Incarna

When is the clickfest-removal fix to PI going to be deployed? Nov, dec, or january/feb/whenever?

[19:34:28] Trebor Daehdoow > ! PI updates are slotted for January with the full Incursion release, IIRC from the devblog. [end]

[19:36:18] CCP Xhagen > I can confirm that PI updates will be included in Incursion. I can't comment on the amount of clicks however... haven't counted them yet :P

CCP's comments on CSM issues

Why doesn't ccp comment on items passed by CSM vote

[19:37:07] Dierdra Vaal > they do, but not in public [19:37:12] Dierdra Vaal > we send the list of issues to CCP [19:37:20] Dierdra Vaal > who then send it back to us with comments/feedback [19:37:32] Dierdra Vaal > "yes we can do this/no we cannot do this for reason X", etc

[19:37:44] ElvenLord > what DV said and to add its a part of normal development process [19:38:02] ElvenLord > all issues CSM gives are discussed

[19:38:38] CCP Xhagen > This question is actually an excellent chance to detail the change that the CSM has gone through [19:38:54] CCP Xhagen > in the beginning the CSM and CCP meetings were almost solely about the CSM voted issues [19:39:31] CCP Xhagen > that has now changed to where the CSM is more involved in high-level stuff while having the option to bring up the issues they would like to discuss further [19:39:46] CCP Xhagen > the rest of the issues have been dealt with via email during this year.

CSM's role in fixing exploits

Does CSM does anything in order to help CCP locate and fix exploits?

[19:42:06] Korvin > yes [end]

[19:42:13] ElvenLord > YES

[19:42:46] Dierdra Vaal > to expand, we try to give CCP as much information as we can if exploits catch our eyes [19:43:36] Dierdra Vaal > and we may also be consulted or informed by CCP if they uncovered a particulary nasty exploit. For example, with the moongoo exploit the CSM (CSM..4 I think) got a full report about why it happened and how it was dealt with.

[19:44:37] Mynxee > one of the most frequent things we do is press CCP to communicate with players in the most timely fashion possible--whether that is about exploits or releases or anything else. I think xhagen will confirm that we are extremely pesty in that regard! but [19:44:50] Mynxee > it is working ... as you have seen in these last few months! end.

[19:46:21] CCP Xhagen > I can only echo what they have been writing. Just wanted to state that

CSM and ~goodfights~

Does the csm feel that it would be a worthy goal to favor game mechanics which would lower the amount of time in eve it takes to find good fight?

[19:48:18] Dierdra Vaal > I think there isnt a single person on this CSM (or past CSMs) who hasnt felt that PVP, especially ~goodfights~ should be more easily found. So I think I can answer that with a resounding yes. I even think CCP feels the same way. end

[19:48:42] Meissa Anunthiel > Sure, it's a worthy goal, the problem is the definition of a good fight. For many it's 2vs2, for others its 15vs15, for yet others it's 500vs500. then obviously there's those who prefer the 50vs12, etc. It's a very difficult question, and I think there [19:49:06] Meissa Anunthiel > are already ways to find "good fights" as it is. Look at the map, spot activity, move there. [/end]

[19:49:58] Korvin > First of all we need to define "good fight" [19:50:10] Korvin > there is a lot of pvp styles [19:50:35] Korvin > some playing it in a "counter strike" style [19:50:44] Korvin > when frags are counted [19:50:59] Korvin > some plays it in a "starcraft style" in 0.0 [19:51:11] Korvin > unleash their zergs to conquer the land [19:51:20] Korvin > some plays "hitman" style [19:51:31] Korvin > making covert ops gangs [19:51:46] Korvin > watching the enemy for ages to make a good hit and run [19:52:09] Korvin > we should make all this styles survive in eve [19:52:34] Korvin > so in this case there should be a balance [19:52:45] Korvin > like in a ships and guns balance

[19:53:02] Mynxee > "good fights" are almost as difficult to define as "blobs" ... we know them when we have/see/read about them, but they are usually contextually "good" rather than good based on some predefined definition. That makes it hard to DESIGN for 'good' fights. [19:53:31] Mynxee > ideally gameplay is designed to encourage PVP period. Playstyles will determine what kind a given player will pursue.

[19:54:23] TeaDaze > I agree that there should be areas that promote rapid PVP but not to the point of dumbing it down. FW had some good ideas, such as ship size limits in plexes and the perma war decs, but like so many things it needs a lot of iteration. [19:55:04] TeaDaze > I don't like the "simulator" idea that some people have suggested because the cost of PVP is the potential loss of your ship. [19:56:19] TeaDaze > FW should have more reason to take systems with various mechanics to make ownership of the systems mean something and make it harder the more systems you take to avoid a single sided rush. Otherwise open to suggestions [end]

Cyno effect and the CSM

Has there been any moovment or news from CCP at all about a change to the jump-drive animation, which as once an awesome swirly vortex and is now a fairley uninspiring droplet effect?

[19:57:32] Dierdra Vaal > nope :( and we have been asking for it since it was removed

[19:58:23] CCP Xhagen > I must dissapoint. I have no information about if or when the effects will be changed.

