CSM 13 Dev Blog Response

CSM 13 2018-09-17

[Editor’s Note: CCP have today released a devblog on the upcoming balance pass in the October patch. What follows is a response to this blog from the members of CSM13. This has been published as-is.]

The first summit of CSM 13 was a wild ride. What started out for us as a very grim and sober march of duty turned into a surprising blast of euphoria and hope. Thanks to arriving early, the CSM went into the summit very much aligned and in sync. We took the time to consolidate our positions into four major talking points we unanimously supported. Those points should be clear when the meeting minutes are released, but suffice it to say that one of these four points is addressed below.

To be clear – this isn’t to say that we did not discuss or bring up other issues, as each member had a number of specific issues he wanted to bring to the table and all did. However, our four overarching points represented the core of the CSM platform going into the summit.

While there were significant concerns among some parts of the player-base that the make up of this CSM was too null-sec heavy, half of our agreed platform had nothing to do with null-sec, and some of the issues represented were also brought up at the last summit. Consistency in our message and the consensus generated from that message was extremely helpful this go around, and we hope that becomes a pattern for future CSMs.

As noted in the recent devblog, the CSM was successful in collaborating with CCP to address a number of balance changes that were discussed at the summit. The CSM is united and unanimous in our support of these changes. These changes represent compromises, in-game testing of the efficacy of balance fixes, and the kind of incremental changes that should not significantly rock the boat. For example, in the case of nullification, the focus on combat interceptors will give us the chance to test and gather data on what we view as a positive change while not completely ending the existing meta.

Specifically addressing the balance changes:

ECM:

ECM has been the bane of PvP in EVE for as long as we can remember. It is the genesis of memes throughout the years and the swinger of Alliance Tournaments. Both the RNG nature of ECM and the lack of real, effective counter play (ECCM is neither) was what made it so toxic. There is nothing more frustrating in combat than having literally no ability to impact your opponent while he is hitting you.

Turning frustration into a 1 vs. 1 fight is quintessentially EVE. It represents real counterplay that isn’t decided before you undock. We expect most players will be pleased with this change.

Nullification:

Oh baby! This is a big one, and one that multiple CSMs over the years have pushed and pushed for. While this isn’t everything the CSM has been asking for with regards to nullification, it is a great first step to gather more data. In general, the CSM position has been there should be no nullification on combat ships. Travel based ships – yachts, shuttles or other taxi ships – should maintain nullification. In PvP, they are toxic as there is little counterplay available unless you are bosoning gates or smartbombing with mass titans, battleships or T3 cruisers. In rare cases you can get lucky and your opponent goes AFK after jumping (like Aryth did). Even then, the limited counter is only at gates or fixed points.

Now, we expect with this change that the meta will simply shift to fleet interceptors but that is fine, as it demonstrates what we have been arguing, which is that the individuals attributes of these interceptors aren’t the problem, it’s nullification that makes them usable. This data will help us convince CCP that nullification needs to be more heavily investigated.

FAXes and Capital Balance:

The CSM has continued to advocate for changes to FAXes, and we continued to work with CCP to develop changes that will help reduce the oppressiveness of FAXes while taking into account community feedback from the proposed FAX changes made earlier this year.

We aren’t completely sure what form the changes will take even at the CSM level. However, we do think CCP understands our concerns as a player base with regards to the strength of FAXes in general and how they could be nerfed. We were very vocal about their strength in wormholes, in particular.

In terms of overall capital balance, the CSM brought a wide variety of ideas to address specific changes in terms of capital balance, both for combat ships as well as capital industrial ships. We intend to continue working with CCP to develop balance fixes that can help address the various issues we’ve seen.

Damavik:

At one point during the summit the words “It totally sucks” might have been uttered. We don’t believe there is anything especially controversial here. We all know it sucks. Adding an extra mid should provide for a greater variety in fittings to help make it more usable and relevant. These are the kinds of changes that should be easy to support.

In closing, while we are very pleased to see these issues being addressed so quickly after the summit, we want the players to know that these are not even the most significant changes that we expect will arise out of the last two summits. The best is still to come. We will be heavily supporting those changes also and cannot wait for the next blogs.

