Failing In So Many Ways


Liang Nuren – Failing In So Many Ways

Calling the CSM to Account

So recently the CSM spent a great deal of time discussing their role and how important they are to CCP as a reality check/sounding board. I use the term “recently” a bit loosely, mind you – it’s been months since the CSM met with CCP, but only just now have the minutes come out. Inside those minutes, on pages 93-96 or so is some interesting information about CCP’s plans for gate guns in low sec:

Present: CCP Masterplan, CCP Greyscale, CCP Unifex, CCP Explorer, CCP Punkturis, CCP Tallest, CCP
Tuxford, Alekseyev Karrde (Lync), Hans Jagerblitzen (Lync)

CCP Greyscale moves on to explain his work on sentry guns. Sentry guns willnow shoot anyone with a criminal flag, suspect or otherwise. Sentry guns will also start with smaller amounts of damage, and ramp up with time. Ideal tuning will be to where triage carriers will die at around 4 1/2 minutes. This way, if you want to use triage carriers in lowsec on gates you can, but you must commit to the cycle for a length of time before starting your reps, if you want to deactivate triage before the sentry guns kill you and jump out. CCP Greyscale also points out that another goal is to make it so that the first couple of hits won’t kill an interceptor immediately, enabling a quick tackle, and then a warp out.

Aleks remarks that this would be great for enabling more frigate use in lowsec piracy. Aleks asks when all of these changes will be released, and when there will be dev blogs released for
this information.
CCP Masterplan explains that this is where everything is at in the design process, that they’re looking forward to working more on this as the Inferno stuff dies down.
CCP Soundwave: “It is looking like a December release.”
Aleks and CCP Greyscale briefly discuss community response to these changes, Greyscale acknowledges that the changes to “suspect” flagging would upset some players, particularly canflippers.

There are several overall implications here:

  • The first sentence describes this work as already being somewhere between in progress and finished.  Either way, these changes are expected to be complete and ship in December 2012.  CCP and the CSM have indicated that this is a miscommunication in the CSM minutes.  It was apparently not presented as it was presented in the CSM minutes – it was more of a brain storm session with much rabbit holing.
  • Sentry guns will now shoot people with a criminal flag (GCC, sec status below -5) as well as people who are flagged as a suspect (can flipped, minor crimes of aggression).
  • It will now be reasonable to run a 3x sensor boosted Stiletto on the gate for initial tackle with long range sniper tornados for killing the captured prey.  Solo travel through low sec will become much more dangerous.
  • The goal of killing triage carriers (2-3M EHP, 25k DPS tank) at 4.5 minutes means that the scaling on sentry fire will average much higher than 25k DPS at 4.5 minutes.  Some basic exploration of the matter says that the sentry guns will be dealing somewhere between 60K-125k DPS depending on when the exponential scale starts to invoke (at 2.5 minutes and 4 minutes respectively).  Pretty much no matter how you slice it, at 4.5 minutes into a fight we’re going to be seeing super tanked subcaps blapped off the field by sentry fire.
  • The net implication is that it’s a massive boost to gate camps and a massive nerf to actual fights on a gate.

The community is, of course, split over this:

  • Carebears are trumpeting about how pirates have systematically killed low sec through over hunting and gate camping.  Why, it’s about time that CCP did something to push pirates into getting real fights in belts like they did back in 2003!
  • Issler (CSM, ultra carebear who desires to eliminate PVP in Eve) is pointing out that gate camping has never been an allowed mechanic, which is why gate guns were first implemented.  They’re just fixing the bug that allowed pirates to gate camp in the first place.
  • Gate Camping pirates don’t seem to care or are excited that they’ll now be able to tackle with a 3x SeBo’d Stiletto and snipe with Tornados.
  • People who roam are crying bloody murder because virtually no fight of any size resolves within 4 minutes.
  • Very few people have noticed that pirates are going to be shot for simply waiting on the gate, regardless of aggression status. This is wrong.

In response to the pure ignorance displayed by CCP Greyscale and the CSM, I have offered to sacrifice my main character (-10 sec status, 90M SP, pure Minmatar PVP spec) for the purpose of forcing CCP Greyscale to play a pirate for the next 6 months.  I will furthermore fund the account for this endeavor so that he can keep skill training with his 3 free (presumably industrial) accounts.  While it would be ideal if I were to get the character back, I would understand if it weren’t possible.  I feel that offering to sacrifice my 90M SP main, the name my friends know me as, and $100 USD of my own money is the most sincere way that I can express myself on this matter: CCP Greyscale cannot possibly have played the game as a pirate (or PVPer in general!) in recent memory.  I feel that his education is absolutely critical.