[19:59:30] TeaDaze > This along with roflkits and other subjects have been brought up during every summit so far. The answer is always that teh current effects are placeholders and they will get fixed at some point [end]

CSM's plans for the 0.0 and balance discussions with CCP

What are some of the issues the CSM plans to raise in the post Dominion 0.0 and Game Balance areas?

[20:00:56] Trebor Daehdoow > I personally would like to see a sov redesign that paid special attention to spreading out the fights, which would help fight lag. [20:01:01] Trebor Daehdoow > Less structure bashing, more strategy, tactics and maneuver. [20:01:07] Trebor Daehdoow > This is certainly an issue that will be discussed in December, it is a major priority. [end]

[20:02:05] Sokratesz > me and meissa are working on several things sov-related but this is all still very preliminary and under heavy discussion. [end]

[20:03:38] Dierdra Vaal > I know that several csm members like Vuk, Sok and Meissa are planning to discuss 0.0, capital ships and sovreignty at length. The CSM feels the sov system as introduced in dominion needs iterating on and significant improvements. [20:03:59] Dierdra Vaal > Game balance I'm not sure what is planned atm, though I wouldnt be surprised if super carriers get a mention.

[20:04:08] Meissa Anunthiel > Obviously others have had ideas about how to make 0.0 and sov warfare more enjoyable, starting with people at CCP themselves, but we'd definitely would like to bring this subject to the table again, because we feel it could be improved [/end]

[20:04:51] Dierdra Vaal > to add: more important than us giving CCP some ideas is us convincing CCP to spend more dev time on it. That is really the big thing. [20:05:26] Dierdra Vaal > once the top-dog devs decide "yes we should spend more time on 0.0" things should develop quite quickly [20:05:51] Dierdra Vaal > but as there are many features asking for dev time, we're aiming to convince CCP that it is worthwhile spending some dev time on 0.0. end

CSM and their opinion on the upcoming expansion

What CSM thinks about upcoming expansion, will it allow for small corps to participate? Or will it be instantly overrun by huge alliances? Will the new content be any more interesting than missioning / sleeper hunting?

[20:08:23] ElvenLord > there is room for everyone in this expansion. There is a chance big alliances will monopolize this at start, but as always (like FW before this) they will get bored and go back to their own thing :P [20:08:40] ElvenLord > So this expansion is for all of eve [20:09:35] ElvenLord > oh and yes content is dynamic, so to say, so it wont be boring as farming

[20:09:51] Dierdra Vaal > from what I've read/seen, the new AI should be more challenging. however we've also seen that eve players can adapt to anything so we'll see if they come up with cookie-cutter I-win strategies. [20:10:56] Dierdra Vaal > I do think 0.0 alliances may initially go for the supercarrier - but reactions I've read about it's stats are... mixed and not everyone seems to like it. So like elvenlord I expect 0.0 alliances not overwhelm everyone else forever. end

[20:11:03] TeaDaze > I believe that this expansion is trying to be all things to all areas of eve and fails at all of them in the process. The AI will be good and some of the other technologies are good - but overall I disagree with the enforced "public quest" grouping [20:11:36] TeaDaze > It is a pretty crappy lowsec buff that will cause bigger alliances (the only ones able to make use of the BPC) to overrup the place at first [20:12:34] TeaDaze > I think that the reaction to PI is the reason that CCP are using a stick not a carrot approach to get player participation. [end]

Improving ship aesthetics

Are there any plans (in the long term or otherwise) from CCP to improve ship aesthetics? The ability for players to change the color scheme of their ships, more intuative/functional turret placement on the ship models, animated missile lanchers, etc?...

[20:14:09] Dierdra Vaal > in fairness, I dont think we as a CSM can comment on this - we dont know

[20:14:37] Trebor Daehdoow > Personalized ships is one area where many of us thought microtransactions might be acceptable. But there may be technical issues with it (ie: everyone else on grid needs to know about your custom paintjob) [end]

[20:16:29] TeaDaze > I think if it no longer becomes a "lag" issue that CCP will focus on looking into doing it via microtransactions which is a slap in the face to all the people who have asked for ship painting or alliance logos over the years. [end]

CSM, CCP and excellence

How much of a factor was the CSM and the CCP: Commit to Excellence threadnaught on you decision to include several of the community requested improvements that are coming in Incursion?

[20:17:23] CCP Xhagen > the simple answer is: it was a large factor [20:18:26] CCP Xhagen > the more complicated answer is: coupled with the June summit meeting minutes it became clear that CCP and the player community were not in sync [20:20:12] CCP Xhagen > It has been pretty amazing to be a part of having a whole company re-examine our relationship with our customers. This is what the CSM was created to do and I make sure they get the chance to continue doing it

CSM and test servers

has the csm got access to more test servers like was brought up in the summit notes.

[20:21:30] Dierdra Vaal > no we dont, there is 1 more test server called multiplicity but everyone has access to that [20:21:37] Dierdra Vaal > we do not have more access than any other player end

CSM mailing list

Is there any ingame mailing list to follow up on CSM's actions and newest posts with info on progresses? if not, ever thought on planning one?

[20:24:21] Trebor Daehdoow > We have a low-volume announce list, CSM-NEWS, that we use once or twice a month for major announcements (like this round-table). Other than that, reading Jita Park and Assembly Hall is your best bet. Oh, and my blog of course... grin [end]