We are extremely pleased to see CCP is willing to make significant changes that will impact the meta and risk making those changes on Tranquility where we can see in real time the impacts those changes make. This is the kind of gutsy moves we want to encourage, and we are ready and willing to back those plays as they’re made.

Let your voice be heard! Submit your own article to Imperium News here!

Would you like to join the Imperium News staff? Find out how!

Comments

  • Alaric Faelen

    GSF dominated CSM fixes ECM, nullification, HICs and the Damavik on their first meeting. You’re welcome, Eve.

    September 17, 2018 at 5:48 pm
    • Fuzzysteve Alaric Faelen

      ECM and Nullification are ones we’ve been working on for years. Not just this CSM.

      And Devs haven’t been happy with ECM for _years_. This fix isn’t a quick and easy change.

      September 17, 2018 at 5:55 pm
      • Aryth Fuzzysteve

        It’s ok Steve. We forgive you for not getting it done all those terms.

        September 17, 2018 at 8:05 pm
        • Fuzzysteve Aryth

          You were there for some 😀

          September 17, 2018 at 9:32 pm
          • Aryth Fuzzysteve

            I had to consolidate power first!

            September 17, 2018 at 10:04 pm
    • Carvj94 Alaric Faelen

      I’d be happy if it didn’t F&$K over me and my wormhole buddies. Literally never seen a 500MN HIC in a wormhole chain in the 6 years I’ve lived here. So nothing is getting fixed for us and now we’ll get rolled out 10% of the time we do basic hole control.

      September 19, 2018 at 5:20 pm
  • ZilenceR

    Why didnt you include your thoughts on the 500mn hic change that will make wormhole space a worse place then ever to live in?

    September 17, 2018 at 5:58 pm
    • Aryth ZilenceR

      Oh, I thought our thoughts on wormholes were quite clear. Get fucked

      September 17, 2018 at 6:31 pm
      • Marus Aryth

        You fucking piece of shit retarded imbecil mongoloid moron.

        September 18, 2018 at 4:56 am
        • Garreth Vlox Marus

          tell us how you really feel.

          September 18, 2018 at 7:22 am
      • Arrendis Aryth

        To be fair, that’s basically your thoughts on just about everything, man.

        “Hey, Aryth…”
        “Get fucked.”
        “… you want some free money?”
        “Yes. Now get fucked.”

        September 19, 2018 at 10:45 am
    • Dan Journeaux ZilenceR

      So you mean you have to risk ships to roll holes now? Not seeing the down side. In not even a good w space resident and I can close a hole without a HIC… get good

      September 18, 2018 at 1:44 pm
      • General Thade Dan Journeaux

        Yeah, I tend to roll with battleships but holes with odd mass (C3 and Below) are a lot harder to roll. Plus, if you crit the hole during a fight or just moving stuff the mass is unpredictable. I know people are saying that “wormhole space is dead”. I have lost ships rolling into the wrong side.

        September 18, 2018 at 1:51 pm
      • Arrendis Dan Journeaux

        Even with HICs, they’re risking ships. The HIC can’t carry a tank w/that 500MN prop. It’s just a matter of getting the environment (not other players, not even NPCs) to behave in a way that’s predictable within certain tolerances.

        And yeah, when I lived in j-space, we closed holes with an orca and some battleships. And when it didn’t actually close… welp. Small groups end up basically rolling the dice on ‘do we lose a pilot we can’t afford to lose if we want to do stuff, or do we just log off for the day and try again tomorrow?’

        Great, engaging gameplay, that ‘log off and try again tomorrow’, isn’t it?

        September 19, 2018 at 10:48 am
        • Dan Journeaux Arrendis

          “The HIC can’t carry a tank w/that 500MN prop. ”

          top deaths from Zkill today…. And the jury says …2 large extenders and 2 Adaptive invlus … seems like a pretty good tank to me I don’t even have to look that hard to prove that statement wrong
          https://zkillboard.com/kill/72496770/
          https://zkillboard.com/kill/72487658/
          https://zkillboard.com/kill/72487409/
          those are the last 3 of 4 on zkill as of this post leaving the 4th off because its not 500mn fit.

          The rest of that argument stands up as well as the part that just took the Flak shell above.

          September 19, 2018 at 8:25 pm
          • Arrendis Dan Journeaux

            BZZZZZZZT.
            The first link: 50MN MWD.
            Second Link: 1 Shield Extender. 60k EHP compared to the 130+ a Broadsword can normally sport.
            Third Link: No DC and no tank rigs, 55k EHP.

            And the Broadsword gets bonuses to local reps, which none of those carry. Are you sure you want to hang your hat on those links?

            September 20, 2018 at 1:41 pm
        • Mephiztopheleze Arrendis

          Plan ahead. Alpha clones and 100MN Higgs Sigils. Not perfect and yes, it’s a hassle, but it’s not the end of the world.

          September 20, 2018 at 4:52 am
          • Arrendis Mephiztopheleze

            It is a hassle. And it’s an unnecessary one. Do you go to restaurants that intentionally introduce unnecessary hassles to the process of getting you your food? Do you patronize stores or other businesses that tell you ‘we know X would be an extra layer of bullshit that we don’t have to make you put up with, so we’re not going to’ and then do?

            It’s a hassle… people are paying to have to deal with.

            September 20, 2018 at 1:44 pm
      • Carvj94 Dan Journeaux

        Your not a good resident cause you don’t use a HIC. HIC = 1-3% chance of getting rolled out. Anything else = 10-15% chance. Not so much a problem if you get rolled out when you have a hisec static but hisec static holes suck.

        September 19, 2018 at 5:25 pm
  • Arrendis

    You’re still misusing the bloody EN-dash!

    September 17, 2018 at 6:36 pm
  • Soooo how is this ECM change supposed to affect stuff like the Griffin Navy or the Widow that weren’t really designed to be engaging at 100km?

    September 17, 2018 at 7:49 pm
    • Innominate WiNGSPANTT

      It’s a pretty dramatic change to the role of ECM. To borrow from general MMO terms, it changes ECM from crowd control to a taunt. This role change opens up doing something to ECM ships that hasn’t been done in years, buffing them.

      September 17, 2018 at 9:40 pm
      • It sounds like a fine idea ultimately, but doing a nerf-only pass without any corresponding attribute changes to adapt the ships to a new role is going to be pretty fucking rough. Certainly ECM ships larger than frigates are going to become highly dependent on group-play to be effective or at all survivable. No more bringing a Falcon as a small gang’s only EWAR ship…

        I laughed aloud at the bit in the devblog where they suggested that ECM pilots would have to “maintain correct ranges or abuse tracking to mitigate incoming damage.” The cruiser and up ECM hulls would struggle to kite a stargate…

        September 19, 2018 at 5:25 am
      • Carvj94 Innominate

        Well it’s not so much opening them up to buff it’s completely requiring it. As you said ECM will now be a taunt module yet the ships with hull bonuses have less EHP than most T1 ships of the same size and they’re slow as well.

        September 19, 2018 at 5:17 pm
    • Johnny Crowe WiNGSPANTT

      Duuuude as soon as I saw it I thought the same thing. RIP Griffin Navy

      September 18, 2018 at 3:18 am
  • Libluini

    Interesting ECM-change. But I’m kind of sad that this kills my plans to use ECM in Solo PVP. Oh well, I barely have time to play EVE these days anyway.

    September 18, 2018 at 8:03 am
  • Alaric Faelen

    Yes, any time Goons win, it must be bad. We play under the exact same rules as everyone else. We’re just better at this game than everyone else.
    Funny that when any one else does exactly the same thing, like PL/PH beating up on Provi, that’s ‘working as intended’ but when Goons invade someone, OMG the game is broken.
    We have players willing to log in and actually play the game..but that is bad. We create content for literally thousands of players but somehow that is a bad thing.
    Other groups abuse game mechanics like the death clone exploit- and that’s just fine until Goons use it and within weeks it’s patched out of existence.

    It’s just a meme to us. If we sit in Delve and rat and mine it’s horrible. If we leave Delve and create content, that too is bad. Damned if we do, damned if we don’t.

    So we just do. And laugh in comms and have a grand ole time kicking the snot out of the shitlords of the north, the care bears on the Jita undock, and roll in the isk of the market as you all pay out the nose for T2 products and ships.

    All while making the game better for everyone thru dominating the CSM.

    I’ll say it again— You’re welcome

    September 18, 2018 at 10:27 pm
  • Shegunna Blow

    I actually really like this idea

    September 19, 2018 at 1:34 am
  • Shegunna Blow

    Destroying or taking away an unintended feature?

    September 19, 2018 at 1:35 am
    • Arrendis Shegunna Blow

      False dichotomy. Living in wormholes is an unintended feature. The HIC changes are bad, and I hope the CSM gave CCP an earful about screwing over wormholers after promising those wormholers to their faces that they would not do this exact thing, at FanFest.

      September 19, 2018 at 10:43 am
      • Carvj94 Arrendis

        Well it WAS an unintended feature but since citadels it was clearly promoted by CCP. Not to mention moon mining being specially added.

        September 19, 2018 at 5:22 pm
  • Fixing force projection? We literally built a second supercap fleet so that we could control two quadrants of the galaxy at once because force projection isn’t a thing anymore.

    What you’re looking at isn’t “force projection,” it’s force-duplication.

    September 19, 2018 at 5:30 am
  • I’m a little curious about why you guys think that nullified travel ships are an acceptable use-case? I totally agree that nullified combat ceptors are awful, but IMO so are the zero-risk taxiceptors that make up like 95% of gate travel currently. Don’t get me wrong: I also partake of the travelceptoring, but it seems a little silly to do things like limit the number of jumpclones or put cooldown timers on clone jumping when you can cross EVE in under an hour at zero risk in an interceptor or yacht (or nullified shuttle or whatever else you’re proposing). Why would it be a bad idea to simply make all ships potentially vulnerable to interdiction by a dedicated / competent gate camp?

    September 19, 2018 at 5:34 am
    • Alaric Faelen Ganthrithor

      I think it’s an acceptable evil so people can actually get into space for content. It’s much too easy to just camp gates and prevent people from moving at all. Essentially camping is risk-free gameplay and serves to stop players from getting to content.
      Without some form of ability to move about, Eve becomes Gate Camps Online- which is why nullfication became a thing to begin with.

      What I think is that it’s the combination of Insta-Warp (sub 2 second align) and nullification that is the problem. A ship should be able to do one or the other but having both is basically invulnerability. I have had the same travel Malediction for more than two years. By all rights no ship that undocks should survive that long in New Eden.

      Nullification should have always come from a module. Having it as a hull bonus is idiotic. As a module, you could potentially apply it to any ship (more choices…) and it should make sub two second aligns impossible as well as kill offensive potential.

      September 19, 2018 at 3:54 pm
      • I’m going to go out on a limb and venture a guess that any “upgraded, nullified shuttle” that gets implemented will have a sub-2-sec align. Otherwise it would be even more vulnerable to interdiction than a covops frigate…

        Fun fact about interdiction nullification: although the attribute first debuted on T3 cruisers in 2011, the origin of nullified interceptors two years later was the result of a player-suggestion and was implemented almost as an afterthought as a measure to ~*allegedly*~ increase the effectiveness of interceptors in hunting. The problem it was introduced to solve wasn’t evading manned gatecamps– it was to allow hunters to pursue their targets. Back in the day, ratters had a tendency to congregate in dead-end systems; they’d then absolutely cover the stargate grids in large anchorable bubbles in order to delay hostiles entering their systems, giving them more time to warp to safety. IIRC nullification was introduced to reduce the effectiveness of this stalling tactic, although even then it didn’t make much sense to give immunity to the one class of ship that was already best-suited to escaping bubbles due to their speed.

        Even Fozzie’s intent was never to give people an invulnerable travel ship originally. Obviously this attitude changed at some point with the introduction of things like yachts.

        But regardless of why nullification was implemented, its implementation on most of the ships it features on is clearly flawed: bubble immunity combined with insta-warp = total safety. Bubble immunity + covops cloak + quick align time = alllllmost complete safety (there’s still a chance of spawning less than 2km from a solid object when you come through a gate, and thus not being able to cloak… or being hit by a lurch-HIC, although those antics were basically a borderline exploit that’s now being fixed). Bubble immunity + covops cloak + instawarp + a tank? I don’t even fucking know, man. Why are yachts a thing?

        I just don’t see the benefit of allowing this misguided attribute to exist. EVE Online existed for almost a decade before any form of nullification existed (and a full decade before the advent of the taxiceptor), and yet people managed to go about their days and enjoy the game. Like I said earlier, against any kind of casual collection of players on a gate, a covops frigate / bomber is perfectly adequate to allow for escape. Only a gatecamp fielding interdictors and dedicated fast-tackle is going to have a credible shot at grabbing something like a Cheetah. And in the case of a dedicated camp, why don’t they deserve at shot at killing people who are attempting to run their camp? Camping is not risk-free gameplay– anyone is free to crash a gatecamp at any time. The tacklers sit there inside their own bubbles and are forced to fly into scram range to decloak things. If gatecamping is risk-free, why does my gatecamping group manage to lose ships on a regular basis? We get jumped literally constantly… people with interceptor fleets lurking around the corner, people cynoing massive gangs on top of us… or every once in a while ill-fated supercaps (https://zkillboard.com/kill/71836006/)… camping is not risk-free.

        Honestly I feel like policing your space is one of the things any self-respecting nullsec entity should be capable of doing. If a couple of dudes in Sabres and frigates are causing your alliance members to be literally unable to move around– even in the available covops hulls– then that says more about the state of your alliance than the balance of warp-disrupting effects.

        The ability to blockade a region (or at least some popular or strategically-relevant routes) is a key feature of the game balance. That and jump range limitations are the only things that make space-geography relevant. You talk about depriving people of content by making them vulnerable to interdiction, but what about all the people whose content ~*consists*~ of interdiction? Do you know how boring it is to try and disrupt hostile activities only to watch the entire population of their alliance just flit back and forth in invulnerable taxi ships as they shuttle between their PvE systems and their caches of fleet ships? Literally 90% of traffic now is taxiceptors. People don’t need to move their combat ships outside of fleet ops because people stage in single systems. People don’t need to move their PvE ships around (with the exception of the tiny fraction of the populace that does hacking sites or escalations) because systems can now be configured to provide near-limitless quantities of ore and bounties– there’s no pressure on people to spread out or move around. And even the few people who do want to move around for PvE can do it by jumping their carriers or doing their exploration or escalations in travel-fit T3s. Ask me how I know this 😛

        Removing nullification won’t force people to fly expensive ships through gates, but at least it would relegate them to traveling in disposable ships that MIGHT SOMETIMES DIE (like bombers and covops, as in days of olde). This doesn’t exactly expose people to bundles of risk or burdensome losses– it’s mild inconvenience at best, and at least it gives would-be PvPers something to do. You can catch a bomber much of the time if you bring the right decloaking ships, pay close attention, and are good at decloaks. It may not be shiny killmails, but at least it’s something.

        September 24, 2018 at 6:15 am
      • Gosh, researching this stuff has made me depressed: it’s that moment when you go back and look at all the expansion releases, realize you first played during Red Moon Rising in 2005, really started playing seriously during Revelations in 2006, and that basically all the “fun times” in EVE were confined to a period between Revelations in 2006 and 2009, when the Dominion release began a long period of shitty game mechanics and progressively less-interesting play. Strange to think that I’ve now been playing EVE for 12-13 years and that a solid eight or nine of them have been generally shitty. I honestly don’t know why I even pay for this game anymore.

        September 24, 2018 at 6:45 am
    • Carvj94 Ganthrithor

      I personally think there should be a 1 second align bubble immune ship with a strong tank to resist smart bombs HOWEVER it should have a warp speed comparable to a brick (.1AU) That way your never truly barred from systems like with interceptors but your also not crossing New Eden safely in less than a few hours.

      September 19, 2018 at 5:33 pm
  • Squinty McBlindy

    Negating the nerf totally? Hmmm…..

    September 19, 2018 at 4:47 pm
    • Well it’s better than giving an ECM ship, that has a paper thin tank, a module that forces its target to attack it.

      September 19, 2018 at 5:13 pm
  • Mephiztopheleze

    And not a single mention of HIC changes……

    September 20, 2018 at 4:54 am