Now, while I am disappointed with CCP on the matter, I am even more disappointed with the CSM.  So it is at this point that I demand an accounting of the CSM.  They claim their job is to protect CCP from making boneheaded mistakes, yet not even one of them objected to these sentry changes.  Not even one of them had the foresight to understand the catastrophe that is going to happen to low sec.  Not even one of them realized that this is effectively deleting the entire pirate profession from the game.

So what gives, guys?  Why didn’t you object to deleting PVP real PVP from low sec?


Clarification from Masterplan [1][2]has stated that pirates will NOT be blapped by gate guns without first having done “bad things”.  Furthermore, the suspect flag will probably not cause blapping.


Filed under: Eve, Gaming, , , ,

16 Responses

  1. Two step says:

    If only there was some sort of electronic meeting place, lets call it a forum, where people could *talk* to both the CSM and to CCP Greyscale about these changes….

    If such a place existed, then people like this wouldn’t have to give up their main for some sort of crazy publicity stunt that they have to realize there is no way CCP would take them up on.

    • Liang Nuren says:

      Two things:
      I am mildly worried (happy?) that CCP will take me up on my offer. It was with GREAT trepidation that I decided to make my offer publicly. Would you have the nerve to offer your main up for the chopping block on something you felt strongly about?

      This is the most effective way to get YOUR attention. Which it obviously did. So Two Step – why didn’t you object to the deletion of actual low sec PVP?

      • Two step says:

        I’m not the person you need to get the attention of, first of all.

        Secondly, when people react in an obviously hysterical way, it makes *everyone* far less likely to listen to what they have to say. There is already a giant thread on this on eve-o, with Greyscale replies and everything. Go post there.

        Thirdly, I’ll happily put my main up for something like this, because there is exactly 0% chance that CCP would *ever* take you up on it. The fact that you think they would makes people even less likely to listen to you.

  2. Liang Nuren says:

    Two Step: the point of this blog post is to take you guys up on what you spent 40+ pages of the CSM minutes talking about : CSM responsibilities and accountability.

    Furthermore, if you had bothered to read that mega thread on Eve-O, you’d find I am one of the most frequent posters – and that I’ve made the exact same offer there. I have presented many arguments relating to WHY it the proposal in question would kill PVP in low sec.

    But ultimately, the question remains unanswered: Why did you not object when CCP suggested the total deletion of PVP in low sec?

    • Two step says:

      A couple of reasons:

      1) It was an *idea*. This is not something that was just going to show up unannounced one day.
      2) Lowsec isn’t an area of EVE I play in all that much. I certainly don’t do a lot of lowsec gatecamping. To me, it didn’t sound all that bad, but I didn’t actually think about it all that much.
      3) In general, I think the difference between lowsec and highsec is way too big. If this system would actually result in fewer lowsec gate camps, I don’t actually oppose it. I think people should be able to stick their head into lowsec without 10 remote sebo’d and remote repped pirates killing them. Otherwise, what is the difference between lowsec and NPC 0.0?

      • Liang Nuren says:

        Thank you for your response Two Step. Let me address your points:

        It’s An Idea…
        It was not presented in the minutes as an “idea”. It was presented as something that has been worked on already and WILL be in the winter release.

        I didn’t think all that much about it…
        Obviously. That’s why I’m calling the CSM (as a whole — not just you) to account. After all, you guys were saying that there was never any splash damage on you guys… 🙂

        If it results in fewer gate camps…
        I am of two minds regarding gate camps. On the one hand, as Liang Nuren the Pirate I am very much in favor of getting people off of gates. I virtually never gate camp myself because it’s dreadfully boring.

        On the other hand, I’ve taken to using my previous PVE alt to crashing gate camps and it’s hilariously fun. I’ve plotted how to kill the famed Amamake-Orca camp (and actually have a workable solution IMO). Forcing gate camps off the gates means that I can’t have a guaranteed place to go find a fight.

        But really, I don’t think that low sec should be any different than high sec, null sec, and WH space regarding gate camps. It’s a completely viable tactic in all other security spaces, so why shouldn’t it be a valid tactic in low sec?

        And really, the most dangerous part of the entire thing is the effect that it would have on roaming PVP. Almost all fights in Eve happen at travel choke points – and for obvious reasons. Anything which pushes fights away from those points would have to make some tremendous changes to the core mechanics of the game or risk simply killing PVP in the affected areas.

        At any rate, thank you for your answer. But I still feel like you failed me. Don’t fail me again, Admiral.


  3. Because they never suggested that. Chill out.

    Can i have your main?

    • Liang Nuren says:

      Aleks, I have repeatedly illustrated why it would kill all meaningful PVP in low sec. Or do you actually believe that having everything blapped off the field well before 4.5 minutes would be a good thing for the PVP scenery?

      Also: You are not Greyscale.

  4. Zymurgist says:

    I’m sad that Greyscale is doing this. It’s not a good solution at all. I’m not sure what “problem” he is trying to solve with this fix but I can’t help but think he is forgetting some major design elements here:
    1) Give tools to the players to solve a problem, not NPCS.
    2) Fun! Where is the fun in this? This just makes gates something to worry about and not a place to interact with other players.

    • He’s not *actually* doing this you know – he’s said as much on the forums that it was just a sounding-board suggestion and that he understands the criticism to the idea.

      I’m intrigues with your 1) point though – what would you like to see/do ?

      • Zymurgist says:

        It depends on what is trying to be fixed. If the issue is gate camping then working as intended. If the issue is triage carriers on gates then we should have better anti-capital mechanics (My personal favorite idea ATM is suicide battleships). In the end though the basic requirement of giving the players something, anything, is better than just blowing everyone up with NPCs. The exception to that being CONCORD which I think that is working pretty well for it’s purpose.

  5. For me; it seems obvious that Greyscale’s projection to the CSM wasn’t so much of an ‘I’m working on’ meaning ‘I am making this change RAWR’ as much as ‘The idea I’ve been toying with is’….

    I understand the passion on both sides; hell if I was in the CSM I would have been positive to his idea because **without thinking it through** it sounds good.

    People who want this change are convinced that gatewar is heavily weighted in the direction of the camper/gankers.

    Campers and gankers don’t want this change because the intelligent ones can see how it will break low-sec warfare.

    Guess which side I’m on ?

    Wrong – I’m in the middle – I believe that there is a negative aspect to the current gatewar aspect of EVE, but I don’t think think that nerfing the bejeezus out of it is the right answer; because them sentry guns also help me at times.

    A particular EVE-O poster earlier wrote in defence of the nerf (at first) citing the problem of the Amamake-Ossogur gate and the instalocking tengus and the neutral orca.

    This is where the Gatewar system is screwed up. If you manage to get past them, they can escape your wrath (lol) and if you sneak in via Gulmorogod and get in range with anything like as powerful enough to matter; they dock into the orca and jump through to high-sec.

    Well the idea was discussed and of course the obvious answer was to simply to suggest not letting a GCC’d player dock in an Orca. At first that irked me a bit from the perspective of backstory and rights infringement by Concord, but then of course it’s the same as anything else, actively assisting a GCC’d target inherits the GCC. If you let baddies dock their ships into your neutral Orca then you should bear the consequences.

    I don’t honestly believe that any sensible EVE fighter, pirate or otherwise would agree that the current system is fine. I’m just hoping that this fumbled idea by Greyscale promotes the discussion with the CSM and the community that it deserves and lets us get to a system that helps promote Goodfights™ for all.

    As an aside; I don’t think we should by trying to Lynch Greyscale for his un-prepared ideas – after all we’ve now been given the layer of transparency and detail in the CSM minutes that we’ve *all* wanted and we’ve done the (what I expected tbh) obvious thing of flying off the handle at the first problem and probably making a lot of people at CCP regret the effort they went to.

    Is that what you want ? Doubt it.

    P.S. I’m a terrible dyslexic and my spellchecker is not working, please forgive any mistakes!

    • Oh and Liang, a very serious suggestion – if you feel that the understanding of this kind of PVP is under represented in the CSM (possible paraphrasing) then I will vote for you if you run in the next election. Promise.

      • Liang Nuren says:

        Uh. I don’t really know what to say to that. I already work in the gaming industry and I’m not sure if it would be a conflict of interest. I’d need to talk to my boss.

  6. Liang Nuren says:


    Can I make sure that I understand you properly? You truly believe that I have not adequately illustrated why even the timeframe is bad? Only that it MIGHT be a bad thing if the sentry guns are blapping everything off the field at 4.5 minutes into a fight? Really?

    TBH, I’d be pretty happy if they’d announced that they were aiming to kill Orca camping. But carriers are just a signal that you’re about to have an epic fight.

    May I ask how long you think a 10v10 fight is going to take to resolve? I think last time I got into a fight of any scale at all it took 10-15 minutes for all the cards to be on the table and resolved. And even that totally neglects the reshipping and coming back.

    And furthermore, you still have not addressed why you think that low sec should be so dramatically different from high sec, null sec, and WH space.

    I’m deeply disappointed in you, Aleks.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: